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?
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.
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.
Beware, the exhibit is very NSFW. Plenty of nudity, depictions of women in habits with the host covering their nipples, men in the cassock with what looks to be semen on their faces, erect penises, etc. Don't follow this link if you aren't prepared/are currently in a public setting.
As a kid raised as a Catholic I can definitely see why this is causing an uproar. I'm not really practicing and as such it doesn't really offend me though; carry on I say.
Just because one group's interpretation of the whole thing does not agree with it or takes offense to it is not enough ground to ban it altogether. No-one is being hurt, discriminated or exploited in this case. If anything, a religion should feel secure enough to have such imagery out in the world.
Also, it's an exhibition that you actually have to actively visit. It is not something that is being pushed in your face. No-one is being forced to pay attention to it. It is showcasing an artist's subjective view on a certain part of culture and/or religion, while not even throwing around accusations or anything. Some imagery could perhaps be interpreted as Jesus, but that is questionable, so I don't even see blasphemy in this case. I merely see imagery being used that has been associated with christianity over the years, but that is all man-made association.
Also, if my 'religion' prohibits people to drive around in blue cars, are we going to ban all blue cars? Because - to me - blue cars are blasphemous! The horror!
Art that holds the sole purpose of disrespecting other people's cultures and beliefs is wrong/mean-spirited in my opinion. But I don't think it should be nessessarily be censored or disallowed. It's just like trolling in real life, as long as people don't feed the flames I don't think there will be much of a demand for this kind of "art".
It's a form of expression and should be protected as such. You can't censor art just like you can't censor music, speech, or the internet (even though big corporations are trying their best to). And once you censor one, it just makes it easier to censor the rest.
Art should not be censored. But that crap is not art. It's an aimed insult at the christian communities. People should be kinder . Either way I don't think it should be censored, but people should just ignore that artist. People have been insulting Christianity since roman times.
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.
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.
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?
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 should be some kind of censorship. I myself am a Catholic, and I feel offended that someone would diminish my beliefs and denigrate its meaning to something so material and explicitly offensive as this.
I find it terribly amusing that some people would say that nothing should be censored, yet if suddenly someone makes art depicting something scandalous not necesarilly religious based, that would be offensive. Something like lets say, art about people overjoying because black people are burning, or an art exhibit of nazi camp from a pro nazi point of view, or something like pedophilia-ish and morbidity, but not exactly illegal. THAT would cause huge uproar, but since it is offensive for a larger amount of people, then that would be inarguably censored.
Censorship is based on cultural acceptance. Censorship in my opinion, while it is true it could be limiting the work of an artist, it is also true that it holds importance to society and its overall wellness.
But in reality some things need to be censored like child porn. More things need to be censored for younger generations until they are mature enough to handle it. Some of the stuff this guy calls "art" is on a fine line near what I call "porn".
It being censored will just serve to draw more attention to it. This type of inflammatory media should just be ignored, since it has no real artistic merit and only serves to incite an emotional response from the demographic it is insulting to.
On February 20 2012 11:32 Brootalbro wrote: Just a question but does anyone here consider porn as art?
You'd probably have to be a little more specific in your definition of 'porn'.
If you're talking about the mainstream, commercialized porn with the pornstars and starlets that everyone knows, then the argument could be made that it doesn't hold much artistic value as much of the time they seem to be uninspired replicas of one another, designed to earn a profit for a company.
If you're talking about any visual image that includes uncensored penis/vagina and breasts then to say simply because of those elements that it cannot be artistic, that's obviously false as well.
I'm sure that there's many people producing porn that see it as an art form and many others who do it simply for the dolla dolla billz yall.
On February 20 2012 11:37 Fealthas wrote: Art should not be censored. But that crap is not art. It's an aimed insult at the christian communities. People should be kinder . Either way I don't think it should be censored, but people should just ignore that artist. People have been insulting Christianity since roman times.
This basically sums up what I think. I don't consider this art, anyone can photoshop semen on a guy or boobs on a nun and make it look just like what this "artist" did. Looks like shitty porn to me. If you consider porn to be art, then you shouldn't censor it, but people do censor porn.
When you create art like that you are just asking to be censored. No art should be "censored" but there are things (like this gallery) that simply shouldn't be displayed. Also if you work at a church managed anything and you do something that goes against the beliefs of that church you should expect to be punished that part isn't surprising. Simply put art like this should be displayed as it is, (or was) in a place where adults who want to see it can and nowhere else.
I can't stand religious groups that try to ban art that goes against their point of view. Not everybody supports their point of view.
I like to think that art that's intentionally blasphemous is just revenge for all the religious groups that persecute people of different opinoins/beliefs.
It's part of why I make my music the way I do. If anybody were to come and tell me it offends them, my response is "then be offended, not my problem."
On February 20 2012 11:32 Brootalbro wrote: Just a question but does anyone here consider porn as art?
A person asking a question on the subject of porn with a post count of 69, oh the irony.
That's just a humorous coincidence. Irony is when a phrase/action has the opposite meaning/effect as was intended.
As for the censorship issue, I despise and will label as an enemy of humanity anyone who thinks censoring art is a good idea. Once you start down that path, it's a slippery slope down into the abyss.
Religious organizations cry foul when someone invokes freedom of speech to parody or criticize them (as this art seems to), but hide behind those same rights when spewing their bigoted, hateful slime from the pulpit. The hypocrisy of such institutions is staggering. Don't tolerate a double standard for freedom of speech.
Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
On February 20 2012 11:54 couches wrote: I can't stand religious groups that try to ban art that goes against their point of view. Not everybody supports their point of view.
I like to think that art that's intentionally blasphemous is just revenge for all the religious groups that persecute people of different opinoins/beliefs.
It's part of why I make my music the way I do. If anybody were to come and tell me it offends them, my response is "then be offended, not my problem."
Two wrongs don't make a right. If indeed you are being persecuted by these religious groups for whatever reason, you shouldn't sink to their level. Instead be the better human being and choose to not retaliate.
I'm not someone who believes that art is somehow more sacred than anything else and needs to be protected from censorship, I'm just against censorship in general. I think it is one of the most general and/or vague categories for ideas and concepts to be shown or challenged, so it gets a lot of attention.
I think the most important lesson art can teach is that nothing is sacred. People need to realize that such a concept is also applied to the art. But trying to suggest that a generic concept like art should have a set of rules that it abides by is lunacy.
the issue is that people have gotten this really airy and fantasy-like definition of art. Art is expression. Certain forms of expression are restricted. When you express your distaste for black people or express a type of desire, like murder or rape, that is restricted by society.
People think art is just paintings and photographs. For some reason, we put it in its own set rules that doesn't coincide with the rest of the world. If you say that no art should be censored, you're opening up a can of worms and saying that the content doesn't matter so long as we put it in a gallery and glorify it. We breathe art. Music and Movies is a part of art. It's everything in our lives. So I do believe that you have the right to protest to content that you believe is offensive. Depending on the offense, it should or will get dealt with accordingly, be that done by society or some advisory board.
edit: My point is that there are certain things that you don't want people saying or doing. You take measures to ensure that they don't do it and there are repercussions when it is done, but as soon as someone throws it into a gallery, it's art and deserves to live.
On February 20 2012 11:50 iPAndi wrote: I think there should be some kind of censorship. I myself am a Catholic, and I feel offended that someone would diminish my beliefs and denigrate its meaning to something so material and explicitly offensive as this.
I find it terribly amusing that some people would say that nothing should be censored, yet if suddenly someone makes art depicting something scandalous not necesarilly religious based, that would be offensive. Something like lets say, art about people overjoying because black people are burning, or an art exhibit of nazi camp from a pro nazi point of view, or something like pedophilia-ish and morbidity, but not exactly illegal. THAT would cause huge uproar, but since it is offensive for a larger amount of people, then that would be inarguably censored.
Censorship is based on cultural acceptance. Censorship in my opinion, while it is true it could be limiting the work of an artist, it is also true that it holds importance to society and its overall wellness.
The main difference between this art and the examples of art that you provided that would cause "uproar" is that in those examples torture and the causing of main for no reason are depicted in a positive light. This point of view is certainly acceptable by a mature audience who knows the depicted acts are wrong. In the shown gallery there is no pain or suffering or torturous acts being depicted. The art would only be seen as an insult if the viewer held the objects (crosses ect.) to be sacred and viewed the non-violent acts as an insult to their religious views.
Uh...I mean, I'm not sure they should be pissed. It's pretty bad, bit dull and slightly homoerotic in some of those pics so I can see why people might say, "your photo's blow," but similarly the catholic church has the right to condemn the things if it wants to as well.
I personally wouldn't even call it art, just attention seeking.
So, in summation, don't "censor" it, but recognize that it's pretty shitty art. Side note: If someone did this with Islam they'd be dead within the week. Horseshit double standard.
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?
Then it comes down to "moral" beliefs and opinions of what is "right" and "wrong"... because (NOT VOUCHING FOR IT AT ALL), some people in this world find that either OK, or acceptable., and other may decide to make a painting of it...
No one's to say it's not art, just might not be art of your taste (or most people's taste for that matter).
IN THIS CASE (and imo, every case), it should be up the displayer of art (eg, the museum, gallery, etc), to decide what gets shown and what doesn't. Not the people VIEWING the art.
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
On February 20 2012 11:27 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Art is made to help people think. To censor art is to censor thought, inspiration, and emotion.
Couldn't have said it any better.
The problem is when it comes to defining what exactly the term art applies to, this "art" doesn't provoke any thoughts or inspire the mind. It's just intentionally inflammatory and mean-spirited.
On February 20 2012 11:27 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Art is made to help people think. To censor art is to censor thought, inspiration, and emotion.
Couldn't have said it any better.
The problem is when it comes to defining what exactly the term art applies to, this "art" doesn't provoke any thoughts or inspire the mind. It's just intentionally inflammatory and mean-spirited.
On February 20 2012 11:27 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Art is made to help people think. To censor art is to censor thought, inspiration, and emotion.
Couldn't have said it any better.
The problem is when it comes to defining what exactly the term art applies to, this "art" doesn't provoke any thoughts or inspire the mind. It's just intentionally inflammatory and mean-spirited.
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic talent behind it. This does not.
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic beauty behind it. This does not.
Here's the thing, you can do all that and call it art if you'd like and it could just as well be. There has to be artistic intent behind it as well.
What makes you say that a picture of a pile of shit couldn't be considered art?
Anyone who has studied Ethics, Society and Law / Art History and or Drama/Theatre Studies would know that.....
Art is so diverse that you can not "censor" it.
The question for this thread however is "should". Well the fact that it's a "should" question; that means there's no way a definite answer could be made anyway since Art itself is so broad and the question "should" is something that demands discussions rather than answers.
With that being said; my personal opinion within this discussion is that art should not be censored because art itself is not the tool which harms or offends groups of individuals. It feels answering this question because as I've said before, "art" is such a broad and diverse field. Is it the art that offends people or the artist?
Art should not be censored because it allows for many things; sharing cultures, personal expressions and so much more. However; like with Freedom of Speech.. I believe you can create whatever art you'd like and say whatever you like but must be able to face the consequences if your work is offensive. (Some ridiculous example in this thread is when someone wrote, [what if the art piece is of a child being raped])
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic beauty behind it. This does not.
Here's the thing, you can do all that and call it art if you'd like and it could just as well be. There has to be artistic intent behind it as well.
