Murderabilia

[Misawa]

Murderabilia is the nickname given to crime scene relics, letters and bits and bobs, but predominently the artwork of serial killers made in prison.

My question to you is - to form a census of opinion out of interest - whether or not you would ever buy artwork that you really liked if you knew it had been drawn/painted and signed by a serial killer, but also knew that your money wouldn't go to that person.

[Jessicrawrr]

I don't know if I'd pay for it, if it was nice and I liked it, I would get it, but maybe not pay.

[dbgtz]

If it was in the sense of "I know what I've done, now I'm trying to build a life" then yeah. In fact I probably would anyway.

[cocaine]

that would freak me out

[Misawa]

I've started collecting serial killer artwork and have two pieces from two notorious American serial killers who raped and tortured their victims.

[FlyingJesus]

I wouldn't go out of my way to buy them just because they were done by killers, but if there was a piece that I really liked and could afford then yeah why not

[velvet]

yeah, i'd have no qualms with it
just because someone's a murder doesn't mean they deserve any less recognition as an artist imo

[The Don]

I wouldn't collect like scraps of crime scene tape from a recent murder. If there was a piece of artwork I liked, I would buy it no matter who the artist was, but knowing that the money wouldn't go to them would be nice to know aswell.

[Narnat,]

Yes, I would still buy it because you personally don't know why they have committed that crime ect and because they are already paying for their crime at the end of the day it's the bit of art work you like and it shouldn't matter who has created it.

[Misawa]

Yes, I would still buy it because you personally don't know why they have committed that crime ect and because they are already paying for their crime at the end of the day it's the bit of art work you like and it shouldn't matter who has created it.

Considering one of the killers whose art I purchased abducted, raped, tortured and murdered a high number of teenagers with ice picks and sledgehammers, I'd have to disagree with the first part of your comment.

[Neversoft]

I wouldn't want anything made by a serial killer in my home, so no. I don't like the thought of it. I wouldn't be able to look at or enjoy the painting without thinking "that was painted by a murderer."


I don't know if I'd pay for it, if it was nice and I liked it, I would get it, but maybe not pay.

So you would steal it?

[Stephen]

I'd find it a lil bit creepy having a murderer's artwork in my house :l

[Gibs960]

I'd find it creepy knowing that someone who'd killed another human had painted it.

[Accipiter]

Depends, not if they painted it with their victims blood.

For obvious reasons.

[Casanova]

I've started collecting serial killer artwork and have two pieces from two notorious American serial killers who raped and tortured their victims.

I think this is a fantastic piece of dinner table tittle tattle to be said while the chat has dried up, it would definately go down well :rolleyes:.

I'm not sure, I think if it was really significant and it fitted in, i'd buy it. but only if it was cheap, didn't benefit the ******* and it wasn't a gloat.

[Inseriousity.]

No I wouldn't buy it because I'd never be able to appreciate it without thinking of the people they've murdered.

I suppose the question is would you have bought it if it hadn't been painted by a serial killer because going from the quote above me in casanova's post, it sounds like you're collecting serial killer artwork not because it's nice art (sure I imagine it helps but not the primary factor) but because it's painted by a serial killer.

[Misawa]

Yes, I collect because of who created the artwork.

[LoveToStack]

Yes, I collect because of who created the artwork.
If that's the motivation then it's pointless and just as bad as buying a used tissue that Lindsay Lohan sneezed into. And there's no point arguing that there's a difference on the grounds that this 'artwork' has artistic merit where something like a tissue does not, since that's not the reason you're buying it: therefore any value it has as actual artwork is pointless, in your eyes at least.

[Misawa]

It's not pointless because it's something that greatly interests me and has done for years. A tissue used by Lindsay Lohan does not.

[Stephen]

what if it was a tissue used to wipe her arse?

Edited by Infectious (Forum Moderator): Please do not make pointless posts, thanks!

[Accipiter]

I think "What if it was a tissue used to choke her" would be more appropriate, someone also needs to tell the male that you wipe afterwards, not during.

I can see it being interesting, Van gogh was a nutcase yet his art is admired by thousands, just he didn't take a jab at someone else.

[LoveToStack]

Misawa
It's not pointless because it's something that greatly interests me and has done for years. A tissue used by Lindsay Lohan does not.Maybe pointless wasn't the right word. What I'm saying is that buying something purely for the sake of who made it or who touched it (see Lindsay tissue analogy) doesn't really achieve anything. And I know that a tissue Lindsay Lohan sneezed into doesn't interest you, the point was that you buying murderabilia for the sake of who the artist is rather than on the merit of the art is on the same level as these people who buy things 'celebrities' have touched purely because they have touched them then pass them off eBay. And I know you don't want to pass your stuff off on eBay before you imply that's what I was insinuating. Also note that I know that is the purpose of murderabilia: for people who are interested in serial killers etc to be able to have artifacts related to them so it's not that I disagree with you personally but more the concept of murderabilila.
Also at the end of the day it's your money and your free to do what you want. However I'd be careful of who you brought it up around because it's not something that everyone will see the same way as you.

[Inseriousity.]

If that's the motivation then it's pointless and just as bad as buying a used tissue that Lindsay Lohan sneezed into. And there's no point arguing that there's a difference on the grounds that this 'artwork' has artistic merit where something like a tissue does not, since that's not the reason you're buying it: therefore any value it has as actual artwork is pointless, in your eyes at least.

I agree. Going from your background in film, I'd imagine you're interested in the horror behind the artwork rather than the actual artwork the same way someone's interested in the celebrity rather than the object. I find it a bit sick tbh. Behind every horrid crime there are victims who suffered.

[Misawa]

I couldn't care less who sees my collection - it's displayed on one of my walls for all to see after all - and anyone who disagrees is more than welcome to, but I would never shy away from saying who drew/painted the pieces. I also know that anyone who I told about it would want to see it because morbid curiosity is naturally ingrained into the human psyche - the same reason why when people drive by car accidents they take a great big look out the window to catch a glimpse of something grim. I worked six months when I was 18 taking pictures of accidents and suicides (mainly) for the benefit of the police and forensic teams. As unpleasant as that experience was, it was still incredibly fascinating.

Re the victims, yes, of course, which is why I specifically make sure that all my purchases are from independent dealers and no money goes to those still in prison (the rest have been exceuted).

[ROT]

i like some murderalilia but the nice arts far too exspensive and honestly i wouldnt like to buy it online ;\