On February 20 2012 17:23 Mycl wrote: I don't like people hiding behind over reaching blanket terms such as art. Simply stating all art should be uncensored is just being lazy. Doing things by a case by case standard gets my vote
Now what if I was on this "committee" and began banning every religious art display, whilst allowing these kinds of artworks to continue?
Because that is essentially what you are talking about isn't it? Filling a committee with either atheists or christians and having them censor the other side?
But if not religiously inspired, on what basis could one draft a censorship on this creation? If you leave your religious convictions at the door, what reason would you have to censor it?
So, we have already established that the members of this censorship committee need to actively propagate their convictions, otherwise they couldn't ban anything and their censorship board would be pointless.
But what if we play it fair? And we put all religions and atheism on this committee. What would prevent them from starting a censor war?
Christians censor this, atheist objects and censors another work in return, christians feel attacked (as they so often do) and begin banning more work.
Art is much akin to freedom of speech. It is either absolute, or it does not exist.
This ought to be the most one sided arguement out there. Art shouldn't be censored like it was in the Soviet Union. Censoring art is censoring free speech.
As long as someone has an equal and fair opportunity to avoid it, not support it, or even openly protest it, than no ... of course art shouldn't be censored.
I'm going to go with the overwhelming majority here and say that every human has the right to offend another human. I think it's at the very least childish to do so deliberately, but people should be able to do it so long as they're not breaking any other law.
In terms of art being censored. . .the only time I could see it being reasonable to censor is if it was created through some sort of crime - e.g. "snuff" films. That's fairly clear cut, I'd say. After that, you have things that are intended to inspire crime - e.g. neo-Nazi crap - and I think that's a case by case basis, really. Other than that, censorship is wrong.
A lot of art like this could be said to be directed at an identifiable group, and therefore is intentionally inciting violence, crime or hatred against that group.
But people would tend to tolerate it unless it's against a group we're sensitive about at that time. So right now, you'll certianly get away with inciting hatred against catholics, mormons or other christian groups, but not Jewish groups for instance.
Whatever rules people try to make or general guidelines, always just fall apart to whatever the public feels at that moment. Right now, insulting the 'majority' groups...Christians/Males/Whites is fine and insulting minorities is wrong and will get shouted down. That was certainly different say, 40 years ago, and might be different 40 years from now again.
The thing is there's political differences people have, but then political differences that are so much in the minority, they just aren't considered valid. For instance we've just rejected the idea of racism as a valid idea...people who beleive it are in the extreme minority, so we'd censor art that was outright pro-Nazi or white supremecist. But anti-white isn't such an extreme minority, so we wouldn't censor that.
Basically I think 'Censorship' the way most of us think of it is blocking stuff that atleast like 10-15% of people think is ok. If only like 3% think its ok, we barely even consider it censorship, we just then say 'Well, they're wrong', censor it and just don't even call it censorship...we're just protoecting people.
Apart from the fact that labeling this piece of garbage as art is discussable, my few thoughts.
First of all the purpuse of art is not to shock only. If we go that route then we could end up with in example an exhibition presenting a guy raping a baby or animal or whatever you want etc.
About the pics in op. If we remove catholic symbols theres nothing there. Author is using a cheap kinda exhausted motif to make an appearience. Interesting thing theres not much stuff like that regarding islam? authors fear planes falling on their roofs or what?
Anyway i dont think censoring by authorities should be in place here but maybe somthing like authors body? Many proffesions have such bodies and its ethics. If anyone its them to judge a value of art.
On February 20 2012 11:41 darkscream wrote: There is no situation, no standard, no precedent in which art or writing should be censored, anywhere, ever. Not in paintings, not in drawings, writing, online, offline, in song, in film, in clay sculptures. No censorship, anywhere, ever.
And I personally HATE THE GUTS of anyone who thinks otherwise. Take away the freedom of expression from humanity, and you are an enemy of humanity.
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.
Art is not a reason to do stuff that's illegal. However, sexy nuns are not illegal (nor are they art, but that's an entirely different discussion).
if porn is art it should at least be restricted by age <.<
"art is skill" if anyone can do it, it is not art, exceptional music, paintings, sculptures, architecture, photography, movies, marinesplits amongst others qualify (martial arts also) ... entirely subjective, but a good measure for myself to use ^.<
On February 20 2012 18:13 Defacer wrote: As long as someone has an equal and fair opportunity to avoid it, not support it, or even openly protest it, than no ... of course art shouldn't be censored.