What makes you say that a picture of a pile of shit couldn't be considered art?
Because it takes no talent/skill whatsoever to concieve/make?
Art shouldnt be censored period,as long as it respects the law. The real question watching these pictures is: Should bad art and easy and meaningless provocation be seen and discussed?
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic beauty behind it. This does not.
Here's the thing, you can do all that and call it art if you'd like and it could just as well be. There has to be artistic intent behind it as well.
What makes you say that a picture of a pile of shit couldn't be considered art?
Because it takes no talent/skill whatsoever to concieve/make?
Gingrich is a catholic, Santorum is a catholic, seems like the catholic church is always in some shit lately.
BTW people need to stop using "offended" its getting ridiculous. Big deal you are offended, get over it. I personally am offended anyone takes Catholicism serious after the church sponsored child molestation scandals (this coming from someone raised in a catholic household and who went to caticism (sp))
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic talent behind it. This does not.
Well I think there's an important distinction between censorship of art because it's talentless garbage (is one dot on a huge piece of paper really art?) and censorship of art because it's offensive (drawings or photography of something disgusting or anti-religious or rape or murder, etc.).
They're two different discussions. Does your opinion on either one generalize to a law regarding everyone else's perspectives? I mean, in regards to both topics, maybe I just don't understand the artist's intentions. I have a weak stomach when I walk into a Ripley's Believe it or Not museum and see guys with metal poles stuck through their heads, but I wouldn't ask them to close it down because freak shows *aren't art*. I'd either just stay home or grow a pair.
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic beauty behind it. This does not.
Here's the thing, you can do all that and call it art if you'd like and it could just as well be. There has to be artistic intent behind it as well.
What makes you say that a picture of a pile of shit couldn't be considered art?
Because it takes no talent/skill whatsoever to concieve/make?
this doesnt require any skill to make.its still widly considered great art by many(including me). my definition of art makes me cringe everytime i hear some modern singer being referred as artists. then again,you cannot define art,so what do i know
On February 20 2012 12:17 Count9 wrote: What would everyone who's said that no art should ever be censored say to someone who made a gallery of photographs of nude children?
It's hard to say what's art, I think it can be and should be regulated but impossible to be done correctly.
On February 20 2012 12:19 arterian wrote: This isn't art. This is someone trying to be controversial and edgy.
I agree with both of you. I really believe it is hard to decide what is art, but I really don't think it comes from someone trying to make a scene by ruffling others' feathers by mocking their religion. If you are trying to make a statement, sometimes even the subtlest of hints send a powerful message. See: 14th Century European Literature.
Is federal prison censorship? I'm for open thought and expression, but what if someone wants to make erotic photography with children? What are we to consider censorship? I guess if it isn't a crime, than no, art should not be censored... but some always will anyway with our laws.
On February 20 2012 12:24 Sadist wrote: is catholicism making some huge come back lately?
Gingrich is a catholic, Santorum is a catholic, seems like the catholic church is always in some shit lately.
BTW people need to stop using "offended" its getting ridiculous. Big deal you are offended, get over it. I personally am offended anyone takes Catholicism serious after the church sponsored child molestation scandals (this coming from someone raised in a catholic household and who went to caticism (sp))
Because all Catholics are child molesters right? Oh, and also all blacks are criminals and all arabs are terrorists too.
On February 20 2012 12:17 Count9 wrote: What would everyone who's said that no art should ever be censored say to someone who made a gallery of photographs of nude children?
It's hard to say what's art, I think it can be and should be regulated but impossible to be done correctly.
In a broad sense, something involving self-expression is art. So child erotica can be art, and it should definitely be censored.
On February 20 2012 11:27 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Art is made to help people think. To censor art is to censor thought, inspiration, and emotion.
Couldn't have said it any better.
The problem is when it comes to defining what exactly the term art applies to, this "art" doesn't provoke any thoughts or inspire the mind. It's just intentionally inflammatory and mean-spirited.
Being offended is an emotional response though.
I would like to agree with therhox here. There is no right to censor art, but because this is "art", this must be likewise critique as "art". People like to give the explanation that art is some kind of sacred right of expression that cannot be tarnished and that any creation of art should not be questioned or tampered with. However, it is the complete opposite (imo). Because art is ultimately an expression of "thought, inspiration and emotion", it has the right to be viewed critically as such. Everyone is free to think and imagine what they please, but the second they express it for all to see, then they open themselves to judgement.
This person did just that and now he is subject to judgement by religious folk. From the perspective of the religious people, they have every right to be pissed. I don't think they get to choose if it is censored (unless in a church or other religious controlled location), but they have every right to respond to the art and say what they like. Art may be a monologue, but that doesn't mean a speech won't spark a dialogue.
From the artist community's perspective, they have to likewise consider the true intent of this art. It is their burden and duty to determine and critique to intention and quality of this person's art. They have to decide whether the expression is genuine and true, or if it simply tries to emulate and imitate art by means of social reaction. I haven't seen the images (not in a NSFW zone), but if they are indeed just pornography passed for "art", then I would discredit this artist and call him a provocative amateur. However, if the expression is something unique in a positive and THOUGHT provoking manner, then I would call him a genius, even if I don't agree with his topic matter.
I think too many of you are looking at this at the perspective of "I'm not religious/not practicing, I have no quarrels with the art provided", therefore, it is a simple matter that should immediately point to - do not censor. The OP stated something similar to this, where he stated that "art is the truth" or something like that. If that were true (I kinda agree that it is, in some cases), then art can also be a lie and intentionally deceiving.
I remeber hearing about this kind of topic except with child porn/nudity pics.....in those cases i have to say that cant be allowed, i wanna hear what the rest of TL thinks about this, becasue u must consider every part of it
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic talent behind it. This does not.
Well I think there's an important distinction between censorship of art because it's talentless garbage (is one dot on a huge piece of paper really art?) and censorship of art because it's offensive (drawings or photography of something disgusting or anti-religious or rape or murder, etc.).
They're two different discussions. Does your opinion on either one generalize to a law regarding everyone else's perspectives? I mean, in regards to both topics, maybe I just don't understand the artist's intentions. I have a weak stomach when I walk into a Ripley's Believe it or Not museum and see guys with metal poles stuck through their heads, but I wouldn't ask them to close it down because freak shows *aren't art*. I'd either just stay home or grow a pair.
No, no, you misunderstand. I don't think this exhibit should be censored, I just think it's talentless garbage by some people who want to call themselves artists. The best thing we can do it just not give it the time of day....which unfortuneately this thread is doing
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic beauty behind it. This does not.
Here's the thing, you can do all that and call it art if you'd like and it could just as well be. There has to be artistic intent behind it as well.
What makes you say that a picture of a pile of shit couldn't be considered art?
Because it takes no talent/skill whatsoever to concieve/make?
this doesnt require any skill to make.its still widly considered great art by many(including me). my definition of art makes me cringe everytime i hear some modern singer being referred as artists. then again,you cannot define art,so what do i know
Ehh. I'm sorry, I don't really consider that art. It's thought provoking sure, but art? meh.
The problem comes with different people's ideas of what is acceptable. I personally think his "art" is junk. I haven't even seen it. I don't have to. I've heard about it. However, I do think it would be a bad idea to begin censoring any still pieces. He can produce his "art" and those that want can view it. It should never be allowed in open public, though, I think, obviously.
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic talent behind it. This does not.
Well I think there's an important distinction between censorship of art because it's talentless garbage (is one dot on a huge piece of paper really art?) and censorship of art because it's offensive (drawings or photography of something disgusting or anti-religious or rape or murder, etc.).
They're two different discussions. Does your opinion on either one generalize to a law regarding everyone else's perspectives? I mean, in regards to both topics, maybe I just don't understand the artist's intentions. I have a weak stomach when I walk into a Ripley's Believe it or Not museum and see guys with metal poles stuck through their heads, but I wouldn't ask them to close it down because freak shows *aren't art*. I'd either just stay home or grow a pair.
No, no, you misunderstand. I don't think this exhibit should be censored, I just think it's talentless garbage by some people who want to call themselves artists. The best thing we can do it just not give it the time of day....which unfortuneately this thread is doing
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic beauty behind it. This does not.
Here's the thing, you can do all that and call it art if you'd like and it could just as well be. There has to be artistic intent behind it as well.
What makes you say that a picture of a pile of shit couldn't be considered art?
Because it takes no talent/skill whatsoever to concieve/make?
this doesnt require any skill to make.its still widly considered great art by many(including me). my definition of art makes me cringe everytime i hear some modern singer being referred as artists. then again,you cannot define art,so what do i know
Ehh. I'm sorry, I don't really consider that art. It's thought provoking sure, but art? meh.
Oh, I totally agree that the stuff that we actually consider to be trash we should just ignore, rather than censor hipster edginess or opinions. That way society can self-regulate what is the cream of the crop in terms of quality, and that low level nonsense will just fade away due to lack of popularity and funding. I'm fine with that
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic talent behind it. This does not.
Well I think there's an important distinction between censorship of art because it's talentless garbage (is one dot on a huge piece of paper really art?) and censorship of art because it's offensive (drawings or photography of something disgusting or anti-religious or rape or murder, etc.).
They're two different discussions. Does your opinion on either one generalize to a law regarding everyone else's perspectives? I mean, in regards to both topics, maybe I just don't understand the artist's intentions. I have a weak stomach when I walk into a Ripley's Believe it or Not museum and see guys with metal poles stuck through their heads, but I wouldn't ask them to close it down because freak shows *aren't art*. I'd either just stay home or grow a pair.
No, no, you misunderstand. I don't think this exhibit should be censored, I just think it's talentless garbage by some people who want to call themselves artists. The best thing we can do it just not give it the time of day....which unfortuneately this thread is doing
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic beauty behind it. This does not.
Here's the thing, you can do all that and call it art if you'd like and it could just as well be. There has to be artistic intent behind it as well.
What makes you say that a picture of a pile of shit couldn't be considered art?
Because it takes no talent/skill whatsoever to concieve/make?
this doesnt require any skill to make.its still widly considered great art by many(including me). my definition of art makes me cringe everytime i hear some modern singer being referred as artists. then again,you cannot define art,so what do i know
Ehh. I'm sorry, I don't really consider that art. It's thought provoking sure, but art? meh.
your first answer is exactly what im thinking,no censoring,just garbage anyway.
as for white paintings not being art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rauschenberg national medal of arts in the us just what i said,the very definition is subjective.a french philosopher(Marcel Mauss) said: a piece of art is,by definition,a piece recognized as such by a community.
On February 20 2012 12:44 OtoshimonoU wrote: If it's offensive it's a problem.
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.
On February 20 2012 11:37 Fealthas wrote: Art should not be censored. But that crap is not art. It's an aimed insult at the christian communities. People should be kinder . Either way I don't think it should be censored, but people should just ignore that artist. People have been insulting Christianity since roman times.
It is aimed at that community, but I wouldn't say pure insulting, more "social commentary".
On February 20 2012 11:27 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Art is made to help people think. To censor art is to censor thought, inspiration, and emotion.
Couldn't have said it any better.
The problem is when it comes to defining what exactly the term art applies to, this "art" doesn't provoke any thoughts or inspire the mind. It's just intentionally inflammatory and mean-spirited.
Connecting religious and sexual addiction is interesting, I would classify his pieces as art, very much has potential to be interpreted and commented upon about the relations.
