Should art be censored? - Page 6
Forum Index > General Forum |
nvs.
Canada3609 Posts
| ||
Funguuuuu
United States198 Posts
"Art" is nearly undefineable. It's a personal viewpoint that people can only judge for themselves. I think that anything legal that someone wants to call art should be called art. When people say "that isn't art", what they mean is "that's shitty art" "I don't care for it" "that's a far cry from high art". They want to degrade it by calling it not art, in the same way racists used to say Native Americans weren't people. The artist is free to create whatever he wants, and people/churches are free to comment negatively about it. That's all there is to it. Art should never be censored, unless it's a personal decision by the artist himself in order to enable his work to be seen by a larger audience. You state that anything legal can be called art by someone who wants to call it art, but I disagree with your thought process. Under your logic, if child pornography was legalized, you could call it art and it would be art. If terrorist bombings were legal, then you could call it art and it would be art. Under your views, everything is Art, and thus the term Art is meaningless. Furthermore, who are we to decide legality? The assumption that only if something is legal (or harms another person, as previous posters have postulated) can it be considered art is not reasonable at all, as we have no perfect standard by which to determine whether something is truly wrong or not. All we have is human thoughts and human's are deeply flawed beings. | ||
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
That seems to be the criteria that pro-censorship persons seem to wish to apply. Given the arbitrary and self-centered nature of such desires, I'm going to side on the side of freedom of speech here. All speech should be free - not just speech I agree with. | ||
iamahydralisk
United States813 Posts
| ||
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
Of course this only applies to governments. If an art gallery or museum doesn't want to show something, they don't have to. It's the same logic behind TV personalities losing their jobs because of stupid things they said. | ||
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On February 20 2012 13:22 MichaelDonovan wrote: I think you misunderstood the question. You say "as long as it doesn't break any laws", but if it is censored, that means that laws will be made to prevent it from being seen. Yes, but assuming your country has a proper legal system rooted in say a constitution, the types of censorship that are possible aren't really numerous. Freedom of speech for example would basically void any attempt at censorship due to peoples' religious sensibilities and no law could really be passed otherwise unless the constitution was amended. On February 20 2012 12:27 ReturnStroke wrote: 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. That would clearly be illegal because the "art" would be a violation of those children's rights since they cannot legally consent. If you wanted to make those photos with consenting adults it would be completely fine. If those adults were not consenting, it would be just as illegal as it was with those unconsenting children. I have the right to free speech, but I cannot knowingly slander you. I believe the saying goes something like "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." | ||
capu
Finland224 Posts
| ||
Funguuuuu
United States198 Posts
However if I strip naked and stand still in the middle of New York City and call it art, do the police have any right to censor me? I'm not harming anyone, as people could look away, so thus is it a violation of free speech that we have laws against public indecency? | ||
peekn
United States1152 Posts
On February 20 2012 14:53 Funguuuuu wrote: I actually feel some art must be censored, though I believe this is fine(I don't think of this as art, I would think people do, and who am I to say what is art and what isn't?) However if I strip naked and stand still in the middle of New York City and call it art, do the police have any right to censor me? I'm not harming anyone, as people could look away, so thus is it a violation of free speech that we have laws against public indecency? As stated above this falls under the category of violating other laws already in place, I think that people gave the example of rape, violence, murder etc. I think that the example that you gave about the person being naked in the middle of the city is similar to the examples given before. | ||
Funguuuuu
United States198 Posts
On February 20 2012 14:55 peekn wrote: As stated above this falls under the category of violating other laws already in place, I think that people gave the example of rape, violence, murder etc. I think that the example that you gave about the person being naked in the middle of the city is similar to the examples given before. Good point, but does that mean if all paint is outlawed, all future paintings are not art? Art is, by its very nature, very very very hard to define, so how does one decide if legality (or whether something is harming another person) changes something from art to nonart? | ||
DarkPlasmaBall
United States42212 Posts
On February 20 2012 14:06 OtoshimonoU wrote: Then I apologize it offended you. Derp. You missed my point- that was sarcasm. Offending someone isn't breaking the law. Unless a piece of art is somehow breaking the law, there's really no reason for it to be banned. If the only argument is "That piece of art offends my personal opinions, so therefore it should be censored", then the proper response is "Well excuse me, Mister or Madam X, but you need to grow a pair and get over it, or just ignore the piece of art." | ||
sirachman
United States270 Posts
Reality is reality. Don't like it? Don't look. | ||
TangYiChen
Korea (South)195 Posts
Of course there are things that are considered immoral in specific cultures which should also be kept in mind, such as child pornography and such. The artist should be wary of these culturally accepted immoralities. | ||
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:31 p4NDemik wrote: 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. I looked at each picture for about 20 seconds and read into their meaning or messages. I can safely say that the first picture is how a girl would become desperate for money, thus showing her body and abusing the needs of men in order to get money | ||
sirachman
United States270 Posts
| ||
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 20 2012 14:53 Funguuuuu wrote: I actually feel some art must be censored, though I believe this is fine(I don't think of this as art, I would think people do, and who am I to say what is art and what isn't?) However if I strip naked and stand still in the middle of New York City and call it art, do the police have any right to censor me? I'm not harming anyone, as people could look away, so thus is it a violation of free speech that we have laws against public indecency? There's a reason for public nudity laws - being nude in public is forcing your nudity onto people in public. The only way that they can avoid being offended by it is to avoid certain places in public, whereas this is not the case with art. Art can be confined to galleries/the internet/videos/etc, which no one is required to go to. If you are nude out in the middle of the street and someone is offended by it, it hinders and inconveniences their life to go out of the way to avoid you. | ||
ZeroCartin
Costa Rica2390 Posts
Art is meant to be thought provoking and a means of expression. | ||
Falling
Canada10904 Posts
Having said that, I don't think something is art simply because it's controversial. It's perfectly possible to pass off completely obscene crap and the creator is just an unimaginative hack trying to make a name for themselves by being 'edgy'. Those sorts of individuals deserve our scorn. Furthermore, I do think there's something to be said about self-restraint. I've always liked what Orson Scott Card had to say on censorship: Of course, the boundaries of taste are drawn in different places for different people. Things that offend me might not offend you, or vice versa. That's why the idea of government meddling in censorship is so bad -- from the first moment, the censors always go straight for things whose "evil" is visible only to them, while ignoring the things that are truly awful. The trouble is that when there is no self-restraint, governments eventually get involved. If smokers, for instance, had merely been courteous and kind to others, there would be no anti-smoking laws. It was the shameless rudeness of smokers that led to them being fenced around with law, and I have no pity for them. Likewise, if we get government censorship it will be wholly because of the irresponsibility of storytellers who cared not a whit for the effect their work might have on the community they live in. They have fouled the nest; if they don't clean it up themselves, they probably aren't going to like it when somebody else cleans it up for them. I hate censorship; but I hate having to raise my children in the culture these irresponsible people have created and are creating for us. When the balance tips, it will tip hard and far, and I personally resent the all-or-nothing crew who, by adamantly rejecting all self-restraint and celebrating the most vile stuff as "edgy" and admirable, will someday provoke the puritan backlash that will clean my slate along with theirs. They'll whine about the censors, but I'll know that it was their own excesses that led society to prefer the censors to them. The only consolation is that the public can only stand censorship for a little while. Within a generation, the theaters reopened in England; the people of Iran are already wishing for more freedom. But wouldn't it be better to use good taste and a sense of decency and public responsibility to keep the censorship from ever seeming necessary? | ||
Slago
Canada726 Posts
| ||
| ||