|
On February 21 2012 13:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:34 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote: [quote]
As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies? Maybe the movies shouldn't have been banned. I don't really care about precedent, honestly. In America usually we just slap it with an NC-17. I don't think any movies have been outright banned, though. But again, there's plenty of offensive content out there that isn't banned or censored or whatever. So clearly being offensive isn't good enough. The major reason that things are censored, at least with museums and galleries, has to do with money. No, the reasons you're giving are not enough. Not by a long shot. Maybe for you they aren't and I understand that but for me they are good reasons. The banned movies were gross and offensive. I know some works aren't censored even if they are offensive but you can't claim that any offensive work has never been censored, because it has. Wait wait wait. You think those are good reasons? So maybe you missed what I was saying. Do you personally think South Park, Inglorious Bastards, and Porn should be censored? I mean those are certainly offensive, so shouldn't they be banned? I never claimed that anyway. I said they shouldn't be censored, or they were censored for other reasons besides just being offensive. I never claimed that people never wrongly censored anything.
You're right. I totally misread your sentence. You definitely didn't claimed that.
To answer your question: I remember a movie that was banned that had children pornography in it. So yes, if it goes as far as this, I think it should be censored. That same goes with art.
Edit: Now it goes with eachother personnal opinions at this point. You have your reasons and I have mine.
|
On February 21 2012 13:47 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:41 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:34 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored.
I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies? Maybe the movies shouldn't have been banned. I don't really care about precedent, honestly. In America usually we just slap it with an NC-17. I don't think any movies have been outright banned, though. But again, there's plenty of offensive content out there that isn't banned or censored or whatever. So clearly being offensive isn't good enough. The major reason that things are censored, at least with museums and galleries, has to do with money. No, the reasons you're giving are not enough. Not by a long shot. Maybe for you they aren't and I understand that but for me they are good reasons. The banned movies were gross and offensive. I know some works aren't censored even if they are offensive but you can't claim that any offensive work has never been censored, because it has. Wait wait wait. You think those are good reasons? So maybe you missed what I was saying. Do you personally think South Park, Inglorious Bastards, and Porn should be censored? I mean those are certainly offensive, so shouldn't they be banned? I never claimed that anyway. I said they shouldn't be censored, or they were censored for other reasons besides just being offensive. I never claimed that people never wrongly censored anything. You're right. I totally misread your sentence. You definitely didn't claimed that. To answer your question: I remember a movie that was banned that had children pornography in it. So yes, if it goes as far as this, I think it should be censored. That same goes with art. Edit: Now it goes with eachother personnal opinions at this point. You have your reasons and I have mine.
So I think everyone in the entire thread agrees that there is a line that is crossed when the art actually infringes on someone's rights or consent.
This art does not do that. That has nothing to do with it being offensive.
Edit: I'm not really sure what matters here about personal opinion. I can only assume you just don't want to continue the conversation?
|
If something would be censored just because it is offensive to someone, pretty much everything interesting would be censored. People who get offended by this kind of thing should just look elsewhere. If something can be censored on the basis it hurts somebody's religious feelings, everything can be censored if you argue it is against your religion and "offensive". If newspaper is printing that garbage, don't buy it and email that newspaper. But to say something should be censored even though it does not hurt anything else than somebody's emotions is just bs. I am highly offended by offended people, therefore their views should be censored!
Now artists killing animals and claiming that is art(and doing it for the sake of "art") is whole another thing. That shit is sick and those "artists" should be placed on mental ward in involuntary treatment. I would draw the line on physical pain.
|
Most videos in the US have been censored due to copyright laws or illegal filming of sorts, but not actually due to controversy/depiction.
I know it's different in certain European countries though.
