PDA

View Full Version : Limits to freedom of expression?



Fardak
01-25-2004, 03:54 AM
BH

Hey,
This is not LW related, but as this is a community of artists I am interested in hearing your opinions.

I just read that the Israeli ambassador to Sweden vandalized a art exhibit which glorified a suicide bomber. In the wake of his actions he has been sharply criticized by many people.The director of the museaum, guy named Berg, had this to say: "You can have your own view of what this piece of art is all about, but using violence is never, ever allowed, and it is never allowed to try to silence the artist". In my opinion, that is a bucket of cow manure, if I ever heard one. (That is a figure of speech. I am aware that manure is, technically, silent.)

As far as I am concerned, art is a language. Certain people speak with word, that is their talent, they are called speakers. Other people speak with their art, they are called artists. When it comes to freedom of speech, everyone agrees that there are lines you do not cross. Libel, slander, incitement etc. It is not the manner through which you convey your message that makes it wrong, it is your message. Incitement and slander through art is just incitement and slander in another language.

There are indeed those who fight for freedom of expression and they are to be commended, however, those arrogant artists who would place themselves above the regular person and beyond censorship should be, IMHO, condemned and named for the arrogant people they are, and by the community of artists louder and stronger than anyone else.

I would love to hear your opinions on this, but in order to get some sort of idea of the stats I am posting a simple poll. If your opinion falls between the two extremes, please write.

Here is a link to a article about the ambassador (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-01/18/article02.shtml) (I realize this article may be slanted but it was the only one with pics):)

cyphyr
01-25-2004, 04:39 AM
I Voted for oiption 1 although with some reservations, of course freedom of expression is to be encouraged, applauded and indeed expected but along with that comes responsibility. Maybe the artist should concider the act of vandalism as an extension of his own art.
cyphyr

Fardak
01-25-2004, 05:02 AM
@ cyphyr

hehe interesting take. All I am saying is that just as we have established a red line in the spoken language, because your freedom does not give you the right to hurt others, the arts should be no different. we don't say, Freedom of Speech and I hope you act responsibly - incitement is a crime as is slander. Why should the arts be different?

cresshead
01-25-2004, 05:10 AM
i think that if artists decide to make pictures of adults hurting children, that then put's violence into a "entertainment role" which is not a good thing for making this world a better place to live in.It does nothing to lessen future violent crimes and simply gains the artist publicity and noterioty in hope that he can offend the "public" enough to get on t.v or in the paper so he can make a living out of his/her perverse pictures.



:rolleyes:

Nemoid
01-25-2004, 05:12 AM
Voted for option one.
of course, an artist live into a society, so his freedom ends where other people's freedom starts.

Fardak
01-25-2004, 05:12 AM
Oh BTW I am not sure it's clear, but the second option is means the arts may not be used irresponsibly just as the spoken word. In other words it is a abuse of your freedom and as much a crime as if it was the spoken word.

Obviously, we're not talking about one paranoiac who thinks the art is slandering him - it must be fairly obvious. I'm not a lawyer but I am sure there are legal definitions when something is accepted as slanderous etc.

Nemoid
01-25-2004, 05:14 AM
D'oh! I'd vote then for option 3 :D

jevinstudios
01-25-2004, 08:33 AM
We are so quick to silence others when we do not agree with what they say -- in art, literature, in civil disobedience, and on the streets..... As the world becomes a more crowded place, we as people have gotten thinner skins, taking offense at everything that contradicts our personal beliefs.

The Israelis are building the "New Berlin Wall", not out of a desire for protection, but a divisive structure of hate and exclusion. And meanwhile, in the U.S., people are branded as "Traitors" if they speak out and question the government and it's role in restricting civil liberties and pre-emption in miltary world affairs. Now art is being trashed by diplomats whose purpose is to bridge the gaps between their countries....

I am very saddened that the majority of public opinion has it that even art is now to be second-guessed, and that people's feelings are to be taken into account before an artistic expression is made in order to avoid stepping on someone's toes.

Who defines art, and the message it speaks? I may not feel that a suicide bomber is a martyr, but I fully believe that the individual who created that piece has the right and the freedom to speak his heart through his art -- art is a bridge of communication and understanding, whether we agree with the message or not.

I just think people need to view these messages and ponder them, not destroy them -- discuss the piece and not slander the artist. When levels of art are considered slander or obscene, we are sending a message that certain forms of expression are forbidden and wrong. Who decides these boundaries? Conformists? Governments? Religions? Or all of the above?

I, for one, am 100% anti-censorship -- always have been, and always will. I appreciate opposing viewpoints, because they help me look at an issue from another perspective, sometimes learning more about a topic, culture or individual that I had never considered before.

The angry diplomat could have wisely used that piece as a backdrop to plead for an understanding between the Israeli and Palestinian people, which I believe was the true intention of the piece. Instead, he blindly threw a tantrum and tried to build another wall between their people, this one in the form of censorship and a refusal to mediate and extend a hand in understanding.

Quite sad.

kfiram
01-25-2004, 10:38 AM
I don't want to go too deep into that subject, but I do want to emphasize two things:

1. Regardless of the general question (should art be censored - a question I can't even try to answer), the Israeli ambassador's behaviour was a complete embaracement to me as an Israeli. Mainly because he did not even begin to comprehand the piece he saw: that piece did not "justify terror" as some say. What is did, is visualise the dreaded "cycle of blood" (a Hebrew expression). It represents the way people revenge the death of their beloved ones by killing other people's beloved ones, who then kill others and so on. The artist didn't do anything that can be interpreted as supporting terror or killing in any other way. He did the exact opposite. This is why I, for once, am completely behind Berg on that subject.

