Should art be censored? - Page 5
Forum Index > General Forum |
peekn
United States1152 Posts
| ||
MichaelDonovan
United States1453 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:28 FliedLice wrote: As long as it doesn't break any laws and is open exclusively to appropriate audiences (basically restricting kids from mature content) I don't see why. I think you misunderstood the question. You say "as long as it doesn't break any laws", but if it is censored, that means that laws will be made to prevent it from being seen. | ||
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
Bashion
Cook Islands2612 Posts
| ||
Azzur
Australia6202 Posts
On February 20 2012 13:16 BluePanther wrote: Private individuals have a right to condemn art as improper. I fail to see what the problem here is. There hasn't been any censoring... You are misunderstanding the issue here - the OP is asking whether art should be censored, i.e. a govt body decides that something is not appropriate and removes it from public view. | ||
Nacl(Draq)
United States302 Posts
This is artwork. I would say this is worse than a child being raped, I would say that it isn't nearly as offensive. People let people die when we can end things like this. If someone drew the horrors of gas chambers in a light of beauty, society would look upon that and feel hatred towards that person, let him draw what he wants, he will be hated or loved depending on what people think. The artist draws for himself, if he doesn't then it is no longer pure but is still art. I'm not advocating the harming of minors. Look at it, reflect on it, decide for yourself what it means and move on. If I see art that glorifies killing and does so in a way that makes people laugh and hoot for joy, (Inglorious Basterds is a good example) I look at the actions of those people viewing it with me as a part of the artwork. I see how sad I feel that people love to see death. It causes me pain knowing that these are the same people I see on the street. Art is art, art is thought, it is feeling, it is love, it is hate, and it should never be censored. You can hide yourself from art if you desire, you can yell at those that draw it, but never burn it, never destroy it, never lock it away. Captainshards makes a pretty good point about taboo being overused. (He is the post underneath this one.) I don't agree that censorship is beautiful though. If you start so censor art and thought and speech, you can't form opinions as easily and find people with similar opinions as yourself. You start to become depressed and start to look for ways out. | ||
captainshards
39 Posts
You know, i see tons of "smart" people out there ready to come to the rescue with an "open mind" on forums all over the internet on this subject matter. Everyone thinks that freedom is so great and such a foolproof plan. But, the truth is, censorship is beautiful. It is also in every single thing in art no matter how free and shocking it tries to be. Censorship is awesome. What makes art great is the self imposed censorship that goes on within the artist himself while hes creating something. When a songwriter sits down to create something, he has basically a white canvas. He can do anything. But he does not simply create chaos in the name of freedom, he self censors until it takes a form. He chooses only words that sound right to him, leaving out all others. He self censors. An encyclopedia could be written on the amount of BRILLIANT famous art we love that was heavily and drastically altered due to self imposed rules or even rules being forced by another party. Probably most of the tv shows and movies you people love you have no idea how raw the original concepts are straight from the artists mind, it takes a producer and a director and all these people changing the idea for the better to make it "tasteful" to the audience. How much more scary are movies when you sometimes cant see the monster? They use sound or abstract imagery to convey a feeling. They are censoring. Censorship actually improves art. How much harder would that artist in the OP have had to work to come up with something that shocks WITHOUT resorting to taboo abuse like he did? Thats how you make people think man. No one cares if a nun dressed as a whore is right or wrong ultimately. Non religious people dont care, and religious people get upset. No one learns a lesson of any kind it ends up being a circular argument that teaches the world nothing. The proof in that is here we are, again, being sent in this same loop by what? What? A sexy nun? What a joke. When i look at that art all i see is a talentless nobody who couldnt come up with something decent so he chose to just be controversial which takes no skill at all. Theres a list of universal human taboos in a million text books all over the world. Using taboo as a means of getting emotional response is childs play. Ill be "shocked" the day humanity realizes this and moves onto something bigger and more important. | ||
