PDA

View Full Version : violence in art... is it justified?



kiwisheep
08-15-2003, 12:30 PM
Gabman6 regularly sends 10-second clips to show me update of his work. If I am a member of the Film Rating board, this is one is rated "R" because of its extremely violent scenes. Because of the nature of the eggs, he created scenes that are much much more violent than what I saw in the "The One" which inspired this short.

I am not sure if he can really show this on the internet. Are there any laws that would prevent him from showing his short on the net that contains extremely violent scenes?

Hmmm.... this kid who is only 15 years old, is so talented... both in modeling and animation but the kind of shorts he make are somewhat for adult viewing only...

He says to me "That's what the audience wants to see... and that's what they're going to get!"

Hmmm... Any thoughts for him? Maybe if we can encourage him to slow down a bit.... Art is a dangerous thing.

mattclary
08-15-2003, 12:46 PM
Unfortunately, I can't find his movie, but have seen it before. Do the eggs bleed yolk when shot? If they do, that's just over the top, he should definitely be stopped!

Doran
08-15-2003, 01:05 PM
Come on guys this is the finished project gallery... not the ethical and moral discussion forum.. At least post a render of something.

TravBrack
08-15-2003, 01:57 PM
Thankfully, the internet has not become subject to some sort of nazi government control...yet. There might be some rules on the forum against violence, but I doubt it so show us what this kid has to offer

hrgiger
08-15-2003, 05:29 PM
The only bad thing that comes from art is censorship.

riki
08-15-2003, 08:09 PM
I saw three of Mike Parrs live performances at the Gunnery in Sydney, where he cuts himself up with a knife (the real thing, up close and personal, no special FX). I didn't mind that so much, it's not easy to watch. The strangest part was all the toffs in suits and evening dresses politely sipping wine, watching this naked guy go for it with a scalpel.

I didn't like the performance with the chickens. Dressing up in a wedding dress and cutting chickens heads off and then spraying yourself in blood just seems like a desperate plea for attension in my book.

Yeah I think some censorship is needed. I wouldn't take my kids along to see that sort of thing.

hrgiger
08-15-2003, 10:38 PM
Ok, I retract that last statement. When it comes to cruelty to animals, I'm all for censorship. If some dumbass wants to cut himself up with a knife, I'll sharpen it for him.

riki
08-15-2003, 11:11 PM
haha yeah actually I find censorship offensive. The Director who made 'Kids' has just had his latest pix banned in Australia. They pulled it from the Sydney Film Festival. That sort of thing annoys me.

jin choung
08-17-2003, 02:51 AM
actually,

i believe that NOTHING should be censored in terms of artistic expression.

however, in the above examples, there has been a mix of DEPICTION of violence vs. ACTUAL VIOLENCE....

in terms of actual violence, that should not only be censored but prevented in most cases.

if someone chooses to self mutilate, that may be beyond the jurisdiction of authorities to prevent but perhaps a kindhearted therapist should seek to intervene.

as for hurting animals frivolously (as in a performance for heavens sakes) or anything other than yourself, that is of course wrong. and i do say 'frivolously' because i do eat meat like other carnviores and omnivores and like many generations of humans before me... burgers, mcnuggets, pork chops... all really good stuff. but i shudder to think what would happen to my diet if i had to kill everything i ate.

i very comfortably make a mental dissociation from my very juicy steak to an actual cow which i can't imagine possibly harming with my own two hands.

as for the justification of violence in art... well, you'd have to purge an awful lot of art history (not to mention the bible) in order to eliminate it altogether.

it is as foundational a topic of human art as sex is. and in as much as most narrative art explores CONFLICT and human RELATIONSHIPS, it's only natural that a great many a work simplify down to the extreme forms which ends up being violence and sex.

as for this kid, if the ARTIST is comfortable with the subject of his art, it would be hubris to try to tell him otherwise. who, after all, are you to tell him what is appropriate for him to explore?

jin

riki
08-17-2003, 05:10 AM
Regardless of where you stand it's an interesting debate. Of course you can weight up the pros and cons and try to make an informed descions. But there will always be artists that want to challenge and test those beliefs.

Personally I'm against censorship but I think that there are limits and responsibilities. Also I know that there are enough artists out there, who are prepared to test these limits and the definitions of what exactly 'ART' is.

Jin said


i believe that NOTHING should be censored in terms of artistic expression.

But in ruling out works that engage actual physical acts of violence to animals etc, your already suggesting some form of censorship. Preventing the guy with the chickens from doing his act would be a form of censorship.