2. jevinstudios mentioned the "Berlin Wall" that Israel is supposedly building. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a left wing Israeli (as might be concluded from my previous statement). Actually, I might be considered "extreme leftist", and am even prone to expressions such as "traitor", "self hater" and the likes of that. But this "Berlin Wall" propaganda is really stupid. The wall we're building (which I'm personally against, but not for the reasons jevinstudios mentioned) is strictly a security measure. It was an initiative that was started by the Israeli leftists, ment to protect Israel from terrorists WITHOUT HAVING TO RE-CONCOUR PALASTINE. It's just a wall that's meant to be unpetratable, or at least hard to pass through. And it did in fact make it harder for terrorist to get into Israel. Since its construction, terror attacks declined dramaticly, and the sence of security was greatly enhanced for us Israelis. The Palastines are doing their best to make it into a "Wall of Hate" when it is in fact just a border between two nations.

cresshead
01-25-2004, 10:51 AM
this world seems to be spirling outwards to extreems just to get noticed and "look different" or just "look at me".

the way this is going....

one day soon i'd expect to see that a "artist" will paint the act of a pediphile in action to try and make a "art statement"...just where are we heading nowdays?

or a serial killer might take photos or paint his victims and want them to be hung in a gallery..wold that also fall into self expression and be perfectly fine for children to walk around and ask questions of their "art teachers"?

to put such things under a banner of "self expression" is weird...such an artist needs medical/phsyciatric help not a gallery.

umstitch
01-25-2004, 11:08 AM
Fardak why are you posting this rather skewed question?

That you, or anyoneone else considers freedom of expression to be a kind of opinion you can have, is indeed deeply disturbing.

I visit these forums regularly, I take a lot from this community, I believe in the people here, they share their work, their Lightwave experiments, and are always assisting each other.

Interesting to note that the artist you are refering to is a female Israeli, who was asked to exhibit her work. No one would have heard much, if anything, about this exhibition, had the Israeli Ambassador not attacked the artwork.

How easy it is simplify, like the news does, events like these.
I believe there is a culture of fear in the western world, this culture has not been brought about by any artist.

There are too many people in power whos only wish seems to be to impose their will on others, ultimately to control them.

Dont forget, when someones freedom to express and challenge is diminished, so are your freedoms diminished.

Rather than seeing people silenced and ridiculed, for producing work that doesnt suit a powerful minority, I for one will do my utmost to defend and encourage the right of people to explore themselves and the world they find themselves in.

CB_3D
01-25-2004, 11:34 AM
1, no question about it for me.

Artistic messages depend so much on context, artistīs background, mentality and cultural education of the viewer and so on and on and on.

As to art being a language, languages DO evolve because of undogmatic use of new words. I guess for art it would be the same. If weīd put moral and contextual constraints on artists and their work soon the concept of art itself would stop existing.

However, i do understand the ambassadorīs shock reaction...not the act that followed, though. And the most shocking aspect is the support he got from Sharon for this.

Fardak
01-25-2004, 12:05 PM
Just to clarify:

My intent in asking the question was just to get an idea of how artists themselves view themselves and their art. Art is not without direction, a random act meant to be interpreted as the viewer wishes. Art is a person making a specific statement, albeit without the a bit of leeway. Being so, a arguement can be made that the intent of the artist was not to do damage. However, the fact remains that damage can and has been done by art in the past and I'm sure will be done in the future. In our world anything with power can be used or abused. Art, which is a lot more powerful than words, has a greater potential for abuse, for it strikes a deeper chord. CB_3D, we place moral and contextual constraints on speakers, and i would argue, rightfully so. Although a speaker may not mean harm we have, and we must have, a system which prevents people from using their freedom to harm other people, so we have come up with what is called, in laymans terms "a dictionary". We have established meanings for the words we use. In a case where the meaning is in doubt or ambigous we have a system with which to judge the status of the statement. I doubt any of you here are making a case for allowing slander and the like - why do we as artists place ourselves above the law?

Just to round things off:

@umstitch - I think everyone agrees that freedom of expression is a given. I just think that freedom of expression does not allow you to hurt other people.

@jevinstudios - Who made art into a untouchable Holy of Holies? Most of the world seems to be in agreement that laws and regulations are necessary to protect people, although different people differ on what they think is excessive meddling. Why is art different? I would venture to say that on other issues you are not "%100 anti-censorship" so all I am asking in this poll is if, and if so, why, is art held to different standards?

Ride the Wave,
Fardak

wacom
01-25-2004, 12:15 PM
This topic needs to be moved to the general discussion board!

First off- violence should never be the first answer regardless of if its art related or not.

Before I go on I have a question for you:

Was this in a public or private "gallery"? To me it does make a difference.

I find it funny that it's ok to go and destroy some art work in a gallery, but lets say I wanted to sneak into HBO's office and burn every master copy of "The Sopranos" because I think it glamorizes organized crime, violence, extortion, abuse and images that perpetuate the "Italian American Stereotype" to name a few. I'd be rightfully prosecuted wouldn't I?
Now you might also say that HBO is a private, pay preview cable company, and therefore even more protected. If I didn't like it I should have written the company, or formed a political/social group to combat it in a NON-VIOLENT nature.
So what was the right idea here? Well I just think that once you start to combat art in any form with violence you've got a mess on your hands. I think if you don't like it you should use that thing called "Freedom of Expression" to go and make some form of art to combat what you don't like. If art is a language, well then why in the hell don't you just write something, say and editorial in a paper, to state your point and draw attention to the problem. I think an official as high up as this guy could manage to get something printed don't you?
To add to this was the fact that violence isn't a discussion. Artist put out their work for discussion. Once it's hung on a gallery wall or put into the LW forum it's up for grabs. As soon as you punch someone in the face you end the discussion.
I don't personally mind violence as long as it is a LAST resort. Often it in many cultures it isn't a last resort and is seen as a way to "get your point across". If you're a suicide bomber that blows yourself up do you make me notice your "idea"? Hell yes- you blew yourself to nothing for it. Does it make me sympathies with you more? Hell no- you resorted to violence to get your point across- and apparently you aren't attempting to use your venues of self expression correctly (pending you have venues).
Man- I hop you stated this topic knowing full well that it deals with so many issues that it's only going to cause this thread to become a shouting match.

Let me put it this way:
If you made some work in the LW gallery that I didn't like would it be right for me to go and systematically hack into the LW site and remove it? Then if I kept removing it, when ever and where ever I found it on the web, print, etc.? I think you're ***** would have the feds on my butt in no time. Rightfully so too.

Let me ask you this: just who do you consider an artist? I know a lot of people who make art in diffrent forms (like LWer's) and they don't seem to put them selves above or out side of society. NO- instead they engage regular people and their issues way MORE than the average joe in humble ways. Good people who care about things and won't take a swing at ya no mater how hard you push them!

Put your money where you mouth is- post a piece of your own work on the LW site and let us all deface it as much as we want and repost it! I have a feeling that there are some people here that, without using violence, could make you feel beaten and bruised no mater what you did to save face.

Violence and freedom of expression are at opposite ends my friends.

