|
On February 20 2012 17:47 zalz wrote:
Art is much akin to freedom of speech. It is either absolute, or it does not exist.
To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist.
You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom!?
Art is a form of communication and as every communication it happens in a context. Communication can be harmful. It is not at all clear that every form of communication should be allowed in any context. Instead there are good grounds to forbid certain forms of communications with regard to the content and/or the context, especially if it threatens to harm another public or private good. So the question is: Do certain interest groups have a right to "monopolize" the use of particular symbols and/or ceremonies or at least control the context of their display given that these have a very large significance for said group?
You can certainly take a strong stance on this issue, but it is a meaningful discussion to have.
|
On February 20 2012 14:33 Funguuuuu wrote:Show nested quote +"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. I meant that it's hard to nail down a precise definition, not that it has no definition. I think we can all agree that art is when someone creates something for the purpose of being viewed/heard/etc in order to evoke the senses and emotions of the viewer.
Yes, that is a loose definition, but that's just how it works. You can't state what does or doesn't count as art in other people's eyes.
|
who is it meant to be censored from?
maybe people don't want their kids to see it... in which case fine. i kinda side with the people who think childhood should be innocent, oblivious and naive... or as close as you can get to that while watching TV, movies and playing video games.
but censored from adults... why? it's the same as making stupid arguments like "the mona lisa is fat and ugly, please someone censor her face." or "as an athiest i take offense in da vinci's the last supper painting... please censor jesus."
|
On February 20 2012 21:16 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 17:47 zalz wrote: Art is much akin to freedom of speech. It is either absolute, or it does not exist. To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist. You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom! Absolute freedom OF SPEECH. You are free to express whatever you want. You are not free to invade people's privacy or do other things to harm them.
However, I do agree with your point "It is either absolute, or it does not exist" is wrong... he should have said "virtually absolute". You know, since you're not free to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you're not free to lie to a jury under oath, etc.
|
Can you imagine a gallery with buddhists with erections and gay hindus with semen on their faces? No one would care or notice, since it doesn't resonate with anything we know about hindu or buddhist beliefs.
The only reason this gallery is visible is because of the catholic churches history of oppresion of sexuality and of sexual minorities. We should be outraged at the catholic churches hypocrisy and bigotry, that is the whole point of the gallery. The fact that the bigots are trying to ban it only makes the case more clearly that the images are relevant to what the catholic policy is in the world.
Discussing if this is art is missing the point. And criticising it because "offends" is just sweeping under the rug the grave offences to human dignity that the catholic church is guilty of. No one got hurt when making this gallery, can the same be said of the catholic churches actions?
|
On February 20 2012 21:35 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 21:16 MiraMax wrote:On February 20 2012 17:47 zalz wrote: Art is much akin to freedom of speech. It is either absolute, or it does not exist. To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist. You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom! Absolute freedom OF SPEECH. You are free to express whatever you want. You are not free to invade people's privacy or do other things to harm them.
I answered to a post that seemed to argue for both: absolute freedom of speech and absolute freedom of arts. I wonder what coherent definition of arts you might give that rule out displays of the above form. Further, what do you mean by "SPEECH" (in all caps)? Hopefully not that only oral expressions of opinion are protected!? You are NOT free to express whatever you want and you should not be. Your rights and freedoms end where the rights and freedoms of another person are violated. So any discussion about topics like these always boil down to: what rights and freedoms is one "supposed" to have.
|
I'm against any form of censure of Art, even it chocks to me. If i don't like, i just don't watch.
By the way, in public places (Adds on streets for exemple), we have to remember that there are children in there, and some very explicit sexual adds or violence shouldn't be visible. I don't think it's censure, just childhood protection.
For the picture from the OP, I doubt a 10 years old child can get anything about we are all getting now from this pic. It's just a woman, the "sexy" clichés are just adult males ones.
No reason at all to ban it in a democracy (in our case, in a democratic and catholic kingdom).
|
Art should not be censored since it is, by its very nature, creative. Its supposed to be a form of expression. That said, who should be able to see certain kinds of art should be regulated. I do not want children to see art similar to this. I must say, though, I definitely do not consider this art. It is disgusting and insulting to a lot of people. Also, he sounds like an idiot. "...most holy convergence of the sacred and the profane." HA! I wonder what he was smoking when he said that? We shouldn't censor art, but we should be able to call you out on being a fucktard if you try to make this fit under the ultimate umbrella term, art.
|
I find that, especially in this guy's case, there's a difference between art that is "loud" and art that is clear, concise, and convincing. I'm all for the latter personally, as the former, (again in this case especially) seems like it's aimed to get people fighting rather than making any sort of social reform/commentary. (ie. less effective)
Could just be me though, I'm boring like that.
|
I don't see anything wrong with this stuff. It's just really lame, pompous, and absurdly generic shit art. It's not like it's on a billboard in Times Square. This dude should be able to show his crap anywhere that allows it, which he rightfully is.