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic talent behind it. This does not.
Well I think there's an important distinction between censorship of art because it's talentless garbage (is one dot on a huge piece of paper really art?) and censorship of art because it's offensive (drawings or photography of something disgusting or anti-religious or rape or murder, etc.).
They're two different discussions. Does your opinion on either one generalize to a law regarding everyone else's perspectives? I mean, in regards to both topics, maybe I just don't understand the artist's intentions. I have a weak stomach when I walk into a Ripley's Believe it or Not museum and see guys with metal poles stuck through their heads, but I wouldn't ask them to close it down because freak shows *aren't art*. I'd either just stay home or grow a pair.
No, no, you misunderstand. I don't think this exhibit should be censored, I just think it's talentless garbage by some people who want to call themselves artists. The best thing we can do it just not give it the time of day....which unfortuneately this thread is doing
On February 20 2012 12:26 clementdudu wrote:
On February 20 2012 12:19 1Eris1 wrote:
On February 20 2012 12:16 Snoman wrote:
On February 20 2012 12:14 1Eris1 wrote:
On February 20 2012 12:09 LoLAdriankat wrote:
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic beauty behind it. This does not.
Here's the thing, you can do all that and call it art if you'd like and it could just as well be. There has to be artistic intent behind it as well.
What makes you say that a picture of a pile of shit couldn't be considered art?
Because it takes no talent/skill whatsoever to concieve/make?
this doesnt require any skill to make.its still widly considered great art by many(including me). my definition of art makes me cringe everytime i hear some modern singer being referred as artists. then again,you cannot define art,so what do i know
Ehh. I'm sorry, I don't really consider that art. It's thought provoking sure, but art? meh.
your first answer is exactly what im thinking,no censoring,just garbage anyway.
as for white paintings not being art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rauschenberg national medal of arts in the us just what i said,the very definition is subjective.a french philosopher(Marcel Mauss) said: a piece of art is,by definition,a piece recognized as such by a community.
Oh that was a painting? I honestly thought it was a photograph. (didn't even look at link's title >.<). In that case I'd probably say something different.
edit: nvm, was trying to say something but I just can't articulate it right tonight
I don't think anything should be censored, but I do think that societies have the right (and responsibility) to say what is or is not art. And, even if something is art, we can pass judgement on its value and choose to ignore it.
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic talent behind it. This does not.
Well I think there's an important distinction between censorship of art because it's talentless garbage (is one dot on a huge piece of paper really art?) and censorship of art because it's offensive (drawings or photography of something disgusting or anti-religious or rape or murder, etc.).
They're two different discussions. Does your opinion on either one generalize to a law regarding everyone else's perspectives? I mean, in regards to both topics, maybe I just don't understand the artist's intentions. I have a weak stomach when I walk into a Ripley's Believe it or Not museum and see guys with metal poles stuck through their heads, but I wouldn't ask them to close it down because freak shows *aren't art*. I'd either just stay home or grow a pair.
No, no, you misunderstand. I don't think this exhibit should be censored, I just think it's talentless garbage by some people who want to call themselves artists. The best thing we can do it just not give it the time of day....which unfortuneately this thread is doing
On February 20 2012 12:26 clementdudu wrote:
On February 20 2012 12:19 1Eris1 wrote:
On February 20 2012 12:16 Snoman wrote:
On February 20 2012 12:14 1Eris1 wrote:
On February 20 2012 12:09 LoLAdriankat wrote:
On February 20 2012 11:58 askTeivospy wrote: Censoring "art" is stupid, but I'd like to point out that drawing things/making photos for the sake of riling people up and controversy is not art in the first place, its being a talentless hack trying to get noticed by being controversial. If you took out all the controversy from the pictures in that link in the OP what do you have? I mean the only emotion I feel is "why would you make this?"
While I'm not a fan of purposely provocative art, most people would argue that the purpose of art is to inspire emotion and thought within the viewer and performances like Carolee Schneemann's Interior Scroll does just that, even if it is vulgar and provocative.
I'm sorry, I've never really bought this arguement. I can take a shit, take a picture of it, post it on the web, and when people are disgusted I can call it art because it inspires emotion?
Art should have some basic beauty behind it. This does not.
Here's the thing, you can do all that and call it art if you'd like and it could just as well be. There has to be artistic intent behind it as well.
What makes you say that a picture of a pile of shit couldn't be considered art?
Because it takes no talent/skill whatsoever to concieve/make?
this doesnt require any skill to make.its still widly considered great art by many(including me). my definition of art makes me cringe everytime i hear some modern singer being referred as artists. then again,you cannot define art,so what do i know
Ehh. I'm sorry, I don't really consider that art. It's thought provoking sure, but art? meh.
your first answer is exactly what im thinking,no censoring,just garbage anyway.
as for white paintings not being art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rauschenberg national medal of arts in the us just what i said,the very definition is subjective.a french philosopher(Marcel Mauss) said: a piece of art is,by definition,a piece recognized as such by a community.
Oh that was a painting? I honestly thought it was a photograph. (didn't even look at link's title >.<). In that case I'd probably say something different.
and now were getting into the major art vs minor art.do you think a monochromatic painting is better than a monochromatic photograph? sorry for derailing the thread,this is just so interesting to read peoples opinions on the subject(i myself consider some arts major)
Only an idiot would say we should censor art, but I can see a line where anal sex with a 3 year old or 5 black men having their dicks ripped over by dogs while white men in hoods laugh could be censored...
Sorry for the crude examples, but I mean when I think crude I think that* and I think that shouldn't be allowed.
Those pictures are pretty stupid, I wonder how some people can make ridiculous things in the name of "art".
Anyways, for those that are saying art should "never" be censored, that is because the art presented doesn't really offend you at the moment. What happens if it's something taboo (e.g. child porn, holocaust depictions, etc)? Would you be the same person claiming that art shouldn't be censored?
The story behind it is Bill Henson who got underage children to pose nude (with parental consent) in the name of art. He was even criminally investigated, but he still continues to operate.
That's absurd you can't regulate art, that's someones emotions, thoughts, and personality. If you were to censor it it would stop being art and become something else. It's basically like censoring the first amendment, but seeing how this isn't a story that is in the US those don't really apply.
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.
obviously some things have to be censored, especially when it comes to minors being in the "art" but censoring because it isn't religiously correct or politically correct shouldnt imo.
I dont know. But every time this subject comes up, i remember a show i watched on history channel about a guy who made meat loafs with his own fat and served to his friends. According to him, it was art.
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.
I really didn't want to post more than that one sentence, simply because it was short simple and to the point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'm not typically the person to throw religion around in my arguments; I'm not even part of a "formal" religion. But the human body is one of God's works of art, and has been subject to artful expression for the entire history of humanity. If we've really reached the point in society where censorship of our bodies is necessary, then we really have no fucking hope as a race.
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.
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):
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.
it's totally fine when it's about religion but what if i were to draw similarities and pictures of your mother, sister or people who resemble your family in obscene sexual and compromising positions? or things you truly value and believe in? 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
"Art" is nearly undefineable. It's a personal viewpoint that people can only judge for themselves. I think that anything legal that someone wants to call art should be called art.
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.
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".
On February 20 2012 12:44 OtoshimonoU wrote: If it's offensive it's a problem.
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.
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.
No. Art of every kind should not be censored unless somebody involved in the art is being directly injured against their will (as people have mentioned rape, violence etc.). It goes against the entire premise of artistic expression.
"Art" is nearly undefineable. It's a personal viewpoint that people can only judge for themselves. I think that anything legal that someone wants to call art should be called art.
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.
You state that anything legal can be called art by someone who wants to call it art, but I disagree with your thought process. Under your logic, if child pornography was legalized, you could call it art and it would be art. If terrorist bombings were legal, then you could call it art and it would be art. Under your views, everything is Art, and thus the term Art is meaningless.
Furthermore, who are we to decide legality? The assumption that only if something is legal (or harms another person, as previous posters have postulated) can it be considered art is not reasonable at all, as we have no perfect standard by which to determine whether something is truly wrong or not. All we have is human thoughts and human's are deeply flawed beings.
The only permissible works of art should be those that express the thoughts that, at best, the community, or at worst, the community of censors finds acceptable.
That seems to be the criteria that pro-censorship persons seem to wish to apply.
Given the arbitrary and self-centered nature of such desires, I'm going to side on the side of freedom of speech here. All speech should be free - not just speech I agree with.
art absolutely shouldn't be censored, especially in the name of some church. there's a pretty simple solution for this... if you don't like a certain piece of art, don't look at it.
Not unless it violates the rights of others. If you have art created by burning down churches or assaulting people, then yes, it should be stopped/censored and the "artist" should go to prison. If it offends someone, nope.
Of course this only applies to governments. If an art gallery or museum doesn't want to show something, they don't have to. It's the same logic behind TV personalities losing their jobs because of stupid things they said.
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.
Yes, but assuming your country has a proper legal system rooted in say a constitution, the types of censorship that are possible aren't really numerous. Freedom of speech for example would basically void any attempt at censorship due to peoples' religious sensibilities and no law could really be passed otherwise unless the constitution was amended.
On February 20 2012 12:27 ReturnStroke wrote: Is federal prison censorship? I'm for open thought and expression, but what if someone wants to make erotic photography with children? What are we to consider censorship? I guess if it isn't a crime, than no, art should not be censored... but some always will anyway with our laws.
That would clearly be illegal because the "art" would be a violation of those children's rights since they cannot legally consent. If you wanted to make those photos with consenting adults it would be completely fine. If those adults were not consenting, it would be just as illegal as it was with those unconsenting children. I have the right to free speech, but I cannot knowingly slander you.
I believe the saying goes something like "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
I actually feel some art must be censored, though I believe this is fine(I don't think of this as art, I would think people do, and who am I to say what is art and what isn't?) However if I strip naked and stand still in the middle of New York City and call it art, do the police have any right to censor me? I'm not harming anyone, as people could look away, so thus is it a violation of free speech that we have laws against public indecency?
On February 20 2012 14:53 Funguuuuu wrote: I actually feel some art must be censored, though I believe this is fine(I don't think of this as art, I would think people do, and who am I to say what is art and what isn't?) However if I strip naked and stand still in the middle of New York City and call it art, do the police have any right to censor me? I'm not harming anyone, as people could look away, so thus is it a violation of free speech that we have laws against public indecency?
As stated above this falls under the category of violating other laws already in place, I think that people gave the example of rape, violence, murder etc. I think that the example that you gave about the person being naked in the middle of the city is similar to the examples given before.
On February 20 2012 14:53 Funguuuuu wrote: I actually feel some art must be censored, though I believe this is fine(I don't think of this as art, I would think people do, and who am I to say what is art and what isn't?) However if I strip naked and stand still in the middle of New York City and call it art, do the police have any right to censor me? I'm not harming anyone, as people could look away, so thus is it a violation of free speech that we have laws against public indecency?
As stated above this falls under the category of violating other laws already in place, I think that people gave the example of rape, violence, murder etc. I think that the example that you gave about the person being naked in the middle of the city is similar to the examples given before.
Good point, but does that mean if all paint is outlawed, all future paintings are not art? Art is, by its very nature, very very very hard to define, so how does one decide if legality (or whether something is harming another person) changes something from art to nonart?
On February 20 2012 12:44 OtoshimonoU wrote: If it's offensive it's a problem.
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.