In Britain for example, Mikey (a film about a child murderer) was censored because it was made around the time of the Jame's Bulger murder. Cannabil Holocaust was banned in a lot of countries because it actually had live animals killed during production. (And then put on film) Another film, Visions of Ecstasy, was banned because it had a nun masturbating/giving a hand job to Jesus or something like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films
So yes, there's actually been a fair amount of censored films, although in some countries it is a little ridiculous. (Harold and Kumar, Brokeback Mountain, the 40 Year Old Virgin, etc in Malaysia alone)
|
On February 21 2012 13:50 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:47 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:41 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:34 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote: [quote]
I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies? Maybe the movies shouldn't have been banned. I don't really care about precedent, honestly. In America usually we just slap it with an NC-17. I don't think any movies have been outright banned, though. But again, there's plenty of offensive content out there that isn't banned or censored or whatever. So clearly being offensive isn't good enough. The major reason that things are censored, at least with museums and galleries, has to do with money. No, the reasons you're giving are not enough. Not by a long shot. Maybe for you they aren't and I understand that but for me they are good reasons. The banned movies were gross and offensive. I know some works aren't censored even if they are offensive but you can't claim that any offensive work has never been censored, because it has. Wait wait wait. You think those are good reasons? So maybe you missed what I was saying. Do you personally think South Park, Inglorious Bastards, and Porn should be censored? I mean those are certainly offensive, so shouldn't they be banned? I never claimed that anyway. I said they shouldn't be censored, or they were censored for other reasons besides just being offensive. I never claimed that people never wrongly censored anything. You're right. I totally misread your sentence. You definitely didn't claimed that. To answer your question: I remember a movie that was banned that had children pornography in it. So yes, if it goes as far as this, I think it should be censored. That same goes with art. Edit: Now it goes with eachother personnal opinions at this point. You have your reasons and I have mine. So I think everyone in the entire thread agrees that there is a line that is crossed when the art actually infringes on someone's rights or consent. This art does not do that. That has nothing to do with it being offensive. Edit: I'm not really sure what matters here about personal opinion. I can only assume you just don't want to continue the conversation?
Well then I just think we should limit the art term. I really can't believe we can consider this work as art. Now, because the word art can be used to describe about anything, you can always put your offensive work under the term and then you're safe. I think it's kind of stupid and we shouldn't be freely able to do that.
Edit: Yeah pretty much this, I need to go to sleep, I work early tomorrow sorry. Edit2: I'll be able to answer tomorrow if you want to add something.
|
On February 21 2012 13:54 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:50 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:47 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:41 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:34 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
So any offensive work should be censored?
I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies? Maybe the movies shouldn't have been banned. I don't really care about precedent, honestly. In America usually we just slap it with an NC-17. I don't think any movies have been outright banned, though. But again, there's plenty of offensive content out there that isn't banned or censored or whatever. So clearly being offensive isn't good enough. The major reason that things are censored, at least with museums and galleries, has to do with money. No, the reasons you're giving are not enough. Not by a long shot. Maybe for you they aren't and I understand that but for me they are good reasons. The banned movies were gross and offensive. I know some works aren't censored even if they are offensive but you can't claim that any offensive work has never been censored, because it has. Wait wait wait. You think those are good reasons? So maybe you missed what I was saying. Do you personally think South Park, Inglorious Bastards, and Porn should be censored? I mean those are certainly offensive, so shouldn't they be banned? I never claimed that anyway. I said they shouldn't be censored, or they were censored for other reasons besides just being offensive. I never claimed that people never wrongly censored anything. You're right. I totally misread your sentence. You definitely didn't claimed that. To answer your question: I remember a movie that was banned that had children pornography in it. So yes, if it goes as far as this, I think it should be censored. That same goes with art. Edit: Now it goes with eachother personnal opinions at this point. You have your reasons and I have mine. So I think everyone in the entire thread agrees that there is a line that is crossed when the art actually infringes on someone's rights or consent. This art does not do that. That has nothing to do with it being offensive. Edit: I'm not really sure what matters here about personal opinion. I can only assume you just don't want to continue the conversation? Well then I just think we should limit the art term. I really can't believe we can consider this work as art. Now, because the word art can be used to describe about anything, you can always put your offensive work under the term and then you're safe. I think it's kind of stupid and we shouldn't be freely able to do that. Edit: Yeah pretty much this, I need to go to sleep, I work early tomorrow sorry. Edit2: I'll be able to answer tomorrow if you want to add something.
Safe from what?
|
On February 21 2012 13:54 Essbee wrote:
Well then I just think we should limit the art term. I really can't believe we can consider this work as art. Now, because the word art can be used to describe about anything, you can always put your offensive work under the term and then you're safe. I think it's kind of stupid and we shouldn't be freely able to do that.
Edit: Yeah pretty much this, I need to go to sleep, I work early tomorrow sorry. Edit2: I'll be able to answer tomorrow if you want to add something.
Every single work that you think is art has been found offensive by somebody at some point in time. I guarantee that at least one thing you consider art had been univerally considered to be complete garbage decades after production.
Nude children? Pedophilia? Racism and human suffering? How about cold-blooded murder? I'm willing to bet that there's at least one painting of each that's valued at well over a million dollars today, and goodness knows how many books.
If made today, most people would probably react with vitriol. But that's art nonetheless. After all, it's perception that makes art, not age. And yes, this also applies to commercial products.
|
Religion apparently has a right to be offended and take down anything it finds inappropriate. Get used to it buddy
|
On February 21 2012 13:54 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:50 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:47 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:41 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:34 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:32 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:26 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
So any offensive work should be censored?
