|
No. It should not be censored. I can't say I liked this one, but if you could censor art then things like
http://www.ohlson.se/utstallningar_ecce.htm (biblical events portraid with homosexuality in mind, slightly NSFW)
could very well be censored too, which would be a shame, since I think that ^^^^ is art with a purpose.
Don't have the slightest clue of what he wants with "Obscenity" though, hard for me to "get" it, lol.
|
On February 20 2012 11:46 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Reminds me of the piece , Piss Christ + Show Spoiler +http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=1017&tbm=isch&tbnid=PLdXX51ppjZRtM:&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ&docid=UoSDPry8EtB-1M&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg/220px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg&w=220&h=310&ei=mrRBT6aRIo3rgQeuqZ2kCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=192&vpy=140&dur=728&hovh=248&hovw=176&tx=106&ty=115&sig=111645090000852784676&page=1&tbnh=169&tbnw=120&start=0&ndsp=48&ved=0CEUQrQMwAA
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."
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 20 2012 11:37 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Nothing wrong with a sexy nun.
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.
|
Art shouldn't be censored, but the audience it is presented to should be carefully considered.
Just because someone calls something art doesn't mean it immediately deserves to be paraded around publicly. There's a limit.
|
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 11:46 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +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 11:27 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.
|
I don't think that art should be censored, but i also don't think this is art.
|
|
|
|