***, at an artists P.O.V.

Art is considered to be a production of human creativity, a form of self-expression, and a cry for a response from the public or an outside audience. It is also defined as, “The quality, production, or expression… according to aesthetic principles of what is… of more than ordinary significance.” Art is something that makes people think. It makes people ask questions. Art is meant to give people a window into other worlds, into other peoples’ minds. It makes people wonder, “Why?” It makes people want answers, and makes them want to learn more about the person behind the production. Art has critics. Art can also cause other things to come into existence. Paintings and sculptures result in museums, which result in people being hired to run the museums, which results in people being able to afford more things outside the basics of life, which allows for more people to create things. Therefore, art causes art. Most of all, however, most art is made, done, performed, or produced for the main purpose of being shared.

Looking at this definition of art though; considering what it means and how it impacts the lives of people, one can only wonder: What exactly is art? Not what is art defined as, but rather, what can be defined as art? One can willingly accept a painting or a drawing as art, or a sculpture, or perhaps a photograph. Poems, essays, stories, speeches, performances, dances, light displays, and fashion designs are all willingly accepted as art. But if art is a product of human creativity, is an invention considered art? A new culinary dish will be considered a work of art, but was the light bulb? New patterns for a dress are considered art, but are the designs for a new firearm? Some consider murder to be an art form. These somewhat disturbed minds see the planning involved and the small details of a kill to be a form of self-expression, and a way to deliver a message. This fits the profile of art, but can we really consider something so abhorring, so inhumane to be art?

The Random House Dictionary defines murder under the law as, “The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson…” Pre-meditated murder, or first-degree murder, is when a person has intent to kill and formulates plans before doing so. Second-degree murder is murder with intent, but without prior planning. Second-degree murder can also be known as killing in the heat of a moment. Second degree murder is not so difficult to line-up under the definition of art; there is no creativity, no solid, thought out emotional expression involved. First-degree murder, however, can be very intricate, very organized, and can certainly be defined as art.
In order for first-degree murder, henceforth just referred to as murder unless otherwise specified, to be considered art it has to meet the criteria of the definition. It has to be a product of human creativity, it has to be a form of self-expression, to make people think, to make people ask, “Why?” Murder has to be, “…of more than ordinary significance,” based on aesthetic principles in order to be considered an art. Lastly, murder, as an art, has to inspire art. In order for it to be an art, it also has to have a reason behind it. Art has to be explainable, analyzable, and interpretable.

Murder is most definitely, and inarguably a form of human expression. Just like the artist Mauricio Bouzas Gasque expresses anger and frustration in his painting aptly titled “Anger,” a murderer can express his frustration and hatred through an act. Only instead of paint on a canvas, a murderer creates his message through bloodstains on a floor. For some murder cases, police find pictures, writings, and carefully thought-out plans in the home of the guilty. Often-times, it is an accepted thought that said guilty often sees this collection as his creation, his painting, his mark on the world. While a lot of people who commit murder do it for no other reason than the sheer feel of a kill, there are those who kill to send a message. It is these murderers that we can call artists.

The murderers that plan, the plot, that watch, that create a message, that have a purpose, an explanation behind their actions are the ones that we can call artists. We can call them artists because they use their emotions and their creativity, their ingenious to create a final product. Murder is one of the highest forms of self-expression that a human can perform. Artists who paint paintings of love or happiness are often filled with the emotion at the time of their creation, but no artist can match the level of anger, hatred, or even calm that someone who is about to commit such a crime, such a sin as murder. There is no emotion more powerful in the sense of what it can cause than anger. Love is its only rival, but love results often in murder as well, so no matter the reason behind it, love, hate, frustration, angst, need, or lust, so long as there actually is a reason behind it, murder is a form of expression.

After a murder, several things happen to the public. First, a team of law-enforcers ask the questions of, “How,” and, “Why?” They are the ones who put reason to the display on the canvas. They are the critics of the creation. Next, a team of reporters will make their own decisions about the creation. They write stories and take pictures. They use the art of a seemingly evil mind to create their own art. Then, the general public sees what has happened. Students write poetry, mothers write letters, fathers say prayers, and families create things to express how they feel. People paint, people write movies, shows, plays, scenes, and monologues to express how they feel about the incident. People create art because murder is an art in and of itself. Therefore, murder, as an art, causes art.
As for aesthetic principles, those that commit murder can see a job well done, a clean job as pleasing to the eye, and aesthetically approvable. Even police and law-makers can define murders as well done. Murder is certainly, “of something more than ordinary significance.” Murder is a crime. It is a sin. As such, it cannot be considered insignificant for one to commit such an act. Simply the fact that murder gets press coverage shows that it has meaning and weight behind it.

Lastly, the afore-mentioned teams of law-makers and reporters put explanations to the art. They interpret why the artist created what he/she created. They analyze it, discuss it, and explain it. Pre-meditated murder always has a reason behind it, even if the reason was only to kill. A painter can create a painting with the sole reason and purpose of putting a brush to canvas. A single brush-stroke, no other reason, can be reason enough to call something art. Not all art has to be deep in its meaning. Murder, however, certainly can. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln, for instance, had the meaning of the entire Confederacy behind it. It had a reason, it had a purpose, it caused a reaction, and it demanded an explanation.

Some will have trouble accepting murder an art simply because it can be seen as, for lack of a more elaborate term, and ugly act. An ugly painting, a poorly sculpted rock, a low-quality photograph, and a disappointed film are still considered art however. Bad art is still art. It is just not pleasing to the mind. Abstract art cannot be understood by everyone that views it. Murder cannot be understood by everyone that thinks about it. Something does not have to be understood to be art though. It simply has to inspire, to cause people to think, and to have a meaning, even if that meaning cannot be found. The thought of accepting something seen as a deadly sin to many people will be difficult, but just because one accepts a fact about an act does not mean one condones the act itself. Denying that something exists, for instance, does not make it disappear. Murder, of the premeditated persuasion, is a form of art; whether people as a public will accept it as an art, however, will always be in debate, but as Gertrude Stein said, a rose, though it may be an ugly rose, will always be a rose.