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:46 1Eris1 wrote: Hmmm. What if it's of a child getting raped or something like that? Personally, I've never liked the idea of abstract art (across all forms of art). Well some of it might be genuinely "art", I've always interpretted it as people without actual artistic talent trying to be artists. Of course that's besides the point, and well I personally don't find anything really special about this piece, I don't think it should be censored. As long as no real human child was actually hurt, you can paint or write or sculpt child rape for art if you REALLY want to.. Unfortunately my country has laws equating art depicting (non real, totally fictional) children sexually to child porn. There's been guys ordering mangas online who got busted for kiddie porn and had their lives ruined. Permanent black marks on their lives because of some ink. That's not cool, regardless of what you think about lolicon/hentai. Now using real children is another matter, obviously that has to be punished because some young human was exploited. But in that case you are punishing the act of abusing children, not the act of creating media. It's not my cup of tea, but the fact is that if nobody is actually hurt by it, its fine. The piece in question is not even that lewd. Okay, its pretty lewd, theres pictures of nuns with their boobs out, priests with their penises out, priests with nasty white stuff on their face. But should it be censored? no. If it offends your delicate senses, just DON'T LOOK. | ||
Kenshin_915
Canada139 Posts
On February 20 2012 13:26 captainshards wrote: Whenever this topic comes up, people race to the rescue and say that "art should never be censored because its supposed to get an emotional response" or they say "its a human right to create whatever you want". And all of that sounds great and fun and open minded. But there are no such universal laws as "rights". Im so sick of people thinking that "rights" and "freedom" are some kind of all powerful argument. Those two things are human invented concepts. We made them up and we define them differently based on many things. I hate to tell you but you have no "right" to anything. People in power dictate what your limits are concerning your rights. They dont look up to the heavens and find an answer that means anything other than something a human being came up with and defined. Its completely stupid to cite "rights" and "freedom" as why art is untouchable. "Rights" and "freedom of speech" are beautiful concepts that humanity should try to uphold. But they are not laws of the universe like action/reaction etc. They are human created fairy tales. You know, i see tons of "smart" people out there ready to come to the rescue with an "open mind" on forums all over the internet on this subject matter. Everyone thinks that freedom is so great and such a foolproof plan. But, the truth is, censorship is beautiful. It is also in every single thing in art no matter how free and shocking it tries to be. Censorship is awesome. What makes art great is the self imposed censorship that goes on within the artist himself while hes creating something. When a songwriter sits down to create something, he has basically a white canvas. He can do anything. But he does not simply create chaos in the name of freedom, he self censors until it takes a form. He chooses only words that sound right to him, leaving out all others. He self censors. An encyclopedia could be written on the amount of BRILLIANT famous art we love that was heavily and drastically altered due to self imposed rules or even rules being forced by another party. Probably most of the tv shows and movies you people love you have no idea how raw the original concepts are straight from the artists mind, it takes a producer and a director and all these people changing the idea for the better to make it "tasteful" to the audience. How much more scary are movies when you sometimes cant see the monster? They use sound or abstract imagery to convey a feeling. They are censoring. Censorship actually improves art. How much harder would that artist in the OP have had to work to come up with something that shocks WITHOUT resorting to taboo abuse like he did? Thats how you make people think man. No one cares if a nun dressed as a whore is right or wrong ultimately. Non religious people dont care, and religious people get upset. No one learns a lesson of any kind it ends up being a circular argument that teaches the world nothing. The proof in that is here we are, again, being sent in this same loop by what? What? A sexy nun? What a joke. When i look at that art all i see is a talentless nobody who couldnt come up with something decent so he chose to just be controversial which takes no skill at all. Theres a list of universal human taboos in a million text books all over the world. Using taboo as a means of getting emotional response is childs play. Ill be "shocked" the day humanity realizes this and moves onto something bigger and more important. User was warned for this post | ||
Candadar
2049 Posts
That isn't art. It's guys jacking off and guys dressed as priests with semen on their faces. | ||
TheToaster
United States280 Posts
Also, arguing whether or not this can be considered art is pointless because all art is subjective in the eye of the beholder. This content is certainly art to somebody, and that's good enough for me. Leave it up to artists who actually have talent to dispute other works. | ||
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
