What does an ''evil'' person look like?
Can such a strong judgement be made by
visuals only?
Considering that some of the worlds most
prolific serial killers and murderers in general
visually often are deemed as ''looking like just
plain ordinary people'',
how is it that more often than not, once we're
told of their terrible crimes they somehow
now look ''evil''?
The definition of evil ''in them old days'', meant *bad and exceeding
proper boundaries. During the 1800th century however, morals
was added to the concept of the word. This meant that extreme moral
wickedness became part of the understanding and use of the word.
Evil, says those in the know, is a concept that existed long before
there were organized religions.
From an evolutionary, historical and linguistic perspective,
what started out of necessity(survival) as ''bad'' and ''good'',
one may perhaps speculate has evolved into a kind
of ''moral intuition''. *plus a bunch of other things
For years I have tried to understand if it is possible for
something/an act to be considered evil if there is no intention
or calculation behind it.
If there is no intention or conscious act causing harm
to someone or something, I am wondering if that perhaps
is not more along the lines of an unintentional outcome
rather than an evil and calculated outcome.
Accidents for instance. An outcome can be disastrous,
non-repairable, the loss of a life even......but if there's
no intent behind it, does evil really come into it?
I'm scrambling for situations in which the word evil
can be used without any undertones of moral judgement.
I even find it hard to view acts in nature or by nature
as evil for instance, although some do.
According to those in the know, we are using the word
''evil'' more these days but stat wise speaking,
acts that are often classified as evil such as
murder and kidnapping, are not increasing.
It's just that thanks to all manners of Media,
Bad/evil news gets more attention than Good
News. Politically speaking, the more we
are persuaded that the ''others'' are evil,
the more polarized we become.
The above image is a large poster I painted
as part of an Exhibition called Cinefiend.
His name is Dr. Mabuse and though a mere
invention of Norbert Jacques, to me he
represents the personification of an evil person.
''He is a master of disguise and telepathic hypnosis.
He is known to employ body transference through the
use of demonic possession. Sometimes he uses
technologies to build a society of crime.
Mabuse hardly ever commits crimes himself,
instead he works through a network of agents
who enact his schemes thus remaining out
of reach of being apprehended.
Mabuse's agents range from career criminals
to blackmailed or hypnotized innocents who
are so totally manipulated that they don't
even know that they are being used.''
Although Mabuse first appeared in a book
in the 1920's in Germany, personally I can actually
think of a few people who could easily
fit into the criteria above.
*
I have come to think that calling someone ''evil''
instead of ''bad'' can have grave consequences.
I believe it dehumanizes a person, it shows a lack of
empathy and polarizes rather the brings closer
people of different views.
Calling someone ''bad'' on the other hand, for me is a
more adaptive and malleable word.
''He is evil'' sounds judgmental and fixed
in my view. ''He is bad'' by contrast
sounds to me like ''he tends to make
questionable choices.''
In other words, a temporary position
in need of an adjustment.
Bad can be changed.
Evil is fixed.
''Bad is when you ignore the ones you love.
But evil is when you know
exactly what the ones you love
want and need,
And knowing that,
you find a way to make sure
that you'll never give it to them.''
(Citizen Z)
about image: Acrylic on large water colour paper
Title: Dr. Mabuse
No comments:
Post a Comment