CB_3D
01-25-2004, 12:24 PM
I just used the language as an example for cultural evolution. Art in all its forms is much more complex and open for interpretation, and as i said before, very dependant on context.

I remember having that same discussion on this forum regarding the graphical despiction of child-abuse. Itīs a topic that can be a lot more complicated than just "Censorship Yes/No".

As i said before, it depends on the context. I wouldnīt want to be in the shoes of a liberal censor, if such a thing exists.;)

wacom
01-25-2004, 12:40 PM
Fardak- I thought it fair to post an image of my self since I defaced yours. You could get a lot out of it if you made an it an animated gif too!

Have fun!

PS- You're all welcome to use my image however you like.

Fardak
01-25-2004, 12:41 PM
BH

@ Wacom - You may be right - I wasn't sure where to post it. I'm sure a moderator will move it if it is getting in the way. I find it funny that people are getting all worked up and personal. I am not condoning or even discussing what the ambassador did, I do not condone violance as a first resort, I think "file-sharing" is a crime because you are not paying the person who worked hard to produce that piece, and I was in no way calling artists, as a group, arrogant - I would like to one day be considered among them. It's just the attitude that everything can be regulated to prevent innocent people from being hurt but art is sancrosanct that I find arrogant.
I would love to have something I felt worth sharing - I am a newbie and as soon as I do I will. You are right. I would be hurt if people cruelly attacked my piece. But I won't even make a piece with the intent to hurt someone and if there was a way of setting a standard way of deciding if a piece is a abuse of Freedom of Expression, and it was decided that mine was, I would agree to take it down.

@CB_3D I agree that on a practical level it would be a difficult thing to do but we manage to protect people from everything else, why do we refuse to even look at art as a potential harm?

CB_3D
01-25-2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Fardak
BH
why do we refuse to even look at art as a potential harm?


Because thatīs just one step away from thought-control.

Who is to decide what the artist meant with his seemingly controversial piece if not the artist himself (if he wishes to).

But i do see your point. Anyway, i can form my own opinions about artwork, and i REALLY REALLY donīt want anyone telling me whatīs too provocative, amoral or "un-arty".

Filesharing is a completely different topic:rolleyes:

wacom
01-25-2004, 01:20 PM
Fardak- Hey this post is great and I'm glad you posted it! It's nice to see, even though I may not agree 100% with you, that you've thought this out a little. There have been so many threads on the LW boards that were started without anyone thinking first that it just isn't funny no more.

Personaly I find it refreshing to have so many people take these posts to heart. It gives me hope that people aren't just sitting back and letting things like TV wash images over them. We should all be pissed off right now to some degree no mater what you slant is on the current situation with the world. If you're not then you're probably make'n money no mater who gets hurt.

It's also nice to know that people still think images are powerful instead of redundant. We like to treat art like a secular thing in this country and we shouldn't. Art should be respected, not held as sacred.

wacom
01-25-2004, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by wacom
There have been so many threads on the LW boards that were started without anyone thinking first that it just isn't funny no more.

I need to read my posts BEFORE I post!

"...it is't funny no more." Grammar!

Sorry

Fardak
01-25-2004, 01:47 PM
BH

@wacom Thank you for the kind words. Sorry I wasn't clear enough before. I am also glad to see people care enough about the issue to discuss it, I sometimes get the feeling that we have become too jaded to care about anything.

@CB_3D I am sure you have your own taste in art and I respect it. However we have come up with a way of qualifying statements as harmful or harmless, controversy aside. IMHO The same should be done with the wonderful language we call art. I am not calling you a hypocrite, really, I just want to understand, do you believe that regulating the spoken word is "Thought Control" and if not, why do you see art differently? I understand that art is more vague and given to interpretation but just as we regulate spoken word, without necesserally saying that the intent was slander, just because we have agreed on a method of measurement, the same should apply to art. Vague or not, a decision of yes or no can be reached based on a agreed upon system. Sorry if I sound repetitive :p .

CB_3D
01-25-2004, 02:16 PM
Ahh, donīt worry, i perfectly understand Your concern regarding this topic. I myself have gone through this internal struggle quite a few times. But thatīs the point of good (or not so good) art...to make you think and feel, which IMHO is never a bad thing.

Maybe the comparison to the natural evoultion of languages was a little off. Obviously a language has to be moderated to guarantee a consensus that enables us to comunicate.

Artistic expression doesnīt need that consensus, quite the opposite. Art needs the freedom to place itself into a shadowy corner of doubt about its meaning.

Thatīs just my opinion, of course.

Fardak
01-25-2004, 02:40 PM
I agree. However when the doubt involves harming someone else, the doubt has to be resolved at least to the extent of keeping that artwork private to protect others. What I mean is it should at least have a legal definition which we can refference to protect innocent people, even though it shouldn't necesarally have a artistic "set" definition.

CB_3D
01-25-2004, 03:08 PM
With harm You mean psychologically or emotionally, right? At least thatīs the only harm i can imagine (directly) coming from artistic expression.

I think that itīs safe to assume that most "sane" people with a minimal degree of social education can distinguish propaganda from art these days.

At least i hope so.

Maybe all this boils ultimately down to "What is art?", leading to the next question "If itīs not art should it be censored"?

As you see You have opened a can of worms, LOL

PS: Mutilating animals on stage is not art, that much iīve concluded for myself:eek:

Fardak
01-25-2004, 03:25 PM
Some cans of worms need to be opened and cleaned. By harm I mean emotional and psychological, slanderous pieces or misinforming pieces etc. You get the point.

toby
01-25-2004, 03:31 PM
Fardak, you make too many assumptions and then draw conclusions from them.

Art is not a language in the same way that speech is. It is not taken literally. Art cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre (except figuratively, which does not cause a stampede.), it's contents cannot be used as evidence, etc. etc.

If I made an image of someone molesting a child, made it photo-real and claimed that it was a photograph, then it would be a slanderous lie. If I claim that it's photo-real art, it's not a slanderous lie.

Besides, the claim that a piece of artwork has hurt people will always eventually be used for censorship. Do you have any examples of damage that's caused by art? Besides people's claim that they're disturbed or upset?


this world seems to be spirling outwards to extreems just to get noticed and "look different" or just "look at me".
the way this is going....one day soon i'd expect to see that a "artist" will paint the act of a pediphile in action to try and make a "art statement"...just where are we heading nowdays?

cresshead, you're making the assumption that the artist condones that behaviour instead of maybe trying to make people aware or just expressing what they may have experienced. Just like the example of the Ambassador who assumed that the artwork 'glorified' suicide bombing. I think we can all agree that the Ambassador acted with a total lack of responsibility and intelligence.