On February 20 2012 13:26 captainshards wrote: Whenever this topic comes up, people race to the rescue and say that "art should never be censored because its supposed to get an emotional response" or they say "its a human right to create whatever you want". And all of that sounds great and fun and open minded. But there are no such universal laws as "rights". Im so sick of people thinking that "rights" and "freedom" are some kind of all powerful argument. Those two things are human invented concepts. We made them up and we define them differently based on many things. I hate to tell you but you have no "right" to anything. People in power dictate what your limits are concerning your rights. They dont look up to the heavens and find an answer that means anything other than something a human being came up with and defined. Its completely stupid to cite "rights" and "freedom" as why art is untouchable. "Rights" and "freedom of speech" are beautiful concepts that humanity should try to uphold. But they are not laws of the universe like action/reaction etc. They are human created fairy tales. You know, i see tons of "smart" people out there ready to come to the rescue with an "open mind" on forums all over the internet on this subject matter. Everyone thinks that freedom is so great and such a foolproof plan. But, the truth is, censorship is beautiful. It is also in every single thing in art no matter how free and shocking it tries to be. Censorship is awesome. What makes art great is the self imposed censorship that goes on within the artist himself while hes creating something. When a songwriter sits down to create something, he has basically a white canvas. He can do anything. But he does not simply create chaos in the name of freedom, he self censors until it takes a form. He chooses only words that sound right to him, leaving out all others. He self censors. An encyclopedia could be written on the amount of BRILLIANT famous art we love that was heavily and drastically altered due to self imposed rules or even rules being forced by another party. Probably most of the tv shows and movies you people love you have no idea how raw the original concepts are straight from the artists mind, it takes a producer and a director and all these people changing the idea for the better to make it "tasteful" to the audience. How much more scary are movies when you sometimes cant see the monster? They use sound or abstract imagery to convey a feeling. They are censoring. Censorship actually improves art. How much harder would that artist in the OP have had to work to come up with something that shocks WITHOUT resorting to taboo abuse like he did? Thats how you make people think man. No one cares if a nun dressed as a whore is right or wrong ultimately. Non religious people dont care, and religious people get upset. No one learns a lesson of any kind it ends up being a circular argument that teaches the world nothing. The proof in that is here we are, again, being sent in this same loop by what? What? A sexy nun? What a joke. When i look at that art all i see is a talentless nobody who couldnt come up with something decent so he chose to just be controversial which takes no skill at all. Theres a list of universal human taboos in a million text books all over the world. Using taboo as a means of getting emotional response is childs play. Ill be "shocked" the day humanity realizes this and moves onto something bigger and more important. I disagree with your amateur, layman's view of art. In fact, I daresay you know nothing about appreciating art. Most people have never studied art history and do not understand why artists like Picasso are famous or why the Mono Lisa is so amazing. This is my critical interpretation on the pictures (warning: long): + Show Spoiler + Fuck yeah, nun porn. | ||
RaspberrySC2
United States168 Posts
On February 20 2012 13:36 Candadar wrote: I think some people need to look at the link posted on the first page that shows what the guy was trying to pass off. That isn't art. It's guys jacking off and guys dressed as priests with semen on their faces. I checked it out and I liked it. In Gnostic masses, light cakes (aka communion crackers) are prepared with semen mixed into the batter. I would declare this art if nothing else than for the discussion it has stirred up. How many people have an inherent gut-reaction regarding religion and sexuality being mixed? In BDSM circles, the sadomasochistic under (or "over," depending on your perspective) tones within Catholicism specifically are well known and its symbolism is often used in scenes by those who were raised Catholic in ways to express physical, emotional, mental, sexual, and spiritual trauma. When this connection is understood, I am not surprised at all that the artist also does pornography. Art. Also shouldn't be censored. edited for typos | ||
saocyn
United States937 Posts
i'm sure alot of you would say you're ok with it but when it does happen i honestly doubt most of you will be ok with it. most of you in my opinion only jump on the religion hate bandwagon and would vouch for the uncensored art just because the majroity of the uncensored is depicting religion, it's honestly not depicting anything else you guys might find grotesque or immoral and would say that's beautiful. consider - pedophilia - genocide pictures and more | ||
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
