"Mad God" is just the latest version of this. No, it isn't artistic to show abject horror and depressing sadness on screen. People are just getting off from sadism and adrenaline and claiming it's some transcendent experience.
I'm not going to judge anyone who enjoys movies like it, because I can see the appeal, but if I see another critic say another piece of edgy garbage is actually an artistic masterpiece I'm going to tear my brain out through my earhole.
I think it's funny how like 80% of the comments came in trying to fight against the argument that horror and gore is inherently not art, when the OP is almost certainly trying to argue that horror and gore is not inherently art.
The second argument is something that is an actual problem. Grimdark media is misery porn. Suffering for the sake of suffering, and there is a legitimate discussion to be had over whether that should be considered sufficient artistic merit of its own accord to have a place in society. You can make art that uses these elements to say something, but is creating suffering purely for the sake of suffering in and of itself art?
“Is creating suffering purely for the sake of suffering in and of itself art?”
Yeah, because it’s not real suffering. Saying ‘life is shitty and pointless and what am I doing here’ is a timeless question, from Job to Lear to Hemmingway.
Obviously don’t actually torture people, but art doesn’t necessarily need to defend itself.