|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102718/Blasphemous-provocation-Artists-obscene-sexy-nun-photos-spark-outrage.html
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?
|
Art is made to help people think. To censor art is to censor thought, inspiration, and emotion.
|
No.If all art was regulated,then it wouldn't be art.
|
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.
|
Nacl(Draq) United States. February 20 2012 11:27. Posts 46 PM Profile Quote #
Art is made to help people think. To censor art is to censor thought, inspiration, and emotion.
EDIT: This said it perfectly.
Also as long as he doesn't call some of the things he makes art
e.g. + Show Spoiler +
|
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.
|
Hell no.
The real problem is deciding what's actually art or just obscene nonsense. Fun times.
Also, is this the same Bruce LaBruce who does the arthouse gay porn? Lawlz.
|
United States13896 Posts
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.
+ Show Spoiler [Link very NSFW] +http://obscenitymadrid.tumblr.com/
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 a question but does anyone here consider porn as art?
|
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.
|
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.
|
lol no one on this board could make the argument for censoring art. not going to happen.
|
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.
|
The real question is whether or not we should put up a thousand posters of nun porn around London.
|
I like my blasphemy kinky.
|
Freedom of Speech (art), Good Public Education, No totalitarian governments, that's the basic values everyone should agree on.
|
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.
|
|
|
|