You missed my point- that was sarcasm. Offending someone isn't breaking the law. Unless a piece of art is somehow breaking the law, there's really no reason for it to be banned. If the only argument is "That piece of art offends my personal opinions, so therefore it should be censored", then the proper response is "Well excuse me, Mister or Madam X, but you need to grow a pair and get over it, or just ignore the piece of art."
No. Never, for any reason. Nothing should be censored. If you don't like it, censor it for yourself by not looking. Reality is reality. Don't like it? Don't look.
I don't think it should be censored as art is just a form of expression. However, you should keep in mind the audience and who is viewing your art. I don't think 8 year olds should be seeing the art in Obscenity.
Of course there are things that are considered immoral in specific cultures which should also be kept in mind, such as child pornography and such. The artist should be wary of these culturally accepted immoralities.
Unless it breaks obscenity laws, it should be okay. That said, this guy's 'work' seems pretty unoriginal and trite. I don't think he's contributing much to society, just a shock artist trying to get some publicity. I don't want to start a debate on the definition of art, but I believe it's role is to positively impact society, and that can be done in many ways, but I don't know how this exhibit does that. Just empty, pure shock/controversy.
On February 20 2012 11:31 p4NDemik wrote: Beware, the exhibit is very NSFW. Plenty of nudity, depictions of women in habits with the host covering their nipples, men in the cassock with what looks to be semen on their faces, erect penises, etc. Don't follow this link if you aren't prepared/are currently in a public setting.
As a kid raised as a Catholic I can definitely see why this is causing an uproar. I'm not really practicing and as such it doesn't really offend me though; carry on I say.
I looked at each picture for about 20 seconds and read into their meaning or messages. I can safely say that the first picture is how a girl would become desperate for money, thus showing her body and abusing the needs of men in order to get money
Close minded people need to simply divert their eyes. This is an artistic commentary on religion. It is blatently obvious that religious people are going to find it obscene and want to ban it. Just like birth control, sun-centered astronomy, and everything else logical and contrary to their archaic belief system.
On February 20 2012 14:53 Funguuuuu wrote: I actually feel some art must be censored, though I believe this is fine(I don't think of this as art, I would think people do, and who am I to say what is art and what isn't?) However if I strip naked and stand still in the middle of New York City and call it art, do the police have any right to censor me? I'm not harming anyone, as people could look away, so thus is it a violation of free speech that we have laws against public indecency?
There's a reason for public nudity laws - being nude in public is forcing your nudity onto people in public. The only way that they can avoid being offended by it is to avoid certain places in public, whereas this is not the case with art. Art can be confined to galleries/the internet/videos/etc, which no one is required to go to. If you are nude out in the middle of the street and someone is offended by it, it hinders and inconveniences their life to go out of the way to avoid you.
I don't think the government should get involved in censorship simply because it is so impossible to determine what exactly is obscene enough to censor. I'm reminded of that Senate hearing on the evils of metal music with Dee Snider's brilliant defence.
Having said that, I don't think something is art simply because it's controversial. It's perfectly possible to pass off completely obscene crap and the creator is just an unimaginative hack trying to make a name for themselves by being 'edgy'. Those sorts of individuals deserve our scorn.
Furthermore, I do think there's something to be said about self-restraint. I've always liked what Orson Scott Card had to say on censorship:
Of course, the boundaries of taste are drawn in different places for different people. Things that offend me might not offend you, or vice versa.
That's why the idea of government meddling in censorship is so bad -- from the first moment, the censors always go straight for things whose "evil" is visible only to them, while ignoring the things that are truly awful. The trouble is that when there is no self-restraint, governments eventually get involved.
If smokers, for instance, had merely been courteous and kind to others, there would be no anti-smoking laws. It was the shameless rudeness of smokers that led to them being fenced around with law, and I have no pity for them. Likewise, if we get government censorship it will be wholly because of the irresponsibility of storytellers who cared not a whit for the effect their work might have on the community they live in. They have fouled the nest; if they don't clean it up themselves, they probably aren't going to like it when somebody else cleans it up for them.
I hate censorship; but I hate having to raise my children in the culture these irresponsible people have created and are creating for us. When the balance tips, it will tip hard and far, and I personally resent the all-or-nothing crew who, by adamantly rejecting all self-restraint and celebrating the most vile stuff as "edgy" and admirable, will someday provoke the puritan backlash that will clean my slate along with theirs.
They'll whine about the censors, but I'll know that it was their own excesses that led society to prefer the censors to them. The only consolation is that the public can only stand censorship for a little while. Within a generation, the theaters reopened in England; the people of Iran are already wishing for more freedom. But wouldn't it be better to use good taste and a sense of decency and public responsibility to keep the censorship from ever seeming necessary?
nothing should be censored, the government is trying to take that shit away form you, don't buy in, without civil liberties being safe means nothing, especially when the danger is falsified.
+1 to the art should not be censored except in the case where it's creation involved real harm to someone (e.g. sexual abuse of a minor, rape, violence, etc) crowd.
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.
I think what most people ignore in the discussion is the intention with which it was created. However that is absolutely crucial to answer the question imho.
Even if an artwork visualizes rape or death, it might be offensive to some, but it isshould be legal in general. Naturally such a picture should invoke shock, anger and hatred. But if it glorifies the act and shows it as something positive and expects to create positive emotions for some viewers even though it is about a grave subject, then this should be forbidden. A picture of a rape situation (of course not showing children in pornographic acts) with the text "take that bitch" (just noticed: even here it is unclear if it is cynic, howver it it is made public, there should be context) is something different as if there was the slogan "every xx minutes, somewhere on earth".
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 some several albums on met-art illegal - especially since our law has been changed that it is illegal if the actors _seem to be_ younger than 18 and not only if they are. Totally ridiculous imho.
It's a tough subject. Cause you can lable anything as art these days. There was some article not too long ago about something like this, but it was like..borderline pedohila, but hey, it's "Art" so it wasn't so bad..
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.
People nowadays think that they can draw shit and anything and call it art and its innoculated from the rest of humanity. 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.
Hmmm. What if it's of a child getting raped or something like that?
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.
Filthy totalitarianist will always be around. Even TL has its fair share of them.
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.
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
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?
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).
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?
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).
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.
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.
Art is much akin to freedom of speech. It is either absolute, or it does not exist.
To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist.
You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom!?
Art is a form of communication and as every communication it happens in a context. Communication can be harmful. It is not at all clear that every form of communication should be allowed in any context. Instead there are good grounds to forbid certain forms of communications with regard to the content and/or the context, especially if it threatens to harm another public or private good. So the question is: Do certain interest groups have a right to "monopolize" the use of particular symbols and/or ceremonies or at least control the context of their display given that these have a very large significance for said group?
You can certainly take a strong stance on this issue, but it is a meaningful discussion to have.
"Art" is nearly undefineable. It's a personal viewpoint that people can only judge for themselves. I think that anything legal that someone wants to call art should be called art.
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.
You state that anything legal can be called art by someone who wants to call it art, but I disagree with your thought process. Under your logic, if child pornography was legalized, you could call it art and it would be art. If terrorist bombings were legal, then you could call it art and it would be art. Under your views, everything is Art, and thus the term Art is meaningless.
I meant that it's hard to nail down a precise definition, not that it has no definition. I think we can all agree that art is when someone creates something for the purpose of being viewed/heard/etc in order to evoke the senses and emotions of the viewer.
Yes, that is a loose definition, but that's just how it works. You can't state what does or doesn't count as art in other people's eyes.
maybe people don't want their kids to see it... in which case fine. i kinda side with the people who think childhood should be innocent, oblivious and naive... or as close as you can get to that while watching TV, movies and playing video games.
but censored from adults... why? it's the same as making stupid arguments like "the mona lisa is fat and ugly, please someone censor her face." or "as an athiest i take offense in da vinci's the last supper painting... please censor jesus."
On February 20 2012 17:47 zalz wrote: Art is much akin to freedom of speech. It is either absolute, or it does not exist.
To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist.
You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom!
Absolute freedom OF SPEECH. You are free to express whatever you want. You are not free to invade people's privacy or do other things to harm them.
However, I do agree with your point "It is either absolute, or it does not exist" is wrong... he should have said "virtually absolute". You know, since you're not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you're not free to lie to a jury under oath, etc.
Can you imagine a gallery with buddhists with erections and gay hindus with semen on their faces? No one would care or notice, since it doesn't resonate with anything we know about hindu or buddhist beliefs.
The only reason this gallery is visible is because of the catholic churches history of oppresion of sexuality and of sexual minorities. We should be outraged at the catholic churches hypocrisy and bigotry, that is the whole point of the gallery. The fact that the bigots are trying to ban it only makes the case more clearly that the images are relevant to what the catholic policy is in the world.
Discussing if this is art is missing the point. And criticising it because "offends" is just sweeping under the rug the grave offences to human dignity that the catholic church is guilty of. No one got hurt when making this gallery, can the same be said of the catholic churches actions?
On February 20 2012 17:47 zalz wrote: Art is much akin to freedom of speech. It is either absolute, or it does not exist.
To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist.
You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom!
Absolute freedom OF SPEECH. You are free to express whatever you want. You are not free to invade people's privacy or do other things to harm them.
I answered to a post that seemed to argue for both: absolute freedom of speech and absolute freedom of arts. I wonder what coherent definition of arts you might give that rule out displays of the above form. Further, what do you mean by "SPEECH" (in all caps)? Hopefully not that only oral expressions of opinion are protected!? You are NOT free to express whatever you want and you should not be. Your rights and freedoms end where the rights and freedoms of another person are violated. So any discussion about topics like these always boil down to: what rights and freedoms is one "supposed" to have.
I'm against any form of censure of Art, even it chocks to me. If i don't like, i just don't watch.
By the way, in public places (Adds on streets for exemple), we have to remember that there are children in there, and some very explicit sexual adds or violence shouldn't be visible. I don't think it's censure, just childhood protection.
For the picture from the OP, I doubt a 10 years old child can get anything about we are all getting now from this pic. It's just a woman, the "sexy" clichés are just adult males ones.
No reason at all to ban it in a democracy (in our case, in a democratic and catholic kingdom).
Art should not be censored since it is, by its very nature, creative. Its supposed to be a form of expression. That said, who should be able to see certain kinds of art should be regulated. I do not want children to see art similar to this. I must say, though, I definitely do not consider this art. It is disgusting and insulting to a lot of people. Also, he sounds like an idiot. "...most holy convergence of the sacred and the profane." HA! I wonder what he was smoking when he said that? We shouldn't censor art, but we should be able to call you out on being a fucktard if you try to make this fit under the ultimate umbrella term, art.
I find that, especially in this guy's case, there's a difference between art that is "loud" and art that is clear, concise, and convincing. I'm all for the latter personally, as the former, (again in this case especially) seems like it's aimed to get people fighting rather than making any sort of social reform/commentary. (ie. less effective)
I don't see anything wrong with this stuff. It's just really lame, pompous, and absurdly generic shit art. It's not like it's on a billboard in Times Square. This dude should be able to show his crap anywhere that allows it, which he rightfully is.
On February 20 2012 21:59 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Art should not be censored since it is, by its very nature, creative. Its supposed to be a form of expression. That said, who should be able to see certain kinds of art should be regulated. I do not want children to see art similar to this. I must say, though, I definitely do not consider this art. It is disgusting and insulting to a lot of people. Also, he sounds like an idiot. "...most holy convergence of the sacred and the profane." HA! I wonder what he was smoking when he said that? We shouldn't censor art, but we should be able to call you out on being a fucktard if you try to make this fit under the ultimate umbrella term, art.