I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. How would you explain banned movies? Maybe the movies shouldn't have been banned. I don't really care about precedent, honestly. In America usually we just slap it with an NC-17. I don't think any movies have been outright banned, though. But again, there's plenty of offensive content out there that isn't banned or censored or whatever. So clearly being offensive isn't good enough. The major reason that things are censored, at least with museums and galleries, has to do with money. No, the reasons you're giving are not enough. Not by a long shot. Maybe for you they aren't and I understand that but for me they are good reasons. The banned movies were gross and offensive. I know some works aren't censored even if they are offensive but you can't claim that any offensive work has never been censored, because it has. Wait wait wait. You think those are good reasons? So maybe you missed what I was saying. Do you personally think South Park, Inglorious Bastards, and Porn should be censored? I mean those are certainly offensive, so shouldn't they be banned? I never claimed that anyway. I said they shouldn't be censored, or they were censored for other reasons besides just being offensive. I never claimed that people never wrongly censored anything. You're right. I totally misread your sentence. You definitely didn't claimed that. To answer your question: I remember a movie that was banned that had children pornography in it. So yes, if it goes as far as this, I think it should be censored. That same goes with art. Edit: Now it goes with eachother personnal opinions at this point. You have your reasons and I have mine. So I think everyone in the entire thread agrees that there is a line that is crossed when the art actually infringes on someone's rights or consent. This art does not do that. That has nothing to do with it being offensive. Edit: I'm not really sure what matters here about personal opinion. I can only assume you just don't want to continue the conversation? Well then I just think we should limit the art term. I really can't believe we can consider this work as art. Now, because the word art can be used to describe about anything, you can always put your offensive work under the term and then you're safe. I think it's kind of stupid and we shouldn't be freely able to do that. Edit: Yeah pretty much this, I need to go to sleep, I work early tomorrow sorry. Edit2: I'll be able to answer tomorrow if you want to add something.
So my position is simple. You can say it's not art. You can say it's horribly offensive. You can say it's horrible quality. Sure, it may be all of these things, but that does not mean it should be banned or censored. Why would it? What does that have to do with anything? There's no logical connection from one to the other.
We don't censor things just because they offend someone. We don't censor things just because they suck. The claim "it's not art" is so vague and unassuming that it's rather pointless. I mean have you ever had the "what is art?" discussion? It's probably the most pointless, circular conversation in existence. Let's not have it.
Things in the art world are usually censored for monetary reasons. The people funding the museum say "I don't want this" and the museum pulls it.
|
it took precisely ten minutes for this thread to go its course through the one necessary point on the subject from the point of moral relativism. from the point of moral absolutism, i guess you can say art should at times be censored because jesus/allah/obama/blizzard/whatever is deemed necessary to protect by limiting what is at its best maybe the most complicated form of human emotional expression, which can at the same time be beautiful and ugly, explicit and subtle. what else one doesn't appreciate should be censored, then?
what bugs me is that the only people who try to define what's art and what's not are people who have no appreciation of it or care for it. like for example the word "pretentious" when concerning someone's work is seldom used by one who can recognise genuine. it's usually simple intellectual dishonesty coming from someone who's only been to a museum forcedly on a school trip.
|
Art should not be censored, but stupid, provocative for the sake of being provocative art should be labelled BAD.
I feel like people now-a-days are so afraid to be told that they don't 'understand' art that they'll call anything something glues to a stool art. That just pollutes the pool of good art and encourages people to be shocking for the sake of being shocking.
|
So your feelings were hurt by a photo. Well boohoo, get over it. You can't just ban everything you don't like.
|
Art is meant to be offensive. Censoring art is censoring free speech.
|
I don't get whats wrong with these pictures?
|
On February 21 2012 21:20 Zambrah wrote: Art should not be censored, but stupid, provocative for the sake of being provocative art should be labelled BAD.
I feel like people now-a-days are so afraid to be told that they don't 'understand' art that they'll call anything something glues to a stool art. That just pollutes the pool of good art and encourages people to be shocking for the sake of being shocking. this is pretty much what i meant. why is it important something that cannot be objectively judged be labeled anything, much less in accordance to how you feel? what exactly is stupid about provocation for provocation's sake?
i come from a background of knowing some modern painters largely belonging to a sort of an abstract expressionist bad painting sort of style and i generally appreciate their kind of work. i guess some kind of mix of jean-michel basquiat and jackson pollock, who sure as shit were and are huge names in the world of too expensive paintings. most people online who find they have tons of valuable things to say on good and bad art would likely think their works look like a six year old schizophrenic's scribblings. what kind of art do you call good art?
|
On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 06:04 Essbee wrote: [quote]
This. Art is not what it was before. Good paintings and real artistic works were what defined art and it was beautiful. Now you can apply it to anything.