On February 20 2012 19:27 Naphal wrote: if porn is art it should at least be restricted by age <.<
"art is skill" if anyone can do it, it is not art, exceptional music, paintings, sculptures, architecture, photography, movies, marinesplits amongst others qualify (martial arts also) ... entirely subjective, but a good measure for myself to use ^.<
Don't find this to be true, since much of the art is really just the idea. There is a lot of art that a huge number of people could replicate, but the idea to originally present it is the art.
Some sculptures are just, a cube, or an oversized pencil, sometimes art is just a can of soup. And Sometimes it's Sasha Grey, just going that extra inch, simultaneously looked appealing and bored.
Today one can only express himself in art without having to fear being shat on by society.... oh wait.
Take arts away and we are robots. Of course there is good and bad art, but only the synergy makes our lives like they are. Also, who defines what is good art and what's not? If this picture is offending to some people, that it got censored, I'd have to scream how offended I am by a book called 'bible'. It would have to get forbidden then aswell, because I have the same justification.
i don't like the idea of trying to address a question as broad as "Should art be censored?". there are a lot of things that could be described as "art".
however in this case i don't really see a problem with it.
i'm more offended that somebody could be named bruce labruce. that is genuinely horrific.
On February 20 2012 19:27 Naphal wrote: if porn is art it should at least be restricted by age <.<
"art is skill" if anyone can do it, it is not art, exceptional music, paintings, sculptures, architecture, photography, movies, marinesplits amongst others qualify (martial arts also) ... entirely subjective, but a good measure for myself to use ^.<
Don't find this to be true, since much of the art is really just the idea. There is a lot of art that a huge number of people could replicate, but the idea to originally present it is the art.
Some sculptures are just, a cube, or an oversized pencil, sometimes art is just a can of soup. And Sometimes it's Sasha Grey, just going that extra inch, simultaneously looked appealing and bored.
as i said, entirely subjective, so a cube is geometry or an overzised pencil advertisment in my opinion, i think everybody has an initial thought if you show them something and ask "art? yes/no?"
Not even going into whether or not there is artistic merit in those pictures, it comes down to a simple fact: there is no general guideline as to what is "offensive" (which, I think, in itself is a really dumb concept). Therefore no one should be allowed to arbitrarily impose restrictions on how other people choose to express themselves.
Canadian artist Bruce LaBruce is getting a lot of flak for his "Obscenity" exhibit in Madrid, Spain. Civic society groups, religious organizations, and various groups, however, are crying "blasphemy".
The exhibit features 50 photographs using many different elements of Catholicism including holy communion, nuns, crosses, a crown of thorns and rosary beads. His works features Spanish actress Rossy de Pama and and Spanish singer Alaska. Since the exhibit, the singer's husband, Mario Vaquerizo, has allegedly been fired from his job at the Catholic church-managed radio station Cadena COPE after a photograph of him with Alaska simulating a representation of the figure of 'Piety', where he is seen nuzzling into her breast was displayed.
LaBruce, 48, whose work has often sparked protests and censorship, wrote on the gallery's website that 'the lives of the saints are full of ecstatic acts of sublimated sexuality'. He added: 'obscenity presents a series of portraits that illustrate this most holy convergence of the sacred and the profane.'
Using the above as an example, personally, I think art has the singular authority to be anything. It should be free from any censorship, and the only standard it should be tied to is aesthetic/creative and social merits. Let the artists do anything. It's not like they are bombing Iraq or are publicly distributing their works in public tv where children and minors can see them. They are housed in exhibits open only to consenting mature (supposedly) adults who can pass judgment themselves.
I'm not saying that the exhibit in question has awesome and creative pictures, but art can be only be boring or great, and you can never judge it as anti-religion, anti-society, anti-fascism, anti-morality and censore it because you think this is the case. It serves a function to speak the truth, especially awkward truths that people choose to ignore and just turn a blind eye on, like religious scandals in the Vatican.
What are your views on this? Does any group, especially the church, have a right to pass judgment on the social merits of art if the purpose is to attack/confront it in the first place? Should art be censored? If yes, who else will make the commentary on the beauty or ills of society?
No accusation of "blasphemy" should be taken seriously.
Religion should not be immune to criticism or offense, particularly since it's the most irrational, illogical, bigoted and divisive force on earth.