When people say "that isn't art", what they mean is "that's shitty art" "I don't care for it" "that's a far cry from high art". They want to degrade it by calling it not art, in the same way racists used to say Native Americans weren't people. The artist is free to create whatever he wants, and people/churches are free to comment negatively about it. That's all there is to it. Art should never be censored, unless it's a personal decision by the artist himself in order to enable his work to be seen by a larger audience. | ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 20 2012 13:26 captainshards wrote: Whenever this topic comes up, people race to the rescue and say that "art should never be censored because its supposed to get an emotional response" or they say "its a human right to create whatever you want". And all of that sounds great and fun and open minded. But there are no such universal laws as "rights". Im so sick of people thinking that "rights" and "freedom" are some kind of all powerful argument. Those two things are human invented concepts. We made them up and we define them differently based on many things. I hate to tell you but you have no "right" to anything. People in power dictate what your limits are concerning your rights. They dont look up to the heavens and find an answer that means anything other than something a human being came up with and defined. Its completely stupid to cite "rights" and "freedom" as why art is untouchable. "Rights" and "freedom of speech" are beautiful concepts that humanity should try to uphold. But they are not laws of the universe like action/reaction etc. They are human created fairy tales. You know, i see tons of "smart" people out there ready to come to the rescue with an "open mind" on forums all over the internet on this subject matter. Everyone thinks that freedom is so great and such a foolproof plan. But, the truth is, censorship is beautiful. It is also in every single thing in art no matter how free and shocking it tries to be. Censorship is awesome. What makes art great is the self imposed censorship that goes on within the artist himself while hes creating something. When a songwriter sits down to create something, he has basically a white canvas. He can do anything. But he does not simply create chaos in the name of freedom, he self censors until it takes a form. He chooses only words that sound right to him, leaving out all others. He self censors. An encyclopedia could be written on the amount of BRILLIANT famous art we love that was heavily and drastically altered due to self imposed rules or even rules being forced by another party. Probably most of the tv shows and movies you people love you have no idea how raw the original concepts are straight from the artists mind, it takes a producer and a director and all these people changing the idea for the better to make it "tasteful" to the audience. How much more scary are movies when you sometimes cant see the monster? They use sound or abstract imagery to convey a feeling. They are censoring. Censorship actually improves art. How much harder would that artist in the OP have had to work to come up with something that shocks WITHOUT resorting to taboo abuse like he did? Thats how you make people think man. No one cares if a nun dressed as a whore is right or wrong ultimately. Non religious people dont care, and religious people get upset. No one learns a lesson of any kind it ends up being a circular argument that teaches the world nothing. The proof in that is here we are, again, being sent in this same loop by what? What? A sexy nun? What a joke. When i look at that art all i see is a talentless nobody who couldnt come up with something decent so he chose to just be controversial which takes no skill at all. Theres a list of universal human taboos in a million text books all over the world. Using taboo as a means of getting emotional response is childs play. Ill be "shocked" the day humanity realizes this and moves onto something bigger and more important. I like your post. However, you are completely misusing and misunderstanding the term "censor/censorship". | ||
OtoshimonoU
United States509 Posts
On February 20 2012 12:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Your statement offends me. Problem? I hope not, as everyone has their own opinions and perspectives. We have the right to express them as well. A picture can offend any random person who arbitrarily wants to be offended. The Mona Lisa could offend a misogynist, for all I know. Doesn't make it any less of a work of art, and doesn't mean it should be taken down from a museum wall. Then I apologize it offended you. Derp. | ||
Funguuuuu
United States198 Posts
| ||
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On February 20 2012 14:11 Funguuuuu wrote: Art shouldn't be censored, but I don't think this is art. Subjectivity is a bitch! | ||
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On February 20 2012 12:25 FeUerFlieGe wrote: No. Art for art's sake. Is an empty phrase Civ 4 FTW All joking aside that dadaist bullshit should have died. It was so era specific relative to its historical context that anything resembling or emulating it in other era's is just....ugh...I don't want to say anything offensive so I'll just leave it at that. | ||
| ||