|
On February 20 2012 21:59 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Art should not be censored since it is, by its very nature, creative. Its supposed to be a form of expression. That said, who should be able to see certain kinds of art should be regulated. I do not want children to see art similar to this. I must say, though, I definitely do not consider this art. It is disgusting and insulting to a lot of people. Also, he sounds like an idiot. "...most holy convergence of the sacred and the profane." HA! I wonder what he was smoking when he said that? We shouldn't censor art, but we should be able to call you out on being a fucktard if you try to make this fit under the ultimate umbrella term, art. Your time would be better spent calling out the catholic church for preaching hatred, discrimination and for protecting child rapists. Doesn't that pale in comparison to the accusations you bring to the guy that made this gallery? Why is it you choose to remain silent on catholic crimes, when these are clearly the subject of the gallery?
|
of course not. Are you kidding me? Don't like it, don't watch it, don't support the artist or even campaign against him. But to have government involved and censor art, that would be a tragedy! They've already done bad enough!
|
I am amazed by the "lazy thinking" mencioned by MiraMax in this thread. People tend to be ignorant towards Art replying that its "about freedom of speech and if i dont like it i dont watch it". Art is a form of expression where the word "new" should be implied, to show new things and real expressions, not to preach. You all may be aware of the pieces "Piss Christ" that is just a glass with artist piss on it with a crucifix inside and another piece, a can with literally shit in it, saying on the outside "Artist's shit". Now lets take some steps back and take a look at some paintings of Francis Bacon, Mark Rothko, Mondrian and even Paul Klee. DO you see whats wrong? Can you realize now the difference between Art and a Curator? Speaking of curator, hell i will not say that what Banksy does is wrong, i even like his technique but is he really showing something new? Criticizing society is a innovative form of Art? Anyway, the wrong thing with Art now days it's only based on the peoples minds due to the lack of judge in deciding what is Art, and not. And this is why you end up having in expo's awful and meaningless pieces, that surely each piece will not help you how to think. And yes, some Art should be censored because its an insult to people like Picasso, Monet, Gaudi etc...
|
I haven't read all 9 pages, only went through the first few and skimmed the rest, so sorry if this has been mentioned. edit: actually: + Show Spoiler +On February 20 2012 21:41 Doctorasul wrote: Discussing if this is art is missing the point. On February 20 2012 11:28 FliedLice wrote: As long as it doesn't break any laws [...] I don't see why. On February 20 2012 12:00 Flanlord wrote: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. On February 20 2012 15:17 0neder wrote: Unless it breaks obscenity laws, it should be okay.. On February 20 2012 17:23 Mycl wrote: I don't like people hiding behind over reaching blanket terms such as art. Simply stating all art should be uncensored is just being lazy. Doing things by a case by case standard gets my vote On February 20 2012 18:59 Acrofales wrote: Art is not a reason to do stuff that's illegal..
Labelling something as art should not save it from being censored. Art should go by same rules as everything else. If it is not allowed to print and distribute newspaper with photoshopped pictures of Leonardo di Caprio molesting children (I'm pretty sure that is not allowed right?), then it should not be allowed to frame and distribute the very same pictures even if they are labelled and recognised as art. Very easy, intuitive, and you avoid this entire discussion of what is art and what isn't (that doesn't make any sense anyway).
I really don't see how you can argue for any other standpoint...
In this specific case with this exhibition I have no idea, I don't know what the spanish laws on this are, but the fact that it is labelled art shouldn't make a difference. My opinion on this example is that religious people, just like art people, should not be granted any rights that other people don't have. So depicting religious people in pornographic contexts shouldn't, imo, be considered any worse that for example depicting communists, democrats, dentists or farmers in similar settings. But point is, a cheap porn producer should have the same rights as a recognised artist in producing and distributing this kind of things.
|
The thing I learned from this is that if this is what it takes to be a sucessful artist then I gave up on a art career waaaay too easily.
Pretty sure the only people left who favor censorship are the minority of ultra conservatives, so why even debate it anymore.
|
As long as none is hurt I think anything is ok. Offended doesnt count as hurt.
|
well the problem with no censorship is, do we allow art of child porn? to make an extreme example, it has to be regulated somehow, just it cant come to this stupid over PC regulation. A nun in a bra? thats fine, something like anything illegal cant be art? i dunno how you would phrase/word it, but there MUST be a limit somewhere
|
On February 20 2012 23:21 L3g3nd_ wrote: well the problem with no censorship is, do we allow art of child porn? to make an extreme example, it has to be regulated somehow, just it cant come to this stupid over PC regulation. A nun in a bra? thats fine, something like anything illegal cant be art? i dunno how you would phrase/word it, but there MUST be a limit somewhere
Isn't child pornography illegal to begin with ? Aren't illegal things ... i don't know ... illegal ? If you take or show photos of children being molested you have a lot more to worry about than your " art " being censored ... And if it's a drawing / painting i'm pretty sure you can't show that either.
