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.
LoLAdriankat United States. February 20 2012 12:11. Posts 3632
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.
Being offended is an emotional response though.
Would you call a clever internet troll an artist?
Last edit: 2012-02-20 12:13:52
1Eris1 United States. February 20 2012 12:14. Posts 5797
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.
Last edit: 2012-02-20 12:16:21
Known Aliases: Tyragon, Valeric ~MSL Forever, SKT is truly the Superior KT!
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?
Drones, Probes & SCVs: A mini documentary on the work behind ESPORTS. http://youtu.be/vNlu-K0rAxs
DarkPlasmaBall United States. February 20 2012 12:17. Posts 19998
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])
What a weird post made by whoever but yea.
poo
arterian Canada. February 20 2012 12:19. Posts 1113
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?
Known Aliases: Tyragon, Valeric ~MSL Forever, SKT is truly the Superior KT!
clementdudu France. February 20 2012 12:20. Posts 720
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))
How do you go from where you are to where you want to be? I think you have to have an enthusiasm for life. You have to have a dream, a goal and you have to be willing to work for it. Jim Valvano
DarkPlasmaBall United States. February 20 2012 12:24. Posts 19998
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.
"Those who can, teach. Those who can't, whine about teachers." ~Me
FeUerFlieGe United States. February 20 2012 12:25. Posts 1053
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
Flamingo777 United States. February 20 2012 12:26. Posts 1140
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.
ReturnStroke United States. February 20 2012 12:27. Posts 798
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.
Store
![[image loading]](http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvl2da1HF01r7bntto1_400.jpg)
