Should art be censored? - Page 10
Forum Index > General Forum |
FoeHamr
United States489 Posts
| ||
mememolly
4765 Posts
fuck religion, also fuck art that offends for the shear sake of offending | ||
KNICK
Germany248 Posts
| ||
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
Kinda annoying to get reminded how backwards the world still is sometimes. | ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 21 2012 01:53 FoeHamr wrote: I don't think art should be censored, but there are lines that artists shouldn't cross. The picture above serves no purpose other than to draw attention to the artist - who it said has drawn other controversial things. All it does is offend the people it is targeting. Can we have a little honesty in this topic? If you want to support censorship, that is fine. You can have that opinion (isn't that nice?). But please, stop saying two things that contradict each other. "I am not against abortion, but I don't think women should be allowed to have one." "I don't think art should be censored, but - " = pro-censorship. Again, if you want to be pro-censorship, be pro-censorship. All I ask is that you are honest about it. I know, you don't want to come out and say that you are pro-censorship. Censorship is bad word, we don't like to attach bad words to ourselves. But when the shoe fits, wear the shoe. Now, you are pro-censorship. You can either embrace this, or you can change your position. If you have trouble being on the pro-censorship end of the spectrum, change your position. If you like it there, be honest about it. Freedom of speech (and in this case art) does not exist to protect art that everyone finds perfectly acceptable. Freedom of art does not exist to protect the Mona Lisa. It exists for the sole purpose of defending the art that needs protection from the masses that would silence it. You don't need freedom of speech to praise the government, you need it to be critical of the government. | ||
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
| ||
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
I say let them do it, who are we to judge | ||
Tor
Canada231 Posts
| ||
Kevan
Sweden2303 Posts
On February 21 2012 02:03 KimJongChill wrote: Nothing should be censored unless it violates the rights of someone else. I agree. Censorship is like telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. | ||
couches
618 Posts
On February 20 2012 11:59 TheRhox wrote: 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. Being nice and cordial never got anybodies attention. Why do you think these pictures are being talked about. | ||
Longshank
1648 Posts
On February 21 2012 02:03 KimJongChill wrote: Nothing should be censored unless it violates the rights of someone else. Basically this, the pictures in the OP should not even be close to being censored. I kinda liked some of them. That obviously doesn't mean anything goes just as long as considers itself to be art.. | ||
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
But honestly, art should be about craft and mastery. Shock value is cheap. | ||
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
But I would support this, just because it breaks through the negative perceptions of sexuality in the catholic church. There should come a time where a man openly masturbating in a photo isn't considered shocking, so anything that gets society used to what should be considered natural is good to me. It would also be fun to go to an art gallery and hear to the comments people make :D. I wonder if someone has made any crazy artistic explanations involving postmodernism of a masturbating priest. | ||
valedictory
United States37 Posts
On February 21 2012 01:46 zalz wrote: 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. You did in fact claim some freedom to art is absolute, "much akin to freedom of speech," (which itself is a misnomer; freedom of speech is not absolute). Then you proceed to pick out arbitrary restrictions on what are can be published. In your example, why can third parties not publish the result? Certainly, the artist should be punished, but his art could still go uncensored? "Third parties cannot release the creation because it was not created with consent of the people in question." So, this is the condition for censorship? The subject matter of a work of art must give consent? (I don't actually think that is true at all) If this is the practice you've still given no reasons as to what distinguishes a Picasso from a snuff film in terms of publication or censorship, you've just stated the law. How can we discuss whether or not the practice is just? Additionally, your example is less apt than MiraMax's. Miramax has given a case where there is something questionable, if not clearly immoral or criminal, in viewing the art and where the art poses threat of harm to someone. Your case is just an insult to the deceased. In any case, you haven't argued against MiraMax, but unwittingly conceded his point. "Harm another public or private good," again, you speak in totalitarian terms. One vague law and an entire foundation of freedom is obliterated. I'm not terribly familiar with legal theory, but I believe harm is the basis for determining the limits of freedoms, at least in US legal tradition. | ||
UmiNotsuki
United States633 Posts
| ||
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
| ||
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On February 21 2012 03:12 Kaitlin wrote: As long as we have free speech and freedom of expression, it should be protected. However, I don't consider these people attacking religion to be anything special, let alone brave, until they start mocking all religions, including Islam. Honestly, I don't think they have the courage. In a way, Islam has already managed to push through censorship. They rely on the insane few to do the dirty work (murdering artists and free speech advocates) and then the moderates go: "Yes well, we shouldn't go around killing people, BUT, he was kind of asking for it." I agree that a similar art display with an islam theme would result in the artist in question to be forced into hiding. To that point I concede that this artist is somewhat of a coward for attacking the kid that doesn't really fight back. If he had done the artwork on Islam then he would have made a stronger point about pushing the boundaries of free speech. But I suppose even artists would prefer to be able to move around without an army of security guards. | ||
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On February 20 2012 22:07 Doctorasul wrote: 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? I'm not aware of the catholic church preaching hatred and discrimination as of late, or at least not mainstream preaching of it. Maybe there is some small cult I haven't heard about that preaches the inferiority of Jews or something, but I haven't heard of it. I have heard of the Church protecting child rapists, but, quite frankly, I don't consider the catholic church or the church in general a very tightly knit group like a corporation or something would be. Preachers and others have a large degree of independence in their actions and thus, you cannot get pissed at the Catholic faith or the whole priesthood for a few leaders protecting the morally corrupt among them. Also, this thread isn't about child rapists. I don't think you get the point of his art. He isn't making a statement about the hypocrisy of the catholic church, if that's what you think. Either way, what pisses me off about his art is the fact that I find it offensive morally, religiously and, depending on who has access to his art, ethically. Also, he said "most holy" convergence of the sacred and profane, which is stupid in and of itself. Also, I'm not catholic. I'm methodist. | ||
Brootalbro
Korea (South)105 Posts
| ||
| ||