|
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 12:11 LoLAdriankat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 12:11 TheRhox wrote:On February 20 2012 12:05 Tiegrr wrote: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 12:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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 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:Show nested quote +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? http://artintelligence.net/review/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/rauschwhitepainting51h15.jpgthis 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.
|
Art should never ever be censored. If people like what they see, they will go and maybe pay to see it.
|
If it's offensive it's a problem.
|
On February 20 2012 12:37 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 12:24 DarkPlasmaBall 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 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 Show nested quote +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? http://artintelligence.net/review/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/rauschwhitepainting51h15.jpgthis 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 12:37 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 12:24 DarkPlasmaBall 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 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 Show nested quote +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? http://artintelligence.net/review/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/rauschwhitepainting51h15.jpgthis 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 12:11 TheRhox wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 12:05 Tiegrr wrote: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.
|
Obviously it's silly to censor art work.
After checking out the gallery, I can understand why some people might get riled up.
Honestly I think the pictures are pretty silly.
|
On February 20 2012 12:48 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 12:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 20 2012 12:24 DarkPlasmaBall 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 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? http://artintelligence.net/review/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/rauschwhitepainting51h15.jpgthis 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_Rauschenbergnational 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 12:52 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 12:48 clementdudu wrote:On February 20 2012 12:37 1Eris1 wrote:On February 20 2012 12:24 DarkPlasmaBall 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 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? http://artintelligence.net/review/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/rauschwhitepainting51h15.jpgthis 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_Rauschenbergnational 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.
BUT THIS ART is definitely alright.
|
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?
|
|
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...
|
|
|
|