Your time would be better spent calling out the catholic church for preaching hatred, discrimination and for protecting child rapists. Doesn't that pale in comparison to the accusations you bring to the guy that made this gallery? Why is it you choose to remain silent on catholic crimes, when these are clearly the subject of the gallery?
of course not. Are you kidding me? Don't like it, don't watch it, don't support the artist or even campaign against him. But to have government involved and censor art, that would be a tragedy! They've already done bad enough!
I am amazed by the "lazy thinking" mencioned by MiraMax in this thread. People tend to be ignorant towards Art replying that its "about freedom of speech and if i dont like it i dont watch it". Art is a form of expression where the word "new" should be implied, to show new things and real expressions, not to preach. You all may be aware of the pieces "Piss Christ" that is just a glass with artist piss on it with a crucifix inside and another piece, a can with literally shit in it, saying on the outside "Artist's shit". Now lets take some steps back and take a look at some paintings of Francis Bacon, Mark Rothko, Mondrian and even Paul Klee. DO you see whats wrong? Can you realize now the difference between Art and a Curator? Speaking of curator, hell i will not say that what Banksy does is wrong, i even like his technique but is he really showing something new? Criticizing society is a innovative form of Art? Anyway, the wrong thing with Art now days it's only based on the peoples minds due to the lack of judge in deciding what is Art, and not. And this is why you end up having in expo's awful and meaningless pieces, that surely each piece will not help you how to think. And yes, some Art should be censored because its an insult to people like Picasso, Monet, Gaudi etc...
I haven't read all 9 pages, only went through the first few and skimmed the rest, so sorry if this has been mentioned. edit: actually: + Show Spoiler +
On February 20 2012 21:41 Doctorasul wrote: Discussing if this is art is missing the point.
On February 20 2012 11:28 FliedLice wrote: As long as it doesn't break any laws [...] I don't see why.
On February 20 2012 12:00 Flanlord wrote:I'm not someone who believes that art is somehow more sacred than anything else and needs to be protected from censorship, I'm just against censorship in general.
On February 20 2012 15:17 0neder wrote: Unless it breaks obscenity laws, it should be okay..
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
On February 20 2012 18:59 Acrofales wrote: Art is not a reason to do stuff that's illegal..
Labelling something as art should not save it from being censored. Art should go by same rules as everything else. If it is not allowed to print and distribute newspaper with photoshopped pictures of Leonardo di Caprio molesting children (I'm pretty sure that is not allowed right?), then it should not be allowed to frame and distribute the very same pictures even if they are labelled and recognised as art. Very easy, intuitive, and you avoid this entire discussion of what is art and what isn't (that doesn't make any sense anyway).
I really don't see how you can argue for any other standpoint...
In this specific case with this exhibition I have no idea, I don't know what the spanish laws on this are, but the fact that it is labelled art shouldn't make a difference. My opinion on this example is that religious people, just like art people, should not be granted any rights that other people don't have. So depicting religious people in pornographic contexts shouldn't, imo, be considered any worse that for example depicting communists, democrats, dentists or farmers in similar settings. But point is, a cheap porn producer should have the same rights as a recognised artist in producing and distributing this kind of things.
well the problem with no censorship is, do we allow art of child porn? to make an extreme example, it has to be regulated somehow, just it cant come to this stupid over PC regulation. A nun in a bra? thats fine, something like anything illegal cant be art? i dunno how you would phrase/word it, but there MUST be a limit somewhere
On February 20 2012 23:21 L3g3nd_ wrote: well the problem with no censorship is, do we allow art of child porn? to make an extreme example, it has to be regulated somehow, just it cant come to this stupid over PC regulation. A nun in a bra? thats fine, something like anything illegal cant be art? i dunno how you would phrase/word it, but there MUST be a limit somewhere
Isn't child pornography illegal to begin with ? Aren't illegal things ... i don't know ... illegal ? If you take or show photos of children being molested you have a lot more to worry about than your " art " being censored ... And if it's a drawing / painting i'm pretty sure you can't show that either.
On topic : I don't think this hurts anybody, so why would it be censored ? I mean, the worst this guy can do is offend a few people who will watch his so called " art " , and nobody is forcing them to watch that if they don't want to.
On February 20 2012 23:21 L3g3nd_ wrote: well the problem with no censorship is, do we allow art of child porn? to make an extreme example, it has to be regulated somehow, just it cant come to this stupid over PC regulation. A nun in a bra? thats fine, something like anything illegal cant be art? i dunno how you would phrase/word it, but there MUST be a limit somewhere
Isn't child pornography illegal to begin with ? Aren't illegal things ... i don't know ... illegal ? If you take or show photos of children being molested you have a lot more to worry about than your " art " being censored ... And if it's a drawing / painting i'm pretty sure you can't show that either.
On topic : I don't think this hurts anybody, so why would it be censored ? I mean, the worst this guy can do is offend a few people who will watch his so called " art " , and nobody is forcing them to watch that if they don't want to.
To be fair, painting it won't hurt anybody either. Showing anybody a picture, whether it is depicting an act or event that you absolutely do not agree with, should not hurt them unless it is so shocking that it litterally psychologically traumatizes them. The way in which art is created is what could be deemed against the law, and if that's destructive behaviour it SHOULD be punished.
For the record, I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST the creation of child pornography, and I'm all for keeping it away from the younger audiences just like boobs.
On February 20 2012 21:16 MiraMax wrote: To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist.
An accusation of lazy thinking, which you follow up with a most contrived argument that is build almost entirely on a scenario akin to a ticking-time bomb scenario (aka so far removed from reality that it never occurs, a cheap shot tactic at best).
But you seem to attack freedom of speech, democracy and the freedom of the arts. I should be embarassed if I don't refute such totalitarian ideals.
You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom!?
Nobody spoke of absolute freedom, this is something you have conjured up entirely on your own. You may go back and re-read what I said, never do I claim that absolute freedom is a good idea. Please refrain from argueing against points that I never even mention supporting. Stick purely to what I actually say, do not conjure up things that you 'perceive' in between the lines.
In this case, your art would be the product of a crime, the creation of child porn. You cannot violate a law in order to create a work of art.
For example, you cannot slit a persons throat and film it, because then you have committed murder. Publishing the art after the fact is also not permitted, even if done by a third party. You cannot profit directly off your own crimes. Third parties cannot release the creation because it was not created with consent of the people in question.
Your complaint could be valid in a situation where absolute freedom is present or advocated, but neither is the case. Your argument is build on sand.
Art is a form of communication and as every communication it happens in a context. Communication can be harmful. It is not at all clear that every form of communication should be allowed in any context. Instead there are good grounds to forbid certain forms of communications with regard to the content and/or the context, especially if it threatens to harm another public or private good. So the question is: Do certain interest groups have a right to "monopolize" the use of particular symbols and/or ceremonies or at least control the context of their display given that these have a very large significance for said group?
"Harm another public or private good," again, you speak in totalitarian terms. One vague law and an entire foundation of freedom is obliterated.
What if a muslim considers his private good to be harmed by women complaining about the veil?
What if a homosexual considers his private good to be harmed by his inability to marry?
Eventually you need to pick sides on this. Where do you come down? Do you side with muslims? Do you side with women? Who do you silence, who needs to suck it up?
It is impossible to create a society in which nobody is offended. To suggest that offense is a proper way to judge the course that needs to be taken is simply put, insanity.
Like I said before, gay marriage, do you offend the religious? Do you offend the gays? Which sides emotions are more important? Why do I, as a supporter of gay rights, have to be offended, whilst muslims and christians get to have their feelings protected?
Why can't we have a proper discussion, the market place of ideas, and come to a conclusion what is best, what is most moral, what is the right course of action?
Why do you feel the need to storm in and dictate, in totalitarian fashion, that one group needs to keep their opinion to themselves, whilst another is allowed freedom of speech?
You are either against democracy, or you are not fully aware of the full extent of creating laws that protect people from being offended. To create laws that prevent people (to be more accurate, certain groups) from being offended means to abolish democracy and freedom of speech. It is utterly impossible to maintain either of those if you start to create laws that are based on preventing offense.
It might be totalitarianism with a smilly face, but it is totalitarianism no less.
You can certainly take a strong stance on this issue, but it is a meaningful discussion to have.
Who said that there can be no discussion? Once again, please refrain from argueing against the imaginary persona that you have created around me. Stick to things I actually say. It will prevent a great deal of confusion.
I have argued that discussion should be the norm. You have argued that certain discussions (or discussion starters, like this art display) need to be silenced because they cause offense. I will not permit you to wear the cloak of freedom and democracy whilst you attempt to stab both in the heart.
I don't think art should be censored, but there are lines that artists shouldn't cross. The picture above serves no purpose other than to draw attention to the artist - who it said has drawn other controversial things. All it does is offend the people it is targeting and serves no purpose past that.
On February 21 2012 01:53 FoeHamr wrote: I don't think art should be censored, but there are lines that artists shouldn't cross. The picture above serves no purpose other than to draw attention to the artist - who it said has drawn other controversial things. All it does is offend the people it is targeting.
Can we have a little honesty in this topic?
If you want to support censorship, that is fine. You can have that opinion (isn't that nice?).
But please, stop saying two things that contradict each other.
"I am not against abortion, but I don't think women should be allowed to have one."
"I don't think art should be censored, but - " = pro-censorship.
Again, if you want to be pro-censorship, be pro-censorship. All I ask is that you are honest about it.
I know, you don't want to come out and say that you are pro-censorship. Censorship is bad word, we don't like to attach bad words to ourselves. But when the shoe fits, wear the shoe.
Now, you are pro-censorship. You can either embrace this, or you can change your position. If you have trouble being on the pro-censorship end of the spectrum, change your position. If you like it there, be honest about it.
Freedom of speech (and in this case art) does not exist to protect art that everyone finds perfectly acceptable. Freedom of art does not exist to protect the Mona Lisa. It exists for the sole purpose of defending the art that needs protection from the masses that would silence it.
You don't need freedom of speech to praise the government, you need it to be critical of the government.
These kind of pictures can't be censored, they aren't breaking any laws. But I don't see how they're art, or how they reference any latent sexually in catholicism, or engage the viewer in any thoughtful manner. The "art" appears controversial for the sake of being controversial, if I were a curator I certainly wouldn't have it in my exhibit. And, as someone who appreciates art, I wouldn't give these pictures a thought in the world, if I want to see porn, i'll see porn; if I want to see art, i'll look somewhere else and hopefully this "artist" doesn't get any credit for his utterly boring and almost desperate work.
On February 20 2012 11:54 couches wrote: I can't stand religious groups that try to ban art that goes against their point of view. Not everybody supports their point of view.
I like to think that art that's intentionally blasphemous is just revenge for all the religious groups that persecute people of different opinoins/beliefs.
It's part of why I make my music the way I do. If anybody were to come and tell me it offends them, my response is "then be offended, not my problem."
Two wrongs don't make a right. If indeed you are being persecuted by these religious groups for whatever reason, you shouldn't sink to their level. Instead be the better human being and choose to not retaliate.
Being nice and cordial never got anybodies attention. Why do you think these pictures are being talked about.
On February 21 2012 02:03 KimJongChill wrote: Nothing should be censored unless it violates the rights of someone else.