There are art pieces that I personnally think are just childish attempts at getting attention, like the crucifix in urine or the picture of the virgin mary painted in fesces, but they are not license for regulation of the entire world of expression.

CB_3D
01-25-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Fardak
Some cans of worms need to be opened and cleaned. By harm I mean emotional and psychological, slanderous pieces or misinforming pieces etc. You get the point.

I donīt see art as an information vehicle per se in the first place, although it is constantly beig (mis-?) used as such. Artistic "means" and "techniques" are used everyday to advertize products, and a lot of the messages transmitted are misinforming.

Where to drawn the line?

I agree, when it comes to art (in whatever form) many pieces are ridiculous, simply ugly or just exploitative. Actually IMHO the piece that provoked the afforementioned incident fits in nicely in one of these 3 categories;)

However, this doesnīt justify censor-ship. Parental-guidance warnings, maybe, but that would be all.

mattclary
01-25-2004, 08:04 PM
Sounds like the Israeli ambasador was expessing himself, and I fully support his right to do so. ;)

toby
01-25-2004, 09:32 PM
flipping out in public while officially representing your country, destroying personnal property, and putting people in danger at the same time - basically thinking with your a**, as an art form?
We are in trouble -

CB_3D
01-25-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by mattclary
Sounds like the Israeli ambasador was expessing himself, and I fully support his right to do so. ;)

Yeah, a good punk performance a lá Johnny Rotten. Very 70īs:rolleyes:

vee
01-25-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Fardak
Some cans of worms need to be opened and cleaned. By harm I mean emotional and psychological, slanderous pieces or misinforming pieces etc. You get the point.

Fardak, I don't mean to personally attack you, but. What you are saying comes from an extremely naive and narrow perpective.

The first thing we must understand is that art is much more than the pencil, paint, clay or pixels used to create it. The time and context in which it was done have far more impact on the percieved "controversy" than the art itself ( the art and artist to which this applies are endless, but i'm sure we are all aware of say michelangelo angelo and his sisteen chapel) He was dang near hung over something we would consider trivial today.

If you are ready to set up some kind of an artist Inquisition, well that's already been done. The Romans tried it and we all know where it got them.

If you really want to open that can of worms, I think you may want to reconsider.
Or all of us LWvers may have our HVs deemed unlawful ( what the heck are we blowing stuff up for anyway and who knows what emotional and psychological damaged we do.

By the way, my vote (if i were to participate in the can cleaning) would be to ban what i would have to say is the all time most violent and vile piece of crap ever unleased onto the public. The Three Stooges (now they were bad).

Chrysolithos
01-25-2004, 10:40 PM
Sure, I'll leap into the fray.

My personal feeling is fear of the number of artists here who feel there are things we can never say out loud. One of the things separating children from free-thinking mature adults (Or so I naively thought) was the ability to listen to what other people say without responding with a physical act (i.e.. sticks and stones... etc)
I've since come to the realization that many so called adults never really grew up, and need to be protected from forms of communications that can cause them to lose control. Or is the concept of adult behavior fundamentally flawed in that it can not be attained by the majority? Do we need to regulate the 'bandwidth' as it were, of human expression and communications. I'm not denying that freedom of speech isn't a double bladed sword; it just that the alternative seems worse.

Hervé
01-25-2004, 11:44 PM
nice thread.... Saturday Night on TV, (france2) here was a writer that was abused by a pedophile when he was young..... and .... he liked it.... (cant believe him !) so Cresshead.... I mean Steve, we are there already...! Hopefully, this world will soon explode into a super Nova.... he he

Adrian Lopez
01-26-2004, 05:25 AM
What nobody has yet to mention is that the artwork the ambassador vandalized is neither slanderous (who is the person being slandered?) nor an incitement to violence (an irate ambassador doesn't count!).

Lightwolf
01-26-2004, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by cresshead
i think that if artists decide to make pictures of adults hurting children, that then put's violence into a "entertainment role" which is not a good thing for making this world a better place to live in.
That depends on whether you see art as entertainment or not. If you see art as an alternate way to open your eyes, make you see things differently, then you wouldn't be offended by the action you describe.
Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
01-26-2004, 05:48 AM
Hi Fardak,

Originally posted by Fardak
Oh BTW I am not sure it's clear, but the second option is means the arts may not be used irresponsibly just as the spoken word. In other words it is a abuse of your freedom and as much a crime as if it was the spoken word.
Which in this case would mean, that, if the artist would have outspoken his thoughts on the subject, he'd be put in prison for it. If he wouldn't then there's nothing wrong with it ?


Obviously, we're not talking about one paranoiac who thinks the art is slandering him - it must be fairly obvious. I'm not a lawyer but I am sure there are legal definitions when something is accepted as slanderous etc.
The problem I see here is that the definition of art (let alone the interpretation) is a wide open field. What some see as art, others may see as decoration and so on. Who is to judge?

...as a side note, I don't see much that I would consider "art" in these forums for example, and would never consider myself an "artist(e)" either.

Cheers,
Mike

faulknermano
01-26-2004, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by mattclary
Sounds like the Israeli ambasador was expessing himself, and I fully support his right to do so. ;)

i agree. if it was legal to burn down the gallery i would support him as well.

one guy justifies suicide bombings, the other condemns it. this is about ones opinions, not "art."

faulknermano
01-26-2004, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Chrysolithos
Sure, I'll leap into the fray.

My personal feeling is fear of the number of artists here who feel there are things we can never say out loud. One of the things separating children from free-thinking mature adults (Or so I naively thought) was the ability to listen to what other people say without responding with a physical act (i.e.. sticks and stones... etc)

thanks to mediums like the internet we are all equal now. "without responding with a physical act" is not the hallmark "maturity". i would venture to opine that "to talk without inciting physical harm to onself" is closer to "maturity." goodness knows how many people _here_ talk trash because they dont meet eye to eye.


