I don't believe in the censorship of anything, let's get it all out there.
I do think that it's alright to protect kids from depictions of extreme gore/violence until they're old enough to understand it (I know this is subjective).
Forum Index > General Forum |
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
I don't believe in the censorship of anything, let's get it all out there. I do think that it's alright to protect kids from depictions of extreme gore/violence until they're old enough to understand it (I know this is subjective). | ||
ikh
United Kingdom251 Posts
On February 21 2012 22:53 DoubleReed wrote: Uhhh... well taking down artwork in a museum because people don't like it is usually called censorship. Not everyone is looking for a fight. How does hate speech infringe on other people's rights? i don't know if it's usually called that like you say (especially since that doesn't happen, err, anywhere) but a community deciding it does not want to present a certain thing to itself is not censorship, it's a sort of democratic decision. in your previous post you were talking about a person, not people however; if on the other hand if an art gallery's private funder decides to fuck off because of a masturbating gay jesus painting, that's him deciding not to support a piece he finds objectable. nothing prevents the artist from taking it to another gallery, and controversy around a work is a huge boost to pretty much any artist's recognition, visibility, popularity and especially the value of all their pieces. not very hard to find an interested gallerist. as i edited in to my previous post it's a completely different story if it's public funding being drawn, or also if we're talking about business mega conglomerates driving their agenda/protecting their image. hate speech by definition encourages malicious disparagement and discrimination against a group or a person. i don't think there's a question to be made whether it is spoken with the intent to infringe on other people's rights, freedoms and/or well being. | ||
weekendracer
United States37 Posts
Then again, I'm personally against public funding for the arts. There's plenty of people who will fund artists, always has, always will be. All of the great artistic works from history (and most literature) were privately funded. | ||
Zambrah
United States6832 Posts
On February 21 2012 21:44 ikh wrote: Show nested quote + On February 21 2012 21:20 Zambrah wrote: Art should not be censored, but stupid, provocative for the sake of being provocative art should be labelled BAD. I feel like people now-a-days are so afraid to be told that they don't 'understand' art that they'll call anything something glues to a stool art. That just pollutes the pool of good art and encourages people to be shocking for the sake of being shocking. this is pretty much what i meant. why is it important something that cannot be objectively judged be labeled anything, much less in accordance to how you feel? what exactly is stupid about provocation for provocation's sake? i come from a background of knowing some modern painters largely belonging to a sort of an abstract expressionist bad painting sort of style and i generally appreciate their kind of work. i guess some kind of mix of jean-michel basquiat and jackson pollock, who sure as shit were and are huge names in the world of too expensive paintings. most people online who find they have tons of valuable things to say on good and bad art would likely think their works look like a six year old schizophrenic's scribblings. what kind of art do you call good art? If I had to give my favorite artistic movement, I'd say Romanticism, because to me, Romanticism was a time when art was what I'd consider "good." Romantic paintings use light and color to achieve an effect, and the paintings usually make me feel something, without drowning me in the message that may or may not be behind it. Theres this lovely balance between Form and Content that I believe good art should meet, and stuff like whats in the OP has way too much friggin' content in it. In my opinion, good art should strike up a balance between Form and Content. | ||
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
AlphaWhale
Australia328 Posts
On February 21 2012 12:36 Chylo wrote: Title should be changed to "Should Blasphemous Catholic Art be Censored?" TL's answer: No. Not surprising of course. Any other religion and it wouldn't be allowed though. Can you imagine the results of this if this was showing Jewish or Muslim holy things? ROFL, would never be allowed. Very natural of course, Jewish money keeps art that hates Christ and His Church going. The peace loving Muslims would start slaughtering people if this was Mohammad. You act as if nobody has ever created work touching on the sensibilities of Jewish or Muslim faith before... Google "Lady Hijab". | ||
lintho
Norway7 Posts
| ||
AlphaWhale
Australia328 Posts
On February 23 2012 09:18 Zambrah wrote: If I had to give my favorite artistic movement, I'd say Romanticism, because to me, Romanticism was a time when art was what I'd consider "good." Romantic paintings use light and color to achieve an effect, and the paintings usually make me feel something, without drowning me in the message that may or may not be behind it. Theres this lovely balance between Form and Content that I believe good art should meet, and stuff like whats in the OP has way too much friggin' content in it. In my opinion, good art should strike up a balance between Form and Content. That's just your opinion though, somebody can turn around and say Romantic paintings are boring and a self indulgent wank of technique. Another thing to consider is that art is relevant to it's context. In a world with sex is prevalent in modern media you have to go to the next level when you are trying to draw attention to this day to day obscenity. And that's how the schools of painting formed, it's just progress, but not in a linear sense. Because there's no real end goal in art. I'm not trying to defend these specific pieces, but other forms of art that don't meet your standards. There are more elements that come into play other than how long a work took to make or how accuratel it is. Although this topic is fairly cliche, consider the costumes, composition and lighting. Sure taking a photo is just pressing a button, but consider the moments leading up to that. Honestly though, this is news for a slow day. Nuns are a common fetish icon and those pictures just look like a trashy fashion/soft porn shoot. Any "official" censorship of art would just be exploited to stupid ends. | ||
Zambrah
United States6832 Posts
On February 23 2012 10:02 AlphaWhale wrote: Show nested quote + On February 23 2012 09:18 Zambrah wrote: If I had to give my favorite artistic movement, I'd say Romanticism, because to me, Romanticism was a time when art was what I'd consider "good." Romantic paintings use light and color to achieve an effect, and the paintings usually make me feel something, without drowning me in the message that may or may not be behind it. Theres this lovely balance between Form and Content that I believe good art should meet, and stuff like whats in the OP has way too much friggin' content in it. In my opinion, good art should strike up a balance between Form and Content. That's just your opinion though, somebody can turn around and say Romantic paintings are boring and a self indulgent wank of technique. Another thing to consider is that art is relevant to it's context. In a world with sex is prevalent in modern media you have to go to the next level when you are trying to draw attention to this day to day obscenity. And that's how the schools of painting formed, it's just progress, but not in a linear sense. Because there's no real end goal in art. I'm not trying to defend these specific pieces, but other forms of art that don't meet your standards. There are more elements that come into play other than how long a work took to make or how accuratel it is. Although this topic is fairly cliche, consider the costumes, composition and lighting. Sure taking a photo is just pressing a button, but consider the moments leading up to that. Honestly though, this is news for a slow day. Nuns are a common fetish icon and those pictures just look like a trashy fashion/soft porn shoot. Any "official" censorship of art would just be exploited to stupid ends. I don't think these are bad art because they were carelessly thrown together or anything, I'm just bludgeoned in the head with their message. I consider all of the work that goes into photography and most kinds of art, and I rarely REALLY criticize something because its lazy or something. But that mix of form and content is just way heavy on the content side, not to mention the fact that the form is incredibly similar to porn, which I personally don't dislike, but if it was done in a way that was in some way more... subtle, then I'd probably enjoy it far more. EDIT: Plus, calling Romanticism a wank of technique is kind of funny since the Romantic movement was a rejection of Neoclassicism which had a serious emphasis on perfect form and technique. ;-p | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • HeavenSC 93 StarCraft: Brood War• Hupsaiya 53 • gosughost_ 28 • Poblha • Migwel • aXEnki • Laughngamez YouTube • intothetv • Gussbus • LaughNgamez Trovo • IndyKCrew • Kozan Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
Sparkling Tuna Cup
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
Gypsy vs Bonyth
Mihu vs XiaoShuai
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Open Cup
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
[ Show More ] ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
ESL Pro Tour
Hatchery Cup
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
|
|