Basically this, the pictures in the OP should not even be close to being censored. I kinda liked some of them. That obviously doesn't mean anything goes just as long as considers itself to be art..
Yawn. Shock art is boring. It should be allowed of course, as this is the Internet where free speech reigns supreme. I don't really see what the fuss is about, though. Artists have been doing this shock stuff for awhile now.
But honestly, art should be about craft and mastery. Shock value is cheap.
I'm confident that virtually anything can be seen as art if you put in even a modicum of effort.
But I would support this, just because it breaks through the negative perceptions of sexuality in the catholic church. There should come a time where a man openly masturbating in a photo isn't considered shocking, so anything that gets society used to what should be considered natural is good to me.
It would also be fun to go to an art gallery and hear to the comments people make :D. I wonder if someone has made any crazy artistic explanations involving postmodernism of a masturbating priest.
On February 21 2012 01:46 zalz wrote: Nobody spoke of absolute freedom, this is something you have conjured up entirely on your own. You may go back and re-read what I said, never do I claim that absolute freedom is a good idea. Please refrain from argueing against points that I never even mention supporting. Stick purely to what I actually say, do not conjure up things that you 'perceive' in between the lines.
In this case, your art would be the product of a crime, the creation of child porn. You cannot violate a law in order to create a work of art.
For example, you cannot slit a persons throat and film it, because then you have committed murder. Publishing the art after the fact is also not permitted, even if done by a third party. You cannot profit directly off your own crimes. Third parties cannot release the creation because it was not created with consent of the people in question.
You did in fact claim some freedom to art is absolute, "much akin to freedom of speech," (which itself is a misnomer; freedom of speech is not absolute). Then you proceed to pick out arbitrary restrictions on what are can be published. In your example, why can third parties not publish the result? Certainly, the artist should be punished, but his art could still go uncensored? "Third parties cannot release the creation because it was not created with consent of the people in question." So, this is the condition for censorship? The subject matter of a work of art must give consent? (I don't actually think that is true at all) If this is the practice you've still given no reasons as to what distinguishes a Picasso from a snuff film in terms of publication or censorship, you've just stated the law. How can we discuss whether or not the practice is just? Additionally, your example is less apt than MiraMax's. Miramax has given a case where there is something questionable, if not clearly immoral or criminal, in viewing the art and where the art poses threat of harm to someone. Your case is just an insult to the deceased.
In any case, you haven't argued against MiraMax, but unwittingly conceded his point.
"Harm another public or private good," again, you speak in totalitarian terms. One vague law and an entire foundation of freedom is obliterated.
I'm not terribly familiar with legal theory, but I believe harm is the basis for determining the limits of freedoms, at least in US legal tradition.
Fuck the church, they have absolutely no business in politics, especially telling people what they can and can not look at. Like has been said, censorship is a perversion of the rights of government... just because it offends someone doesn't mean NO ONE should be able to see it.
As long as we have free speech and freedom of expression, it should be protected. However, I don't consider these people attacking religion to be anything special, let alone brave, until they start mocking all religions, including Islam. Honestly, I don't think they have the courage.
On February 21 2012 03:12 Kaitlin wrote: As long as we have free speech and freedom of expression, it should be protected. However, I don't consider these people attacking religion to be anything special, let alone brave, until they start mocking all religions, including Islam. Honestly, I don't think they have the courage.
In a way, Islam has already managed to push through censorship.
They rely on the insane few to do the dirty work (murdering artists and free speech advocates) and then the moderates go:
"Yes well, we shouldn't go around killing people, BUT, he was kind of asking for it."
I agree that a similar art display with an islam theme would result in the artist in question to be forced into hiding.
To that point I concede that this artist is somewhat of a coward for attacking the kid that doesn't really fight back. If he had done the artwork on Islam then he would have made a stronger point about pushing the boundaries of free speech.
But I suppose even artists would prefer to be able to move around without an army of security guards.
On February 20 2012 21:59 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Art should not be censored since it is, by its very nature, creative. Its supposed to be a form of expression. That said, who should be able to see certain kinds of art should be regulated. I do not want children to see art similar to this. I must say, though, I definitely do not consider this art. It is disgusting and insulting to a lot of people. Also, he sounds like an idiot. "...most holy convergence of the sacred and the profane." HA! I wonder what he was smoking when he said that? We shouldn't censor art, but we should be able to call you out on being a fucktard if you try to make this fit under the ultimate umbrella term, art.
Your time would be better spent calling out the catholic church for preaching hatred, discrimination and for protecting child rapists. Doesn't that pale in comparison to the accusations you bring to the guy that made this gallery? Why is it you choose to remain silent on catholic crimes, when these are clearly the subject of the gallery?
I'm not aware of the catholic church preaching hatred and discrimination as of late, or at least not mainstream preaching of it. Maybe there is some small cult I haven't heard about that preaches the inferiority of Jews or something, but I haven't heard of it. I have heard of the Church protecting child rapists, but, quite frankly, I don't consider the catholic church or the church in general a very tightly knit group like a corporation or something would be. Preachers and others have a large degree of independence in their actions and thus, you cannot get pissed at the Catholic faith or the whole priesthood for a few leaders protecting the morally corrupt among them. Also, this thread isn't about child rapists. I don't think you get the point of his art. He isn't making a statement about the hypocrisy of the catholic church, if that's what you think. Either way, what pisses me off about his art is the fact that I find it offensive morally, religiously and, depending on who has access to his art, ethically. Also, he said "most holy" convergence of the sacred and profane, which is stupid in and of itself. Also, I'm not catholic. I'm methodist.
On February 21 2012 03:12 Kaitlin wrote: As long as we have free speech and freedom of expression, it should be protected. However, I don't consider these people attacking religion to be anything special, let alone brave, until they start mocking all religions, including Islam. Honestly, I don't think they have the courage.
This^. Christianity is an easy target. Make some really good shock art and attack Islam. Remember the Danish cartoonist and the backlash from that. Or the censorship by Comedy Central, well I guess their parent company, in regards to Allah being shown on a South Park episode. If the point of his art is to shock that is where he'll get the biggest reaction, but art is open to interpretation so maybe his point was something else or nothing at all.
To answer the question as stated in the title, it depends. To quote from Miller v. California (413 U.S. 15): "(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
To summarize the ruling of the Court, if all the three elements are present in a "so-called art", then it is not within the ambit of Freedom of expression as protected in the Constitution. Thus, censorship is proper - the material being "obscene".
At the end of the day, it really depends on the appreciation of the people (and of course the Court).
this isn't even art. he's just trying to piss people off with overly pretentious "art". it's like killing a bird and putting flowers next to it and calling that art. the guy is trying to mindrape us but he's crossing the line of being socially acceptable. you can't just do anything and call it "art" and expect to get away with it. sure, some people might like it and form an underground subculture praising you, but the majority of society will shun you and try to destroy your reputation. once taboo stuff like this gets mainstream let's just say your family will be in danger. also this is not even considering the impact it might have on children who might look at it with their naive and all-accepting eyes
Gosh, can someone explain to me why people are being so angry and passionate against this? Seriously, why do you care what some guy paints or what some gallery shows.
People decrying "this isn't art so it doesn't get to be defended" also confuse me. You can make this kind of argument against anything. That's not fair.
Why can't we just say "Eh, just another shock artist." and move on? Someone offends you? Big deal. Art like this happens all the time. It's not interesting. It's boooooring.
On February 21 2012 04:17 keiraknightlee wrote: this isn't even art. he's just trying to piss people off with overly pretentious "art". it's like killing a bird and putting flowers next to it and calling that art. the guy is trying to mindrape us but he's crossing the line of being socially acceptable. you can't just do anything and call it "art" and expect to get away with it. sure, some people might like it and form an underground subculture praising you, but the majority of society will shun you and try to destroy your reputation. once taboo stuff like this gets mainstream let's just say your family will be in danger. also this is not even considering the impact it might have on children who might look at it with their naive and all-accepting eyes
What are you even talking about?
There is literally nothing illegal in this art display...
There is 1 complaint, blasphemy.
Who would seriously want to live in a country that enforces blasphemy laws...
What do we give the artist? 3 whip lashes for every count of blashphemy?
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.
A child getting raped is called against the law my friend
I have a problem with people who say "don't look at it if you don't like it". Sometimes i would totally agree with that point, sometimes totally not.
Just try to make "shocking art" about Islam, i don't need to describe what can happen (but i'll do anyway ^^) : People will blame for racism, insult, blasphemy, some extremist will call for a djihad against the author (remember the Netherlandish caricature) and that makes artist think twice before creating artistic content related to Islam, and, worse, even abandon any attempt to do anything related to.
Good. You could say "well, the problem isn't the art and what's depicted but those who react such extremely" and i would agree with you, but it end up with the fact that there's a kind of implicit censorship about it, and not about Cathoclism (or any other community) related shocking content. Then, why couldn't catholics (or whoever) ask for the same behavior regarding of "shocking art about Catholicism" (or anything else) ?
Until we act the same way with Islam we do with other communities (and don't misunderstand me here, i'm not anti-islam, it's just what's the most visible in the news), i don't see why other communities couldn't ask for the same right.
(Sorry for my poor english, i hope i've explained my point clearly enough).
On February 21 2012 04:24 DoubleReed wrote: Gosh, can someone explain to me why people are being so angry and passionate against this? Seriously, why do you care what some guy paints or what some gallery shows.
People decrying "this isn't art so it doesn't get to be defended" also confuse me. You can make this kind of argument against anything. That's not fair.
Why can't we just say "Eh, just another shock artist." and move on? Someone offends you? Big deal. Art like this happens all the time. It's not interesting. It's boooooring.
I think people are riled up because it brings up a more fundamental question of how much is too much freedom? Art in this case seems like it could be taken as an analogy for freedom of expression in general (more commonly in terms of being able to speak one's mind). If there is an argument that art should be censored, then there is likely also an argument for censorship in general. And people take their freedoms seriously; so naturally I think it will bring up some consternation!
Just to touch on that a little, I know its a bit of a derail but its always fun to read John Stuart Mill's opinions!
I was reading John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty", and even there, in the midst of Mill championing the absolute sanctity of freedom of expression and how if its not good for the extreme case, its not good at all, he writes:
"No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard."
So that makes me wonder, if we say that the definition of art is ambiguous, would it be acceptable to have an exhibit that is so powerful that it encourages a "mob" to action? I'm not sure if its possible. But if it would be, then there would be some pretty hard questions to answer about whats allowed vs not.
draw a parallel between art and language/words. that 'piece of art' is like saying fuck you. some people don't mind it but some do. you can not make a rule about it since who gets offended is and will always be subjective. it's not about censorship, it's about manners.
On February 21 2012 04:57 xM(Z wrote: draw a parallel between art and language/words. that 'piece of art' is like saying fuck you. some people don't mind it but some do. you can not make a rule about it since who gets offended is and will always be subjective. it's not about censorship, it's about manners.
And "manners" have never been enforceable by law anywhere. People have the irrefutable right to be jackasses as long as they're not breaking any laws.
No, art shouldn't be censored. I don't particularly care for this guy's work, and from the description on the first page I have no desire to see the rest of it, but that's just not my cup of tea. The Catholic Church fails to realize that "blasphemy" isn't a crime anymore (thank god) and nothing can be gained from getting their panties in a twist about it. If the art is really that terrible, he'll receive a backlash from the critics anyway and the gallery won't gain much popularity.