I've since come to the realization that many so called adults never really grew up, and need to be protected from forms of communications that can cause them to lose control. Or is the concept of adult behavior fundamentally flawed in that it can not be attained by the majority? Do we need to regulate the 'bandwidth' as it were, of human expression and communications. I'm not denying that freedom of speech isn't a double bladed sword; it just that the alternative seems worse.

it's not the "form of communication." it's what is being communicated. if content was not able to "incite" people to do something, then what is speech all about? you talk in idyllic terms about communication as if people were all consciousness and no arms to punch with, no legs to move in for the kill. freedome of speech is not the most "ideal of ideals." it is not automatically a good thing. it could be. but not automatically; it still has to be justified on a case to case basis. c.s. lewis had said, "nothing is good except goodness."

jin choung
01-26-2004, 06:35 AM
nevermind the art question.

the crux of the issue is WHO GETS TO DECIDE what is ok to EXPRESS?

the german government strictly censors nazi stuff... i'm all in favor of that.

but what if the german government decided to censor something else that wasn't so out and out bad - or something that i really liked - like grand theft auto 3 - or hot girl on girl action?

the brilliance of the american system is that it doesn't trust anyone as far as you can throw them!

the american system is essentially ADVERSARIAL:

it assumes that NOBODY has the inside line on truth or right or good. nobody has a direct connection to the mouth of god. for all intents and purposes, truth and good and right might as well not even exist.

instead, we have SIDES:

- republican v. democrats
- executive v. legislative v. judicial v. press
- prosecution v. defense
- liberal v. conservative

and just like the russian notion of DIALECTIC, we bet that the clashing of a THESIS and ANTITHESIS will result in an acceptable SYNTHESIS.

so yes, i'm in favor of ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - as long as the expression (or the making of) does not do violence upon the rights and liberties of others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but this discussion is only in regards to GOVERNMENT REGULATION anyway.

there are lots of forms of regulation other than by government!

social anathema, workplace discrimination, etc etc etc.

and you're forgetting "REGULATION BY NUTS":

there seems to be large populations of people who exert most of their energy in the writing DEATH THREATS.... then there are a percentage of that population that would actually go around taking people out.

many examples in history where these factors have operated with various degrees of success as non-governmental censors.

so yah, in many countries, censorship by government is still a big issue, but in all countries (alas), regulation by nuts is still an additional factor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW,

this is why i am absolutely in favor of anonymity on the internet. many would say that such anonymity is a manifestation of a LACK OF COURAGE.

but that's the point isn't it? why should one have to HAVE COURAGE?! courage against what? it is an assumption of potential reprisals.

and that's wrong.

the internet may indeed be the last and final bastion of truly free speech and in that case, we should all perhaps be good and anonymous.

Lightwolf
01-26-2004, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by faulknermano
one guy justifies suicide bombings, the other condemns it. this is about ones opinions, not "art."
You see, that is _your_ opinion on the piece in the gallery.
However, just to quote the article:

Berg
"It is rather an invitation to think about why such things happen in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," he said.

Berg further said Mazel's behavior "is never, ever allowed, and it is never allowed to try to silence the artist," he said.
An invitation to think doesn't justify a drastic measure like that, does it?
Cheers,
Mike

faulknermano
01-26-2004, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
That depends on whether you see art as entertainment or not. If you see art as an alternate way to open your eyes, make you see things differently, then you wouldn't be offended by the action you describe.
Cheers,
Mike

that is true, in a sense. but i dont believe that hits the mark completely. i think it can go both ways, or get stuck in the middle. "art" may open your eyes, but it doesnt mean it will endear you towards the thesis of that particular artwork. it could turn you towards the opposite side, hating it completely, or it could go anywhere between there. being "open-minded" doesnt always mean taking everyone's side. it just means you have seriously considered it.


on a more personal note: i think the "art"work was a gross simplification of the whole social / political dynamic between palestine and israel. it is almost childish in my eyes (only in mine). thus, i have no respect for it.

jin choung
01-26-2004, 06:49 AM
again,

i think 'art' as a consideration is a side issue.

the real issue here is EXPRESSION. 'art' would be a subset of that so let's just be clearer and talk about expression.

jin

faulknermano
01-26-2004, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
You see, that is _your_ opinion on the piece in the gallery.
However, just to quote the article:


of course it is my opinion. that's always a given. :)


An invitation to think doesn't justify a drastic measure like that, does it?
Cheers,
Mike

i suppose not. but i'm not the ambassador. i'm not part of the conflict. i have not lost loved ones. i really dont know. maybe if the situation of "burning down the gallery" wasnt so academic (because it is illegal) maybe then we can discuss it in detail.



but as for berg:

"an artist statement says more than his art ever does."

Lightwolf
01-26-2004, 06:56 AM
Originally posted by faulknermano
being "open-minded" doesnt always mean taking everyone's side. it just means you have seriously considered it.
Absolutely. But filtering out content that may influence your consideration, that might make you actually change sides, isn't really a solution, is it?

I can't (and don't want to, since it seems to be irrelevant) really comment on the "quality" of the artwork, but it seems to have served its purpose very well by starting discussions (I guess this on isn't the only one, and we're not even talking about the content, but just about the expression as a a piece of art).

"an artist statement says more than his art ever does." - he is probably right, especially looking at today's "art" scene.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
01-26-2004, 06:59 AM
...damn, I'm getting caught in an endless thread again, I need to get some work done ;)

Fardak
01-26-2004, 04:32 PM
Without going through all the remarks and answering each one I will just make two points.

Number one - It was a theoretical question. I think it highly improbable that anyone would agree on a fair system. I also was not discussing this particular case. Call it a catylyst if you will. Basically I felt the opinions expressed to defend the art were arrogant, regardless of wether it needed a defense at all.

and Two - there are at least a few unambigous sybols out there one of them being blood and another being white. 99 out of 100 people will tell you that white represents purity. So, in a case where the symbolism is understood by all or at least most, why should someone be able to hide behind the cover of "the Holy Artist"

TyVole
01-26-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by jin choung
and just like the russian notion of DIALECTIC, we bet that the clashing of a THESIS and ANTITHESIS will result in an acceptable SYNTHESIS.


The notion of dialetics was actually developed by the German philosopher Hegel. His theories were later adapted by Marx, another German philosopher, into dialetical materialism.

Other than that, Jin, I agree with you 100%.

ursa
01-26-2004, 04:57 PM
i think what it boils down to is whether you want to think for yourself and make your own choices, or whether you would be more comfortable letting some authority figure do the dangerous thinking for you....... i've seen some of the authority figures out there today, and frankly, i'd rather they stay out of my decision making processes.

wacom
01-26-2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Fardak

and Two - there are at least a few unambigous sybols out there one of them being blood and another being white. 99 out of 100 people will tell you that white represents purity. So, in a case where the symbolism is understood by all or at least most, why should someone be able to hide behind the cover of "the Holy Artist"

Unless you are from many parts of China where white is the color of death. There a "white wedding" might not be considered such a "pure" act. Consider me the 1% in American, but I might be with roughly 30%+ of the global population on this one.

