Should art be censored?

Best answer!

As for art as long as it's nothing like child porn and has something behind it QUIT WHINING EVERYBODY IS ALWAYS WHINING ABOUT SOMETHING!

Last edit: 2012-02-21 03:56:26

When my situation ain't improving I try to murder everything moving! (Jay-Z)

bpat United States. February 21 2012 04:01. Posts 157

Profile #

As long as it's confined to an exhibit and not on billboards or anything it's ok. Then if you don't want to see it, you don't have to.

m1rk3 Canada. February 21 2012 04:04. Posts 392

Profile #

no art should not be censored same goes for playboy

For the Dominion!

Luzbeda United States. February 21 2012 04:07. Posts 53

Profile #

They should smash Michaelangelo's David's penis into dust because I am offended.

Remember how much they spent to remove the leaves that covered the genetalia on the ceiling in the Sistine Chapel?

Does anyone actually still get mad about things like this?

I'm pretty good with the bowstaff.

Sofestafont United States. February 21 2012 04:07. Posts 80

Profile #

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.

jcvf February 21 2012 04:07. Posts 32

Profile #

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).

Last edit: 2012-02-21 05:08:17

Remfire February 21 2012 04:16. Posts 455

Profile #

Art should not be censored. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

keiraknightlee United States. February 21 2012 04:17. Posts 301

Profile Blog #

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

Last edit: 2012-02-21 04:18:07

~~~Happiness. Dreams. Love~~~Good Luck

StoRm_res February 21 2012 04:21. Posts 421

Profile #

That guy is gay for sure ^^

Still, you shouldn't censor it, just don't go and look at it

DoubleReed United States. February 21 2012 04:24. Posts 3133

Profile Blog #

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.

Last edit: 2012-02-21 04:27:24

Baby, you want to make like Stravinsky and perform a Rite of Spring?

zalz Netherlands. February 21 2012 04:24. Posts 3291

Profile Blog #

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?

ProxyKnoxy United Kingdom. February 21 2012 04:33. Posts 2543

Profile #

On February 20 2012 11:46 1Eris1 wrote:

Show nested quote +

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

"Zealot try give mariners high five. Mariners not like high five and try hide and shoot zealot"

Ragnarork France. February 21 2012 04:47. Posts 1829

Profile #

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).

Last edit: 2012-02-21 04:48:15

ST_Bomber | EG.ThorZaIN | CMStorm_Polt | AcerMMA | Ax.Ryung

bOneSeven Romania. February 21 2012 04:55. Posts 589

Profile Blog #

should people suicide ? You see what I did there, I draw a parallel to see how dumb is that question.

Planet earth is blue and there's nothing I can do

radscorpion9 Canada. February 21 2012 04:57. Posts 1315

Profile #

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.

Last edit: 2012-02-21 05:00:31

xM(Z Romania. February 21 2012 04:57. Posts 2015

Profile #

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.

Last edit: 2012-02-21 04:58:22

And my fury stands ready. I bring all your plans to nought. My bleak heart beats steady. 'Tis you whom I have sought.

Sinensis United States. February 21 2012 05:06. Posts 2503

Profile Blog #

Do people still get upset about blasphemy? I thought that was one of those 2,000 year old reasons to get upset over nothing.

ZasZ. United States. February 21 2012 05:07. Posts 1743

Profile #

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.

Tewks44 United States. February 21 2012 05:13. Posts 1829

Profile #

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.

"that is our ethos; free content, starcraft content, websites that work occasionally" -Sean "Day[9]" Plott

ODKStevez Ireland. February 21 2012 05:13. Posts 1176

Profile #

Why would you ban art? You may as well ban free speech. Art is free speech conveyed in a different way.

Luppa <3 "Raidcall: 5789139".