There is a long history of all kinds of religions being upset about stuff like this existing. But thanks to modern civilization, they don't have the power to do anything about it anymore.
While I think it's juvenile to make art for the sake of offending people just to get attention, I don't think any laws should be made to censor art. Yes, it will lead to douche bags like this (yes, I do think this guy is a douche bag) basically going "hey look at me! I'm being offensive!" but at the same time, if you censor art, you are hurting hundreds, perhaps thousands, of artists who genuinely want to make good art. There is also the basic problem with infringing what many people would consider a basic right.
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.
A child getting raped is called against the law my friend
So drawing a picture of someone getting raped should be censored? Drawing a picture there is no actual crime.
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.
A child getting raped is called against the law my friend
So drawing a picture of someone getting raped should be censored? Drawing a picture there is no actual crime.
i don't like this artist, he obviously just wants to provocate and harm some people's feelings but instead of doing it with people that kill their daughters if they decide to leave their violent husbands, he does it with some 50-80 year old lonely women that found some love in some catholic creation of a god
No, religion shouldn't have the right to mess with anything that is not religion (religion should be a private thing, If it shocks them, its there problem and not the problem of the artist, anyways there are pictures of people in hell burning in a lot of churches, so NO. KEEP YOUR RELIGION TO YOURSELF). Especially not if its art. a lot of art is meant to shock and to get people to think.
On February 21 2012 05:33 KainiT wrote: i don't like this artist, he obviously just wants to provocate and harm some people's feelings but instead of doing it with people that kill their daughters if they decide to leave their violent husbands, he does it with some 50-80 year old lonely women that found some love in some catholic creation of a god
can't be angry at lesser evils because larger ones exist? bullshit
people are personally connected to the problems around them and will be more frustrated with these evils despite whatever horrors are halfway across the globe
this relativism has totally poisoned a lot of decently intelligent people's minds....come on guys....art is art...TRUE art will almost piss off a certain amount of people, and it will always seem a bit woonky to most.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On February 21 2012 05:33 KainiT wrote: i don't like this artist, he obviously just wants to provocate and harm some people's feelings but instead of doing it with people that kill their daughters if they decide to leave their violent husbands, he does it with some 50-80 year old lonely women that found some love in some catholic creation of a god
can't be angry at lesser evils because larger ones exist? bullshit
people are personally connected to the problems around them and will be more frustrated with these evils despite whatever horrors are halfway across the globe
i think you didnt get my post nor the problem, these fotos are not a new idea at all, catholic church has been criticized, made fun of, ... in every possible way by now, so if someone really wants to provocate he should at least have the guts to do it right, this way it's just false faced cause he gotta have known that some newspapers would write a small article and a a few weeks later it's forgotten ->just a way to get some attention and money but not actually trying to get people thing about something
On February 21 2012 05:33 KainiT wrote: i don't like this artist, he obviously just wants to provocate and harm some people's feelings but instead of doing it with people that kill their daughters if they decide to leave their violent husbands, he does it with some 50-80 year old lonely women that found some love in some catholic creation of a god
can't be angry at lesser evils because larger ones exist? bullshit
people are personally connected to the problems around them and will be more frustrated with these evils despite whatever horrors are halfway across the globe
i think you didnt get my post nor the problem, these fotos are not a new idea at all, catholic church has been criticized, made fun of, ... in every possible way by now, so if someone really wants to provocate he should at least have the guts to do it right, this way it's just false faced cause he gotta have known that some newspapers would write a small article and a a few weeks later it's forgotten ->just a way to get some attention and money but not actually trying to get people thing about something
He has made us discuss freedom of speech and freedom of art for the last several pages.
It has stirred the emotions. Some people argue that that is the only goal of art.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
I say you should mess more with religions, they need to learn that it's not okay that people get angry and threaten people just because they do things that extremists thinks is ''blasphemy'' or whatever. To this day almost all Newspapers/TV-shows are afraid to show drawings of muhammed?! It's an outrage really, we can't religions prohibit our rights.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
Art is simply the spectrum. You have the extremely good, the extremely bad.
Many people have argued that even things such as the Sistine Chapel were obscene.
They would have argued the exact same thing. If anyone suggested censoring it now, they would be considered incredibly uncultured.
Art is subjective. Therefore all is art, and all art is judged upon the grand spectrum of art. The bad is ridiculed and/or forgotten. The good goes into history.
Time itself will censor this work, but only after the people have passed their judgement, not some council of priests.
Why does the debate about art always derail from the get go?
If an artist breaks the law, as in said "rape a child"-post. There is no justification for art if it involves hurting another human being directly. Bad people who do bad things should be tried and convicted, no sane person is arguing this.
However, art as in the free expression to paint, sing, build etc etc, that is a totally different discussion. Censorship should only apply if the artist forces the art on people or directly hurts another sentient thing in the process.
I don't care if someone vomits over an entire studio and names the installation "a different view on zionist america" or whatever else sensationalist bullshit that artist chooses. As a thinking human being I am gifted with this amazing ability to just walk past and go on with my life; it is a good skill toi have.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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.
simple answer to OP's question, no, never. I do feel that when you are advertising for adult art in public, it should be tastefully done, knowing that young children will see it to. Not just the target audience. But thats censoring advertisement not art.
Feels like a lot of the discussion in here atm is not about censoring art but about whether is this art or is this porn. What I personally believe is kinda the same as saying "x is a crappy movie, I know, I saw the trailer." So i was wondering how can you make any argument for either art or porn if you haven't seen the exhibition?
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
Art is simply the spectrum. You have the extremely good, the extremely bad.
Many people have argued that even thing such as the Sistine Chapel were obscene.
They would have argued the exact same thing. If anyone suggested censoring it now, they would be considered incredibly uncultured.
Art is subjective. Therefore all is art, and all art is judged upon the grand spectrum of art. The bad is ridiculed and/or forgotten. The good goes into history.
Time itself will censor this work, but only after the people have passed their judgement, not some council of priests.
The difference between this and the Sistine Chapel is that the Sistine Chapel took the greatest artists of the day thousands of hours to meticulously craft every image in it. Yes some people took offense to it, but it is now regarded as a great work of art at least partially because of the immense talent and effort that went into constructing it. No effort of talent is needed to take pictures of people with their penis sticking out. Your and my definition of art are different. You seem to argue that everything in the world is art, so there would obviously be no point for me to argue that obscene photos isn't art in your eyes. Would you agree with a pedophile's argument that child porn is art and therefore shouldn't be censored?
I just feel that crediting photos like this as "art" is highly disrespectful to the real artists who actually spent massive effort and talent for their creations. But as you said, time censors this crap. No one will remember this in a a few months, let alone centuries, while everyone will still know about real art like the Sistine Chapel.
An interesting example of forbidden art is drawn nude "children". If you draw a child that could biologically have/create a child in a situation of that kind you would be breaking the law in many countries. It is also an issue that always bears discussion since people not knowing the reasoning makes the less likely to follow them. Thus you are automatically censored due to the laws in various countries.
Those that want no art forbidden would be wise to check which art the laws of their country already forbid and campaign against them.
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.
Yes, but assuming your country has a proper legal system rooted in say a constitution, the types of censorship that are possible aren't really numerous. Freedom of speech for example would basically void any attempt at censorship due to peoples' religious sensibilities and no law could really be passed otherwise unless the constitution was amended.
On February 20 2012 12:27 ReturnStroke wrote: Is federal prison censorship? I'm for open thought and expression, but what if someone wants to make erotic photography with children? What are we to consider censorship? I guess if it isn't a crime, than no, art should not be censored... but some always will anyway with our laws.
That would clearly be illegal because the "art" would be a violation of those children's rights since they cannot legally consent. If you wanted to make those photos with consenting adults it would be completely fine. If those adults were not consenting, it would be just as illegal as it was with those unconsenting children. I have the right to free speech, but I cannot knowingly slander you.
I believe the saying goes something like "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
Art is simply the spectrum. You have the extremely good, the extremely bad.
Many people have argued that even thing such as the Sistine Chapel were obscene.
They would have argued the exact same thing. If anyone suggested censoring it now, they would be considered incredibly uncultured.
Art is subjective. Therefore all is art, and all art is judged upon the grand spectrum of art. The bad is ridiculed and/or forgotten. The good goes into history.
Time itself will censor this work, but only after the people have passed their judgement, not some council of priests.
The difference between this and the Sistine Chapel is that the Sistine Chapel took the greatest artists of the day thousands of hours to meticulously craft every image in it. Yes some people took offense to it, but it is now regarded as a great work of art at least partially because of the immense talent and effort that went into constructing it. No effort of talent is needed to take pictures of people with their penis sticking out. Your and my definition of art are different. You seem to argue that everything in the world is art, so there would obviously be no point for me to argue that obscene photos isn't art in your eyes. Would you agree with a pedophile's argument that child porn is art and therefore shouldn't be censored?
I just feel that crediting photos like this as "art" is highly disrespectful to the real artists who actually spent massive effort and talent for their creations. But as you said, time censors this crap. No one will remember this in a a few months, let alone centuries, while everyone will still know about real art like the Sistine Chapel.
You are basically getting into a whole other argument revolving around whether photography itself is art or not, which you could argue forever. Doesnt really matter what the subject matter is.
Some random people always make "art" about things to cause publicity for himself. This guy just picked a subject (religion) and decided to make something that he knew they would be upset about. Thus he gains a lot of publicity which he can use to make more money. Nice "art" bro.
Some art should be censored, especially art that kills people. Think of people with epilepsy. The art of murder and rape shouldn't be made nor displayed. If you really think about, there is plenty of "art" out there that should be censored.
On February 20 2012 21:16 MiraMax wrote: To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist.
An accusation of lazy thinking, which you follow up with a most contrived argument that is build almost entirely on a scenario akin to a ticking-time bomb scenario (aka so far removed from reality that it never occurs, a cheap shot tactic at best).
But you seem to attack freedom of speech, democracy and the freedom of the arts. I should be embarassed if I don't refute such totalitarian ideals.
You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom!?
Nobody spoke of absolute freedom, this is something you have conjured up entirely on your own. You may go back and re-read what I said, never do I claim that absolute freedom is a good idea. Please refrain from argueing against points that I never even mention supporting. Stick purely to what I actually say, do not conjure up things that you 'perceive' in between the lines.
In this case, your art would be the product of a crime, the creation of child porn. You cannot violate a law in order to create a work of art.
For example, you cannot slit a persons throat and film it, because then you have committed murder. Publishing the art after the fact is also not permitted, even if done by a third party. You cannot profit directly off your own crimes. Third parties cannot release the creation because it was not created with consent of the people in question.
Your complaint could be valid in a situation where absolute freedom is present or advocated, but neither is the case. Your argument is build on sand.
Art is a form of communication and as every communication it happens in a context. Communication can be harmful. It is not at all clear that every form of communication should be allowed in any context. Instead there are good grounds to forbid certain forms of communications with regard to the content and/or the context, especially if it threatens to harm another public or private good. So the question is: Do certain interest groups have a right to "monopolize" the use of particular symbols and/or ceremonies or at least control the context of their display given that these have a very large significance for said group?
"Harm another public or private good," again, you speak in totalitarian terms. One vague law and an entire foundation of freedom is obliterated.
What if a muslim considers his private good to be harmed by women complaining about the veil?
