Sidestepping the obvious visceral reaction that most people have to it at first (and even after many subsequent viewings), the first question that beats one over the head is whether or not Sleazy, Trent and an assortment of video directors have managed to cobble together a viable work of art. This question having been asked, all sorts of people will no doubt scurry off in search of a dictionary, and if broken lives up to the criteria listed therein, then art it is. Unfortunately, as Mr. Christopherson is no doubt aware, when one is dealing with video as one's chosen medium, traditional definitions of what a work of art is might not allow for any conclusive decision to be reached without at least a bit of creative rule-bending. (It will seem apparent at this point that I'm working towards the conclusion that broken IS a valid work of art...surprise, surprise!)
Having said this, let's take a step back from the fact that broken is both a musical and a video recording and think briefly about what "art" in general is. One of the most common definitions, which reflects precisely why "Tainted Love" was rejected so harshly by some critics, states that art is a process involving the application of skill and imagination to the creation of things of beauty. The fact that the average viewer feels ill a couple of minutes into broken generally leads one to reach one of two conclusions: that beauty is not a prerequisite for the existence of art, or that broken is little more than an attempt at making people look upon Trent as some sort of twisted sicko. (In all honesty, I don't completely discount the latter...much like the funeral home thing, it makes for great publicity of a certain sort.)
A quick look back at the history of Art (as it is currently recognized in museums and print) points out the fact that not all works which are generally regarded as being "artistically valid" are especially pleasant to look at. Goya's depictions of Spanish massacres, the buckets of blood dumped on audiences in the Theatre of the Absurd, even "Piss Christ" -- they all stand out as disquieting examples of valid artistic expression.
The term "artistic expression" might very well hold the key to the issue of what art is all about. Regardless of the subject matter (or the audience's reaction to either that subject matter or the execution of the artistic process), all "art" seems to be an attempt at creatively conveying a message or expressing a feeling through a chosen medium. If, then, art is defined as the creative and skilled application of one's talents to the expression of a given point, entire realms of material that have rarely been given the same attention as, say, poetry or portraiture suddenly fall under the umbrella of "art."
Whether or not all of the work that falls into that category will be accepted as art by any given individual seems to be largely an individual choice; a decision like that usually requires both recognition of and appreciation for the point being made, the lack of which generally results in disgust and condemnation of the sort that broken has elicited in the past.
Art having been (at least loosely) defined, it is now possible to look at broken (in its musical form to begin with...there IS a reason for this, believe it or not) and see whether or not it falls into the suddenly huge trough that is modern art.
Right off the bat, one is confronted by the fact that it was supposed to have been a fairly cathartic project, given the legal difficulties with TVT and all of that. Looked at as an expression of sheer frustration with one's label, broken is a valid, if somewhat extreme, message. Certainly, legal difficulties don't fall into the category of "acceptable excuses for violent outbursts"; I tend to look at it as a safe expression of emotions and urges that would normally land Trent in an asylum. An explanation follows....
Timothy Leary once recounted a story (on "The Originals," no less... who says Canadian TV is without its uses?) regarding a psychological test he had been required to take in school. He answered all of the questions honestly and to the best of his ability, which involved admitting to the fact that, on occasion, he had felt the urge to hurt other people. A few days later, the results for said test came back and, for all intents and purposes, he was considered insane by the test administrators. Regardless of one's opinions of Dr. Leary, the fact that admitting to feelings of aggression can result in being branded "insane" leads almost immediately to the possibility of some serious message-spreading. Instead of filling out multiple-choice forms and having to visit the local headshrink, it would seem at least plausible that broken was meant to get all of the aggression out of Trent's system without requiring Steve Gottlieb to invest in sticking plaster and bandages for his nose.
So now we've got a message... broken (the EP) has, at least in my mind, been reasonably judged to be a work of art, albeit a loud and disturbing one; killing and destroying aren't usually my favourite topics of conversation, but they'll do in a pinch. The fact remains, however, that broken (the movie) is a video production built around an audio recording, which makes things just a tiny bit more complex. Since I-don't-remember-when, I have snobbishly insisted that a worthwhile video add something to the meaning of the song in order to justify the expenses, both in terms of somebody else's money and my attention, associated with producing and watching the thing. So, does broken add anything to the sonic assault on everybody's favourite five inches of plastic?
On their own, I can't say that I think much of most of the videos except for "Happiness in Slavery"; the rest really don't involve much more than a bunch of silly and barely-related images, or else they aren't complete videos at all. The blank screen that passes for a visual accompaniment to "help me i am in hell" certainly makes the viewer think awful thoughts, which makes it more than effective, but it can't really be regarded a video in the proper sense of the word. "Happiness", on the other hand, not only illustrates the dangers associated with unquestioning loyalty to any idea, but also points out the fact that, even in the face of horrible consequences associated with that obedience, compliance still tends to occur out of force of habit. English majors around the world will no doubt appreciate the presence of the cycle in yet another artistic work....
When coupled with Christopherson's "home movie", however, the videos provide the viewer with a glimpse into the mind of somebody who is no doubt regarded as insane. What if, however, his actions are simply an attempt at venting the same destructive urges that the average person feels in stressful situations, much like those described on broken? By all means, the way in which the venting takes place has a bit to be desired in terms of social acceptability (especially if you're the kid with really short hair...), but the message is still there: People can be overwhelmed by destructive impulses, and there are many different ways of dealing with them.
All right, class...let's review. We have a definition of art involving a point that the artist wants to convey, a point that Trent was apparently trying to express, and a collection of third-party video footage that depicts a hypothetical reaction to/interpretation of that message. Adding all of this up, it looks as though "the sickest piece of shit" to ever make the rounds in bootleg shops might actually have some sort of artistic validity to it.
If anybody would like to debate/discuss this (or just yell at me for being a too-permissive jerkeroo), I'd be only too happy to see what you have to say. Merry Christmas.
-- taylor mclaren (tmclaren@uoguelph.ca)