On topic : I don't think this hurts anybody, so why would it be censored ? I mean, the worst this guy can do is offend a few people who will watch his so called " art " , and nobody is forcing them to watch that if they don't want to.
|
On February 21 2012 00:08 Marti wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 23:21 L3g3nd_ wrote: well the problem with no censorship is, do we allow art of child porn? to make an extreme example, it has to be regulated somehow, just it cant come to this stupid over PC regulation. A nun in a bra? thats fine, something like anything illegal cant be art? i dunno how you would phrase/word it, but there MUST be a limit somewhere Isn't child pornography illegal to begin with ? Aren't illegal things ... i don't know ... illegal ? If you take or show photos of children being molested you have a lot more to worry about than your " art " being censored ... And if it's a drawing / painting i'm pretty sure you can't show that either. On topic : I don't think this hurts anybody, so why would it be censored ? I mean, the worst this guy can do is offend a few people who will watch his so called " art " , and nobody is forcing them to watch that if they don't want to.
To be fair, painting it won't hurt anybody either. Showing anybody a picture, whether it is depicting an act or event that you absolutely do not agree with, should not hurt them unless it is so shocking that it litterally psychologically traumatizes them. The way in which art is created is what could be deemed against the law, and if that's destructive behaviour it SHOULD be punished.
For the record, I am ABSOLUTELY AGAINST the creation of child pornography, and I'm all for keeping it away from the younger audiences just like boobs.
|
On February 20 2012 21:16 MiraMax wrote: To me statements like these are the epitome of lazy thinking, unless you meant to imply that fortunately this kind of absolute freedom of speech and freedom of arts does not exist.
An accusation of lazy thinking, which you follow up with a most contrived argument that is build almost entirely on a scenario akin to a ticking-time bomb scenario (aka so far removed from reality that it never occurs, a cheap shot tactic at best).
But you seem to attack freedom of speech, democracy and the freedom of the arts. I should be embarassed if I don't refute such totalitarian ideals.
You are not convinced? Here: My art is to secretly film naked children and display their pictures openly with their full home address. This is not art but child pornography, you say? No, no, no, you don't understand I am just mirroring a society in which deeds like this are commonplace and even part of pop-culture for some. So it's essential to my art project that the children are filmed secretly and that their full names and addresses be given. Do you get it now? ... Absolute freedom!?
Nobody spoke of absolute freedom, this is something you have conjured up entirely on your own. You may go back and re-read what I said, never do I claim that absolute freedom is a good idea. Please refrain from argueing against points that I never even mention supporting. Stick purely to what I actually say, do not conjure up things that you 'perceive' in between the lines.
In this case, your art would be the product of a crime, the creation of child porn. You cannot violate a law in order to create a work of art.
For example, you cannot slit a persons throat and film it, because then you have committed murder. Publishing the art after the fact is also not permitted, even if done by a third party. You cannot profit directly off your own crimes. Third parties cannot release the creation because it was not created with consent of the people in question.
Your complaint could be valid in a situation where absolute freedom is present or advocated, but neither is the case. Your argument is build on sand.
Art is a form of communication and as every communication it happens in a context. Communication can be harmful. It is not at all clear that every form of communication should be allowed in any context. Instead there are good grounds to forbid certain forms of communications with regard to the content and/or the context, especially if it threatens to harm another public or private good. So the question is: Do certain interest groups have a right to "monopolize" the use of particular symbols and/or ceremonies or at least control the context of their display given that these have a very large significance for said group?
"Harm another public or private good," again, you speak in totalitarian terms. One vague law and an entire foundation of freedom is obliterated.
What if a muslim considers his private good to be harmed by women complaining about the veil?
What if a homosexual considers his private good to be harmed by his inability to marry?
Eventually you need to pick sides on this. Where do you come down? Do you side with muslims? Do you side with women? Who do you silence, who needs to suck it up?
It is impossible to create a society in which nobody is offended. To suggest that offense is a proper way to judge the course that needs to be taken is simply put, insanity.
Like I said before, gay marriage, do you offend the religious? Do you offend the gays? Which sides emotions are more important? Why do I, as a supporter of gay rights, have to be offended, whilst muslims and christians get to have their feelings protected?
Why can't we have a proper discussion, the market place of ideas, and come to a conclusion what is best, what is most moral, what is the right course of action?
Why do you feel the need to storm in and dictate, in totalitarian fashion, that one group needs to keep their opinion to themselves, whilst another is allowed freedom of speech?
You are either against democracy, or you are not fully aware of the full extent of creating laws that protect people from being offended. To create laws that prevent people (to be more accurate, certain groups) from being offended means to abolish democracy and freedom of speech. It is utterly impossible to maintain either of those if you start to create laws that are based on preventing offense.
It might be totalitarianism with a smilly face, but it is totalitarianism no less.
You can certainly take a strong stance on this issue, but it is a meaningful discussion to have.
Who said that there can be no discussion? Once again, please refrain from argueing against the imaginary persona that you have created around me. Stick to things I actually say. It will prevent a great deal of confusion.
I have argued that discussion should be the norm. You have argued that certain discussions (or discussion starters, like this art display) need to be silenced because they cause offense. I will not permit you to wear the cloak of freedom and democracy whilst you attempt to stab both in the heart.
|
|
|
|