What if a homosexual considers his private good to be harmed by his inability to marry?
Eventually you need to pick sides on this. Where do you come down? Do you side with muslims? Do you side with women? Who do you silence, who needs to suck it up?
It is impossible to create a society in which nobody is offended. To suggest that offense is a proper way to judge the course that needs to be taken is simply put, insanity.
Like I said before, gay marriage, do you offend the religious? Do you offend the gays? Which sides emotions are more important? Why do I, as a supporter of gay rights, have to be offended, whilst muslims and christians get to have their feelings protected?
Why can't we have a proper discussion, the market place of ideas, and come to a conclusion what is best, what is most moral, what is the right course of action?
Why do you feel the need to storm in and dictate, in totalitarian fashion, that one group needs to keep their opinion to themselves, whilst another is allowed freedom of speech?
You are either against democracy, or you are not fully aware of the full extent of creating laws that protect people from being offended. To create laws that prevent people (to be more accurate, certain groups) from being offended means to abolish democracy and freedom of speech. It is utterly impossible to maintain either of those if you start to create laws that are based on preventing offense.
It might be totalitarianism with a smilly face, but it is totalitarianism no less.
You can certainly take a strong stance on this issue, but it is a meaningful discussion to have.
Who said that there can be no discussion? Once again, please refrain from argueing against the imaginary persona that you have created around me. Stick to things I actually say. It will prevent a great deal of confusion.
I have argued that discussion should be the norm. You have argued that certain discussions (or discussion starters, like this art display) need to be silenced because they cause offense. I will not permit you to wear the cloak of freedom and democracy whilst you attempt to stab both in the heart.
I strongly objected to exactly one statement of yours which curiously you didn't bother to quote in your rant:
On February 21 2012 zalz wrote: Art is much akin to freedom of speech. It is either absolute, or it does not exist.
That's what you wrote. I called it the epitome of lazy thinking, because while it might sound fancy at first glance, it is nothing more of a discussion stopper and reflects badly on those who utter it, precisely because it implies that no regulation of art displays (or expressions of views) can be put forth. Instead I argued that neither art nor speech occurs in a legal vacuum and it should not be so. I constructed a forced example which - I think - nonetheless exposes the absurdity of the extreme position you put yourself into.
The rest of your rant seems funny and sad at the same time - I especially liked the shocking finale:
On February 21 2012 01:46 zalz wrote: You have argued that certain discussions (or discussion starters, like this art display) need to be silenced because they cause offense. I will not permit you to wear the cloak of freedom and democracy whilst you attempt to stab both in the heart.
I have argued no such thing. Maybe you confuse me with another poster, since it was the first post I made in this thread. In any case, it rather seems to me that you might need to go back to read what you wrote. Cheers!
In the following spoiler is a British comedian lampooning a British censor without the censor's knowledge. It's in a spoiler because it contains images which are NSFW.
Of course it should be censored! However, only with very strong reasons. Offended people is not a valid reason.
An example of "rightful" censorship was during the 30s in France. The incoming war (or shall I say, disaster) completely justifies the shutdown of all anarchist/fascists movies, as the government itself was torn between the far right and the far left .
The question here is : should art be censored when it offends other people's faith? But this sole exemple doesn't illustrate the general principle of censorship.
As long as no one is physically harmed (child shit, actually beating someone, burning down a village of people then claiming "IT'S ART!") I don't think anything should be censored ever. If something is hurting someones feelings, on some level I think its doing its job.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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"?
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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.
Title should be changed to "Should Blasphemous Catholic Art be Censored?"
TL's answer: No. Not surprising of course.
Any other religion and it wouldn't be allowed though. Can you imagine the results of this if this was showing Jewish or Muslim holy things? ROFL, would never be allowed. Very natural of course, Jewish money keeps art that hates Christ and His Church going. The peace loving Muslims would start slaughtering people if this was Mohammad.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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.
On February 21 2012 05:50 MrBob wrote: This isn't art...this is pictures of guys with their dicks dangling out. Should I take a video of me shitting on the floor and display that as art??
It is art.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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.
Is it good art? Is it bad art? That is up for debate. But it is art.
People just really value the word art and only want to apply it to the good stuff.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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.
Not all things are art, you can't just take something terrible and say this is art, "how dare you oppress the freedom of my expression!" I still feel that all art should be able to express itself, however, it should be understood that not everyone wants to see some forms of "art" that exist. I think as long as it's appropriate it's fine, but if you know it's going to bother some people, then individuals should try to keep it away from those who disagree with it.
On the contrary I would argue that some people do not value the word art for what it's worth and just apply it to whatever piece of shit they see.
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.
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.
Religion should be censored rather than art, anyone with a properly working brain knows that.
Besides, you are actually debating whether someone should be allowed to show a panting or not, like its a real problem in the world, like it matters at all.
But i guess it a serious issue for the average idiot/person
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.
How would you explain banned movies?
How many of those have there been? In the US at least I can't think of any, personally.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How would you explain banned movies?
How many of those have there been? In the US at least I can't think of any, personally.
I don't know in the US but I know many movies have been banned in different countries.
On February 21 2012 13:26 Liight wrote: Religion should be censored rather than art, anyone with a properly working brain knows that.
Besides, you are actually debating whether someone should be allowed to show a panting or not, like its a real problem in the world, like it matters at all.
But i guess it a serious issue for the average idiot/person
You can claim that I'm an idiot how many times you want, but my opinion stands that you like it or not. I agree that it won't change much in my life if it gets censored or not, but I think it's necessary.
On February 21 2012 12:38 DoubleReed wrote: [quote]
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.
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.
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 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.
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)
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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 22:11 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.
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?
If a painting or sculpture can do damage to your belief system, then do you even REALLY believe in it?
I don't believe in the censorship of anything, let's get it all out there.
I do think that it's alright to protect kids from depictions of extreme gore/violence until they're old enough to understand it (I know this is subjective).
On February 21 2012 22:53 DoubleReed wrote: 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?
i don't know if it's usually called that like you say (especially since that doesn't happen, err, anywhere) but a community deciding it does not want to present a certain thing to itself is not censorship, it's a sort of democratic decision. in your previous post you were talking about a person, not people however; if on the other hand if an art gallery's private funder decides to fuck off because of a masturbating gay jesus painting, that's him deciding not to support a piece he finds objectable. nothing prevents the artist from taking it to another gallery, and controversy around a work is a huge boost to pretty much any artist's recognition, visibility, popularity and especially the value of all their pieces. not very hard to find an interested gallerist.
as i edited in to my previous post it's a completely different story if it's public funding being drawn, or also if we're talking about business mega conglomerates driving their agenda/protecting their image.
hate speech by definition encourages malicious disparagement and discrimination against a group or a person. i don't think there's a question to be made whether it is spoken with the intent to infringe on other people's rights, freedoms and/or well being.
Without looking it up, is this gallery publicly funded? Private gallery, show whatever you want. Public gallery, subject to the whims of political mechanisms. Public galleries take money from 'the people' and 'they' should have a say in what gets shown. You want to show something that is going to create a public outcry, open a gallery and enjoy the free publicity you will get.
Then again, I'm personally against public funding for the arts. There's plenty of people who will fund artists, always has, always will be. All of the great artistic works from history (and most literature) were privately funded.
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?
If I had to give my favorite artistic movement, I'd say Romanticism, because to me, Romanticism was a time when art was what I'd consider "good."
Romantic paintings use light and color to achieve an effect, and the paintings usually make me feel something, without drowning me in the message that may or may not be behind it.
Theres this lovely balance between Form and Content that I believe good art should meet, and stuff like whats in the OP has way too much friggin' content in it.
In my opinion, good art should strike up a balance between Form and Content.
On February 21 2012 12:36 Chylo wrote: Title should be changed to "Should Blasphemous Catholic Art be Censored?"
TL's answer: No. Not surprising of course.
Any other religion and it wouldn't be allowed though. Can you imagine the results of this if this was showing Jewish or Muslim holy things? ROFL, would never be allowed. Very natural of course, Jewish money keeps art that hates Christ and His Church going. The peace loving Muslims would start slaughtering people if this was Mohammad.
You act as if nobody has ever created work touching on the sensibilities of Jewish or Muslim faith before... Google "Lady Hijab".
On February 23 2012 09:18 Zambrah wrote: If I had to give my favorite artistic movement, I'd say Romanticism, because to me, Romanticism was a time when art was what I'd consider "good."
Romantic paintings use light and color to achieve an effect, and the paintings usually make me feel something, without drowning me in the message that may or may not be behind it.
Theres this lovely balance between Form and Content that I believe good art should meet, and stuff like whats in the OP has way too much friggin' content in it.
In my opinion, good art should strike up a balance between Form and Content.
That's just your opinion though, somebody can turn around and say Romantic paintings are boring and a self indulgent wank of technique. Another thing to consider is that art is relevant to it's context. In a world with sex is prevalent in modern media you have to go to the next level when you are trying to draw attention to this day to day obscenity.
And that's how the schools of painting formed, it's just progress, but not in a linear sense. Because there's no real end goal in art.
I'm not trying to defend these specific pieces, but other forms of art that don't meet your standards. There are more elements that come into play other than how long a work took to make or how accuratel it is. Although this topic is fairly cliche, consider the costumes, composition and lighting. Sure taking a photo is just pressing a button, but consider the moments leading up to that.
Honestly though, this is news for a slow day. Nuns are a common fetish icon and those pictures just look like a trashy fashion/soft porn shoot. Any "official" censorship of art would just be exploited to stupid ends.
On February 23 2012 09:18 Zambrah wrote: If I had to give my favorite artistic movement, I'd say Romanticism, because to me, Romanticism was a time when art was what I'd consider "good."
Romantic paintings use light and color to achieve an effect, and the paintings usually make me feel something, without drowning me in the message that may or may not be behind it.
Theres this lovely balance between Form and Content that I believe good art should meet, and stuff like whats in the OP has way too much friggin' content in it.
In my opinion, good art should strike up a balance between Form and Content.
That's just your opinion though, somebody can turn around and say Romantic paintings are boring and a self indulgent wank of technique. Another thing to consider is that art is relevant to it's context. In a world with sex is prevalent in modern media you have to go to the next level when you are trying to draw attention to this day to day obscenity.
And that's how the schools of painting formed, it's just progress, but not in a linear sense. Because there's no real end goal in art.
I'm not trying to defend these specific pieces, but other forms of art that don't meet your standards. There are more elements that come into play other than how long a work took to make or how accuratel it is. Although this topic is fairly cliche, consider the costumes, composition and lighting. Sure taking a photo is just pressing a button, but consider the moments leading up to that.
Honestly though, this is news for a slow day. Nuns are a common fetish icon and those pictures just look like a trashy fashion/soft porn shoot. Any "official" censorship of art would just be exploited to stupid ends.
I don't think these are bad art because they were carelessly thrown together or anything, I'm just bludgeoned in the head with their message.
I consider all of the work that goes into photography and most kinds of art, and I rarely REALLY criticize something because its lazy or something.
But that mix of form and content is just way heavy on the content side, not to mention the fact that the form is incredibly similar to porn, which I personally don't dislike, but if it was done in a way that was in some way more... subtle, then I'd probably enjoy it far more.
EDIT: Plus, calling Romanticism a wank of technique is kind of funny since the Romantic movement was a rejection of Neoclassicism which had a serious emphasis on perfect form and technique. ;-p