Having said that I really don't know what the take is on other cultures when it comes to many other colors- but I know if varies quite a bit. You could really offend someone if you didn't explain why you were using a certain color in some instances.

On another note- of the art piece(s) mentioned a while back the one that used "****" was done by a religious African man. You see- in some cultures in Africa Elephant dung is a sacred and holly thing. Now even knowing this I still see a Virgin Mary covered in crap, but, like the interpretation of the color white, I do understand that he's from a different culture that sees something else.

This also reminds me of a custom that troops are having a hard time getting use to in Iraq. Many times when they go to raid a place they a greeted by the people who live there and offered food and water. For the first several months of occupation the troops were refusing to eat or drink anything- thinking it was a stalling technique or trick. Needless to say this really pissed some people off. It was like saying someone is so beneath you that they are an animal, and their food and shelter isn't fit for you. Oopsie!

This happens a lot when people invade other places though...but it does illustrate how a little "understanding" can do what no amount of violence ever will. (BTW they are eating some of the food now and having a drink sometimes after an Iraqi American police officer training people to do raids on houses told them what was up...)

My point to this rant is that from my vantage point it's really hard to make a call about this "bomber" artist’s work. I don't know their name, where they are from, their education or past, or what country they belong to. Nor did I see the work in a gallery setting, read the artist statement, or get to contemplate the work. All I'm getting is a headline. I guess that someone already decided for me what it was about when they destroyed it...

Adrian Lopez
01-26-2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Fardak
Basically I felt the opinions expressed to defend the art were arrogant, regardless of wether it needed a defense at all. Was the museum director defending the artwork, or was he condemning the ambassador's actions? There's a difference!

The ambassador's actions are worthy of condemnation. I feel as if you're blaming the artist for the ambassador's outburst, but the only person to blame is the ambassador (he is, I presume, capable of self restraint).

UnCommonGrafx
01-26-2004, 08:11 PM
Shocked to see you here, Adrian.
:D
I think they think passion forgives it all.

I'm gonna go back to soaking in my imaginary Jamaican sun here in the snowy midwest....

toby
01-26-2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by wacom

On another note- of the art piece(s) mentioned a while back the one that used "****" was done by a religious African man. You see- in some cultures in Africa Elephant dung is a sacred and holly thing. Now even knowing this I still see a Virgin Mary covered in crap, but, like the interpretation of the color white, I do understand that he's from a different culture that sees something else.


I didn't know that, I thought it was someone in the US - makes a good example of the fallicy of controlling artwork or expression -

Hervé
01-26-2004, 11:27 PM
hey all, I just think you cannot make an "omelette" without breaking eggs.... when Picasso started to paint cubism, lots of people were offended..... and so what, who gives a dam s....t about miss-non-f....d people.... ha ha ha... I am 45 and I am even more punk than I was in 77.....

jin choung
01-27-2004, 12:26 AM
hey tyvole,

color me corrected. i didn't know that!

i come into this bit of philosophy from film theory so my assumption was Eisenstein > Marx.... didn't realize there was a Marx>Hegel - and hegel's the guy that invented those exercises to prolong sexual stamina right? :)

anyhoo, thanks for the education.

jin

archiea
01-27-2004, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Fardak
BH

Hey,
This is not LW related, but as this is a community of artists I am interested in hearing your opinions.

I just read that the Israeli ambassador to Sweden vandalized a art exhibit which glorified a suicide bomber. In the wake of his actions he has been sharply criticized by many people.The director of the museaum, guy named Berg, had this to say: "You can have your own view of what this piece of art is all about, but using violence is never, ever allowed, and it is never allowed to try to silence the artist". In my opinion, that is a bucket of cow manure, if I ever heard one. (That is a figure of speech. I am aware that manure is, technically, silent.)

As far as I am concerned, art is a language. Certain people speak with word, that is their talent, they are called speakers. Other people speak with their art, they are called artists. When it comes to freedom of speech, everyone agrees that there are lines you do not cross. Libel, slander, incitement etc. It is not the manner through which you convey your message that makes it wrong, it is your message. Incitement and slander through art is just incitement and slander in another language.

There are indeed those who fight for freedom of expression and they are to be commended, however, those arrogant artists who would place themselves above the regular person and beyond censorship should be, IMHO, condemned and named for the arrogant people they are, and by the community of artists louder and stronger than anyone else.

I would love to hear your opinions on this, but in order to get some sort of idea of the stats I am posting a simple poll. If your opinion falls between the two extremes, please write.

Here is a link to a article about the ambassador (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-01/18/article02.shtml) (I realize this article may be slanted but it was the only one with pics):)

Its funny because of this statement.....

"Mazel was captured on video unplugging electrical wires around the exhibit's basin and pushing a spotlight into the tub, causing a short-circuit and endangering the lives of the audience."

The museum was concerned that a short circuit could endanger the audience (cough, lawsuit), but didn't seem to care about the lives lost by the actions of the exhibit's featured star.

faulknermano
01-27-2004, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Lightwolf
...damn, I'm getting caught in an endless thread again, I need to get some work done ;)

:)

me too. all the best.

Fausto
01-27-2004, 07:02 AM
If you are ready to set up some kind of an artist Inquisition, well that's already been done. The Romans tried it and we all know where it got them

Every culture has done it and is doing it. It doesn't matter what the piece of art is saying, if it's political, controversial or titillating there are going to be individuals on opposite sides taking either offence or a stand in support.

Censorship in any form is WRONG! Censorship is the domain of the small minded and the insecure.

Of course there are some caveats to that statement; Children shouldn't be easily exposed to expressions of art that are disturbing and confusing, because they lack the necessary experience and wisdom to make informed decisions about the content. So it's my responsibility as a parent to filter out that information, I play the role of censor for my kids.

Artwork that obviously incites violence against a particular group or race is common, and it seems depending on the circumstances and the culture of the audience can be a good thing or a bad thing in their eyes. I would imagine that a documentary prepared by the Palestinians that describes the Israelis as oppressors and calls to them to fight back would be a huge hit in Palestine and the majority of the Arab world, but it wouldn't be so popular in Israel.