And these days "art works" is defined by this? If we can call this art then we may be better censoring it, It's just plain stupid. The word "art" is used way too much. What's the signifation of these works? Do they really give an insightful message or put you in awe about how beautiful it is? No, it's just plain gross.
I'm in the minority that thinks that art should be censored. In no way you should be able to show that kind of shit in a public exposition or whatever. How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. I might have lost it somewhere in the discussion, but could you elaborate on some such reasons?
Also, there needs to be some sort of standard to what constitutes as art and what doesn't, something about people trying to justify a red dot on a piece of paper by hiding behind the whole "but all art is, is expression" notion so that they can call themselves artists really doesn't do justice to the great masters of the renaissance for example. But I guess that's another discussion all together.
|
On February 21 2012 22:11 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 13:23 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 13:02 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:50 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:48 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:42 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote:On February 21 2012 12:36 Essbee wrote:On February 21 2012 12:22 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
How exactly do you get from "This art sucks" to "It should be censored"? Because it's highly offensive for 90% of the people. So? I still do not see why it should be censored. (90% is waaaay too high, btw) As I said in my first post, you can't consider this art. The art term is way too overused. Someone taking photographs of some guy jacking off? What an artist. Once again, I have no idea what this has to do with being censored. I understand it sucks. I understand no one likes it. You still have yet to explain why it should be censored. I thought that was pretty self explanitory. I mean, the censor is to exclude any offensive work from public expositions. That's the censoring I had in mind. So any offensive work should be censored? I don't understand what part of this is hard to understand. Offensive is not a good enough reason to censor anything. Neither is poor quality. It never has been. I think it IS a good reason. That's the whole point. That you accept them or not (and I respect that), they are my reasons nonetheless. Many movies have been banned from countries because of offensive content. So you can't really say something offensive has never been censored. You know, there are decent reasons to censor things by the way. You just haven't given any. Offensive content is not enough to be censored. It never has been. I mean come on, you think South Park should be censored? There's plenty of offensive content out there that doesn't get censored. I might have lost it somewhere in the discussion, but could you elaborate on some such reasons? Also, there needs to be some sort of standard to what constitutes as art and what doesn't, something about people trying to justify a red dot on a piece of paper by hiding behind the whole "but all art is, is expression" notion so that they can call themselves artists really doesn't do justice to the great masters of the renaissance for example. But I guess that's another discussion all together.
Money. If I'm putting my money into a museum, then it's my right to pull my funding if I don't like the art. It gets rather weird with public finding, but the idea is the same.
|
On February 21 2012 22:11 Jojo131 wrote: Also, there needs to be some sort of standard to what constitutes as art and what doesn't, something about people trying to justify a red dot on a piece of paper by hiding behind the whole "but all art is, is expression" notion so that they can call themselves artists really doesn't do justice to the great masters of the renaissance for example. why, exactly, is that "needed" , what problem would ensue if something resembling your hyperbolic example were to materialise in the real world, would that red dot get flown into exhibitions all over the world or would you just get into an argument with a drunk friend? i find the notion of there being boxes for high art, low art and non-art arrogant and reprehensible.
On February 21 2012 22:22 DoubleReed wrote: Money. If I'm putting my money into a museum, then it's my right to pull my funding if I don't like the art. It gets rather weird with public finding, but the idea is the same. i think you're overextending the meaning of censoring something to also mean not enabling something. you're not suppressing anyone's rights or freedoms by exercising your own (in case of public funding the situation is very different i think). for me censorship is necessary and justified in situations where a person's or a group's rights are precisely threatened by another entity, such as in form of hate speech and child pornography.
|
On February 21 2012 22:45 ikh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 22:11 Jojo131 wrote: Also, there needs to be some sort of standard to what constitutes as art and what doesn't, something about people trying to justify a red dot on a piece of paper by hiding behind the whole "but all art is, is expression" notion so that they can call themselves artists really doesn't do justice to the great masters of the renaissance for example. why, exactly, is that "needed" , what problem would ensue if something resembling your hyperbolic example were to materialise in the real world? i find the notion of there being boxes for high art, low art and non-art arrogant and reprehensible. Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 22:22 DoubleReed wrote: Money. If I'm putting my money into a museum, then it's my right to pull my funding if I don't like the art. It gets rather weird with public finding, but the idea is the same. i think you're overextending the meaning of censoring something to also mean not enabling something. you're not suppressing anyone's rights or freedoms by exercising your own. for me censorship is necessary and justified in situations where a person's or a group's rights are precisely threatened by another entity, such as in form of hate speech and child pornography.
Uhhh... well taking down artwork in a museum because people don't like it is usually called censorship. Not everyone is looking for a fight.
How does hate speech infringe on other people's rights?
|
|
|
|
|