Should art be censored? - Page 7
Forum Index > General Forum |
{CC}StealthBlue
United States40986 Posts
| ||
red_b
United States1267 Posts
| ||
SunTurtle
156 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:30 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: It's easy enough to turn your eyes away, you shouldn't censor it. Wrong on many levels, this guy's stuff is pretty pretentious looking to stir the pot. well isn't that kind of the point of art? To think freely, to break from the norm to point out flaws in our society? I'm not going to comment on whether or not I agree with his art, because I don't think I've decided myself, but let him to his thing, it is art after all. | ||
Artrey
Germany270 Posts
Even if an artwork visualizes rape or death, it might be offensive to some, but it After all, it has to be decided on a case by case basis by a judge. There are however controversial topics, especially related to naked children which go as far that some fathers are scared to be depicted with their naked kids in the bathtub in a family album... I also think that there is erotic photography that can be seen as art. For example I am sure some people in Germany would consider | ||
RaspberrySC2
United States168 Posts
On February 20 2012 15:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: No Art should never be censored. Punctuation is important here if you mean anything other than how that reads. | ||
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
| ||
Neeh
Norway458 Posts
| ||
Artrey
Germany270 Posts
On February 20 2012 15:57 iTzSnypah wrote: No, art should not be censored. True art is not how it looks, it's how it makes you feel. I totally agree, but there is a slight problem with that definition... By that, I would not consider most music art. If you try to define the "feeling", you end up defining the intention and the context. | ||
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
Abort Retry Fail
2636 Posts
Art is an expression and as such is constrained just like any other expressions if it contradicts and undermine certain moral and social norms. More importantly, that exhibit in the OP is not even art, its not even interesting or clever at least. | ||
chaosfreak11
Singapore367 Posts
| ||
woody60707
United States1863 Posts
| ||
valedictory
United States37 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:49 frucisky wrote: This. TL is so full of idealists. What if said art tries to depict the beauty of the gas chambers used in the Holocaust? Art can be very offensive and spark violence and hence censorship has its role. To make a blanket state like that is very naiive imo. I think there is a more a troubling issue in the present discussion. I don't think the question 'should art be censored?' even makes sense. Should art displays be censored? Should we reprimand authors of artistic works because of their works? Perhaps, these are the questions we should be asking. It's too easy to confuse OP's question with questions of art definitively. Then again, we might not be able to avoid a discussion of just what qualifies as art if we want to demarcate censorship. That said, I am sympathetic with 1Eris1's counter, but only insofar as artwork could only be created through morally reprehensible means. Often on art, people tend think of art as boundless and something that ought not be restricted, but when asked what we should think of experimental art or these fringe examples - "well, that's not art!" This line doesn't give us many answers. So, I would just assume the works in question are always art. Otherwise, what's the point? So, if some work of art is to be condemned, I think it could only be done so justly if its creation required some sufficiently immoral act, or maybe the stricter condition has to be met wherein just appreciating (viewing) the art is morally reprehensible. I can't say with any confidence what would be sufficient though. This means I don't really agree with frucisky's example. His example is not like 1Eris1's. Certainly, art beautifying the holocaust sounds unpleasant, but not censorship worthy. Art being offensive doesn't justify its censorship. How could we even pick out what works are offensive and which aren't? There have actually been legal disputes that have raised this same question (I have no sources). What had been done in the past was to allow municipalities to determine what is sufficiently offensive to permit censorship. So, that's one option - people censor just what they want to censor. | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Should you ever censor art? No. Should you censor free speech? No. Should you create a loophole where you call art, not art, and then pretend we should censor it? No Who cares that you are offended? The time that your fantasy stories ruled supreme and I would get burned alive for my opinions is gone and dead. It is only the relgious which seem to be so delusional that, because they are offended, society needs to adapt. Don't you think I am offended when I hear you people talk about reducing gay rights? Of course I am, so what? You can still voice your opinion, you can still make art about it. Some of the relgious people are having trouble letting go of the totalitarian roots that their religion is founded on. They seem to find it hard that society doesn't care what they believe anymore. It is very simple. If you are are in favor of banning this art, then you are an enemy of democracy and free society. That is not an exageration, because if you had your way, then there could be no first world. Censorship based on offense? What happens when you realize that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world? What happens when muslims start complaining about women being depicted without a veil? What happens when orthodox jews start to complain that it offends them that women aren't in the back of the bus? So either you would destroy the entire society as a result of being offended, or you would force the government to choose a state religion and enforce it. Sepperation of church and state? Remember that one? Religious people offend others on a daily basis. Every day they preach that the other 90% of the world will burn in eternal hellfire. Ooh, but when someone doesn't take your out-dated fairy tales seriously, you flip out. Arrogance, that is what defines this complaint. The arrogant belief that your feelings are so important, that everyone else needs to change what they are doing. But the fight is already fought. This will not be censored. The religious totalitarians can go and cry about this victory of freedom and democracy in some corner. | ||
Mycl
Australia1370 Posts
| ||
dafunk
France521 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:49 frucisky wrote: What if said art tries to depict the beauty of the gas chambers used in the Holocaust? Thats precisely the very definition of art. It would be incredible and I would for sure go to something like this. And no, ofc art should never be censored (ofc that exclude pedophilia and those kind of things... common sense). | ||
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
| ||
RoberP
United Kingdom101 Posts
| ||
Neeh
Norway458 Posts
On February 20 2012 17:31 dafunk wrote: Thats precisely the very definition of art. It would be incredible and I would for sure go to something like this. And no, ofc art should never be censored (ofc that exclude pedophilia and those kind of things... common sense). Who decides what "Those kind of things" are though? It's totally subjective, and that's why art in itself is rather flawed. Anything these days can be art. I think it's very faulty to just do away with it all in a giant sweep and say "never censor anything" but in the same breath deny certain elements from whatever your personal opinion of art is. Case by case basis, as someone else noted seems more of a likely approach. And in this case its just uptight religious people, so I'm not too concerned. | ||
beatitudes
United States167 Posts
i censored it for myself. | ||
| ||