My point is this, if we begin to censor materials that have a particular slant, focus or direction who's the person/s that is going to be making that decision? I haven't abdicated my responsibilities or rights to make my own choices, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts, I wouldn't like George W's selections, or Paul Martin's if they were elected prime censor..

No let's manage that part of our intellect ourselves, I think the world is safer and more enlightened when we're all part of the process not a select few. Be your own Censor, turn off what you don't want to see, put down the material that injures your sensibilities and make those choices for yourself and the wee ones you're responsible for...

Cheers.

Fardak
01-27-2004, 03:26 PM
I agree with the guys who are worried about being stuck in a endless thread and having productivity go down the tubes, but one last thing - I can't vouch for accuracy but I was told by a friend that in the wake of all the fuss the artist switched the photo for the photo of a assassin of a Swedish Prime Minister and got in trouble with the cops. Funny ending.

JohnD
01-28-2004, 04:41 PM
I'd have to say the piece is in bad taste. Sorry, but some things are universal and clear cut such as "evil." I'm not hot to trot on the "censorship" thing, however I do think it is necessary sometimes. Was is necessary for this suicide bomber art? Not sure...but if you're going to display such controversial media, you need to be prepared for the backlash.

vee
01-28-2004, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by JohnD
I'd have to say the piece is in bad taste. Sorry, but some things are universal and clear cut such as "evil." I'm not hot to trot on the "censorship" thing, however I do think it is necessary sometimes. Was is necessary for this suicide bomber art? Not sure...but if you're going to display such controversial media, you need to be prepared for the backlash.

Come on John the argument here is not the nature of the work, it is the overall principle. Honestly, I haven't even seen it, don't have to. I know enough though to argue that censorship of ideas is wrong period. And art is nothing more than the expression of an idea at a given time in history.

I may be wrong but I can't think off one instance where the idea behind a "work of art" preceded the idea in society and that previously unrecognized idea caused mass violence and hysteria. It is always the artist interpretation of what's going on in society not the other way around. If any thing you should argue the censorship of reality.

I in no way condone violence in any manner, but the nature of the art is irrelevant. We could look at our own history to know that. Lincoln was both an emancipator and a terrorist traitor (depending on what side of the Mason-Dixon line you stood), who's right who's wrong, they both are!

The day that I walk into a museum, view an exhibit, then head straight for the gun store is the day I'm ready for censorship. But until healthy minded individuals are somehow transformed into the criminally insane by what they see, hear or read, (regardless of how vile it is) I am against it.

A side note: I personally think that some of the things we do in our everyday lives do fair greater harm to our society than any artist work ever could. For instance, take a simple walk down the urban streets, millions of us do it every day. As you walk you pass a man you don't really notice the man because he is what looks like to be passed out on the pavement, but you don't check, for all you know he could be dead, but who gives a [email protected]#$, he's probably a bum anyway. The problem is the three year old walking behind you doesn't see it that way. He or She has just been given a true-life lesson on the value our society places on human life, far more potent than any of the art we talk about censoring ever could. This type of thing happens everyday and we all do things like it, then we wonder why each successive generation is more desensitized and "morally bankrupt" than the previous. I know one thing it's not the art.

CB_3D
01-28-2004, 09:19 PM
worms crawling...
:rolleyes:

mlinde
01-28-2004, 10:19 PM
Art is a fine line. Creation should be an act of joy, IMHO, and that is how I approach art. With that in mind, there are things I would create that others would find offensive, but they would bring me joy, as their creator. Often, in modern art circles, people use the moniker "art" as an excuse when they should be using a title like "political expression" or "historical expression"

What is it about a photograph that makes it art? It is not art by definition of the medium. No matter what the tools, you cannot automatically define it as art, for the 6:00 newscast uses the same tools as a movie. Is it art because it causes controversy?

In the end, everyone has their own opinion. Art, as a form of expression, should not be silenced. Using the idea of art as a shield for political or historical expression is wrong, but so often it is done. Unfortunately, this is a fine line, and it is up to the artist to recognize when they have crossed it. Often, they don't. Silencing them or defacing their work is not the right answer, but honest, open discussion would hopefully allow each party to recognize their differences, and possibly find some common ground.

JohnD
01-29-2004, 12:08 AM
I'm sorry you disagree with me Vee, but that is my opinion and this thread was made for people to express their opinions. I'm sure I'm the odd-man out on this topic compared with most everyone here, but that doesn't mean I'm going to jump-ship and change my way of thinking. I personally find the artwork is in bad taste, as I would find any piece of art that glorifies such hostility...such as a huge painting of Joseph Stalin, Hitler, Bin Laden, Al Capone etc. were put on display at an art show. My not liking the art is not haulting anyone from making it, but it's my right to turn my back on it and grit my teeth in disgust.
And I will still say that as bad as censorship is, I do believe it is necessary from time to time. You claim that all censorship is bad...well here is an example: Say a pedofile put together a collage of obscene pictures of children, and before he got nabbed wanted to show it in an art show. Are you saying that he has every right to have his material shown...since all censorship is bad?

jin choung
01-29-2004, 12:34 AM
all censorship IS bad.

AND you have every right to turn away from anything you don't like.

that is freedom of expression at its finest.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but SOME censorship is necessary! :) but only when-

1. the expression or the creation of the expression does immediate harm to someone else.

put it another way, your right to express stops at the tip of my nose.

jin

Lightwolf
01-29-2004, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by JohnD
I personally find the artwork is in bad taste, as I would find any piece of art that glorifies such hostility...such as a huge painting of Joseph Stalin, Hitler, Bin Laden, Al Capone etc. were put on display at an art show.
... sorry to sidetrack, but this reminds me of a piece by Andy Warhol I saw in a museum in Hamburg. And it ended up beeing the piece that impressed me the second most.
I forgot the title, but it's a blown up image of the second most wanted criminal in the U.S. in 1960-something. The funny thing is, that guy is just as dangerous as the most wanted man, yet totally unknown, unlike the most wanted man. Well, it made me think...

Cheers,
Mike

faulknermano
01-29-2004, 04:31 AM
here i go again: :D


Originally posted by jin choung
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but SOME censorship is necessary! :) but only when-

1. the expression or the creation of the expression does immediate harm to someone else.

put it another way, your right to express stops at the tip of my nose.

jin

"stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

you may be interpretted to mean that the only thing that is _significant_ enough that we should take reprisal against is an action against our physical body. never mind what people _say_. as long as they never _do_. and yet our very lives are submerged, like it or not, in those two things. not one only, but both.


AND you have every right to turn away from anything you don't like.



and because of that many more will continue not to understand how the "tongue" affects us significantly - "the pen is mightier than the sword."

... this is the encouragement of the divorce between what we believe in, what we mean, or what we say, and the consequences for that.

jin choung
01-29-2004, 05:09 AM
hey faulknermano,

but my way is the only way that works.

i encourage the divorce between what we say and consequences because what is the alternative?

want a world where we can punch out anyone who says something we don't like? or worse... viceversa? :)

further, there needs to be a divorce between what we say and consequences otherwise we come back to MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

if consequences are imminent and dire, then the only ones who CAN say something is someone who is POWERFUL enough to shrug off consequences.

which is kind of the situation now in america... your voice gets heard if you have the biggest team of lawyers. and if you have the biggest team of lawyers, you can silence whom you will.

see? DIVORCE IS ESSENTIAL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

on the other point about being able to TURN AWAY. that is everyone's right!

sure, everyone has the right to express themselves but that expression should not be INESCAPABLE!

i want to be surrounded with hot girl on girl action at most times of the day. but it wouldn't be fair to subject the old woman next door to it 24/7 just cuz i like it.

and in the same spirit, she may enjoy her weekly sunday sermon but i don't want to be subjected to that against my will.

sure, that means that some people will be impervious to whatever message you happen to want to get out but it also ensures you your ability to close your eyes to something that you'd rather not see.

this is perfection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SO:

- COMPLETE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (with the caveat that the utterance or creation of that expression does not harm another [child porn/ yelling fire in a crowded theater])

- COMPLETE FREEDOM *FROM* EXPRESSION that you choose not to hear.

- EXPRESSION WITHOUT FEAR OF CONSEQUENCE (hey, the world could be worse than if it was filled with nothing but people screaming bloody [email protected]#$#$ at each other and if it ended there)

jin

p.s. and hey, it wouldn't be bad if the only things that people would actually DO were according to the GOLDEN RULE (do unto others as you would have them do unto you)....

ah but alas.

mattclary
01-29-2004, 05:59 AM
Jin, I agree with you in theory but, more often than not, what I see are immature little jerks who feel anonynimity allows them to be rude and childish.

CB_3D
01-29-2004, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by JohnD
I'd have to say the piece is in bad taste.

I agree that itīs of bad taste. Also i can point my finger at many (today) acknowldged artworks and say the same. And donīt get me started with music, :eek:

Apart from being of bad taste it is utterly uninteresting and also technically undemanding.

Still this can be no reason to call for censoring.

As to the pedophile, he did actively hurt children to produce the pics, so they arenīt art to start with.


Originally posted by JohnD
Sorry, but some things are universal and clear cut such as "evil."

Yes, but they never come alone, thatīs what makes them so interesting. Will we censor aout the villains of the movies? No more horror movies because of the violence?

This may seem trivial compared to the other extreme examples, but i just want to illustrate the natural consequences of such thinking.
___________________

Again i ask, who is to draw the line between what can be shown and what not?? You? Me? I donīt feel qualified to do so and quite frankly i canīt imagine anyone being up to that task.

JohnD
01-29-2004, 08:08 AM
Yeah, I know what Andy Warhol piece ur talking about Lightwolf, but I also can't remember it. D'oh!:D

Lightwolf
01-29-2004, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by JohnD
Yeah, I know what Andy Warhol piece ur talking about Lightwolf, but I also can't remember it. D'oh!:D

Most Wanted Men No 2, John Victor G, 1964

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,638693,00.html

Google's your friend ;)

No.6 is here: http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/krygier/krygier6-18-9.asp

Just for the fun of it :)

Cheers,
Mike

faulknermano
01-30-2004, 04:33 AM
Originally posted by jin choung
hey faulknermano,

but my way is the only way that works.

i encourage the divorce between what we say and consequences because what is the alternative?

want a world where we can punch out anyone who says something we don't like? or worse... viceversa? :)

further, there needs to be a divorce between what we say and consequences otherwise we come back to MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

if consequences are imminent and dire, then the only ones who CAN say something is someone who is POWERFUL enough to shrug off consequences.

which is kind of the situation now in america... your voice gets heard if you have the biggest team of lawyers. and if you have the biggest team of lawyers, you can silence whom you will.

see? DIVORCE IS ESSENTIAL.


somewhat in line with mattclary's own response, i find that you see things too contrastily, too black and white. with all rules, there are exceptions. a 'perfect divorce' is almost academic. but if compromises are arrived at then it is not wholly impractical. the key is compromise; not the consumation of an ideal - i dont believe, for one moment, that freedom of speech is the "perfect" ideal, simply because freedom of speech, is not, in of itself, is good. again, it may be. but not of itself.

tottebias
01-30-2004, 05:14 AM
Ok, being a swede and having actually seen the exhibition I must the the israeli ambassador was way out of line. The artwork portrays a the female suicide bomber who killed a bunch of people some time ago, sailing on a sea of blood. With this there is a text that encourages understanding between the parts because otherwise the violence will continue. What's so bad about that? Another thing to be said is the the artwork itself was actually made by an israeli jew so I can't really see how it can be anti-semitic.

jin choung
01-30-2004, 09:11 AM
hey faulknermano,

well, that's where we differ. i believe that complete freedom of expression (with the exception of harming someone in the making of it or in the expression of it) IS a virtue in and of itself.

again with the dialectic thing but there is INHERENT VALUE IN CLASHING.

it is the way forward.

it's like shining light into dark places.

the more whispering of secrets in a society, the higher likelihood of the fostering of ignorance, superstition, prejudice etc.

let it all come out and clash with the ideas of the world at large. let the ideas clash in a "free and open marketplace of ideas" and let darwinism and natural selection work upon these ideas as well.

this is in part why EDUCATION is so valuable. it's not just the rote learning of dates and facts. exposure to alien ideas (even really vile ones) helps to shape and clarify those ideas that are good and right.

jin

SamuraiSlayer
01-31-2004, 02:05 PM
I picked option 3: art is an illusion --

speakers speak languages, and some people may not understand the language

artists speak their own language, and some other people may not understand the language

i guess my answer is 1 and 2, and 1 + 2 = 3

art is like an opinion, it varies from person to person, and not everyone's opinion matches that of another person