That's fair enough but I wonder if I can push it even further. For the sake of argument lets forget about actual physical acts of violence for a moment. How do you feel about work that is intentionally offensive or threatening to certain members of the community or work that incites hatred or racial abuse.

For argument sake let me think of some examples.

Okay here's one. How would you feel about a computer game where the main goal of the game was to score points raping and killing women?

Should it be available for general release? If you draw some limits such as age, then again your testing those limits and setting up some form of censorship.

Okay here's another one. How about artwork that is intensionally offensive or hurtful. Okay a hypothetical example of this. Recently on Arab TV they showed the half naked, wounded bodies of some deceased US servicemen. How would you feel if someone appropriated that footage and used it in their artwork in a degrading way?

Dodgy
08-17-2003, 07:59 AM
I'm not so much in favour of censorship as classification. Some things should be held back from children/ young adults purely on the grounds of mental health. When you're over 21, you're supposedly responsible for your own actions and should therefore be held to that, and able to choose what you watch.

Matt
08-17-2003, 08:20 AM
you wanna see a violent scene in a film, try watching the 'fire extinguisher scene' in IRREVERSIBLE! nasty!

I hired the film out on recommendation, didn't know anything about it! the film is actually very well done, but the violent parts really are messed up :eek:

riki
08-17-2003, 08:46 AM
Haven't seen it?? I Like some of Joel-Peter Witkin's stuff, but I always wonderred where he gets the dead bodies from. Someone told me he buys them from morgues in mexico?? I have no idea.

http://www.edelmangallery.com/witkin.htm

richpr
08-17-2003, 11:33 AM
Good points, riki...

I am for very limited censorship as you pointed out yourself. Some things are simply not OK to do and will hurt other people/animals. Of course, some people will say, well it's my right (my freedom to do whatever...), a bit like the free speech and bla bla...

Well, one's freedom ends where another person's starts...

As far as 'that's what they want, that's what they get', generalisms, pigeonholing and assumptions are a dangerous thing... I am not interested in 'violence pour violence' as opposed to 'art for the sake of art'.

And then there is the hormone thing and violence, especially among adolescents ;) It's exciting, it's cool... but it wears off ;)

However, most adults are able to make informed decisions...

PS move this thread to community/general ;-) or add some of those 'gruesome pics' here...

hrgiger
08-17-2003, 01:10 PM
This brings up the drawbacks of living in America. They call this the land of the free, and then they throw somebody in jail for burning a flag in protest. Not really the land of the free is it?

Lots of things are offensive but who decides what's offensive and what isn't?

As far as Riki's example of a game where you rape and kill women for points.... As far as our rights in this country, it should be allowed. You can call it artistic freedom or whatever, but no crime has been committed. Is it offensive? Yes. Should we buy that game and support it? No, probably not. Does it cause men to go out and start raping and killing women? Not likely. Anybody who says it did probably deserved to be locked up in the first place. Psychos always have someone to blame, or at least their lawyers do.

Remember a few years ago, someone did an art show where they were throwing crap on a picture of the virgin Mary in New York? I personally think it should of been allowed. To reflect something that Riki said earlier though, it just sounded like someone looking for some attention. Sometimes, people are just annoying and unfortunately, that's another right in this country.

Anyone killing animals for the sake of art in my opinion should be subject to someone else killing them for the sake of their artistic freedom.

mattclary
08-17-2003, 03:20 PM
An issue I have is when something is called "censorship" when it should not be called such. Like cutting of public funding of things such as throwing **** on a canvas. If you want to do it, I'll defend your right to do it, but you're not going to do it on my dime. And you can also hang it in a private museum, not one funded by my tax dollars. Just my opinion.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/991008/madonna.html

jin choung
08-17-2003, 03:29 PM
yah,

it is an interesting debate. but i think 'rating' something is decidedly different from CENSORING something.

i have no problem with rating something but unfortunately in america, a lot of times, rating something as being adult basically keeps it behind the porn curtain and you can't advertise in periodicals or papers and you end up being effectively censored.

as for the rape and kill game, i don't think it should be censored simply because any form of censorship invites ever more. it assumes that everyone can get together and agree on certain things that are clearly 'wrong' be it violent depictions or political messages.

but this is a complete myth. one person's trash is another's treasure and if it doesn't harm anyone else - what is the harm? censorship would seek to wipe out all manner of pornography (which would really really piss me off :) ) and 'ultraviolent' films. but it wouldn't stop there. it would go after terminator movies and more.

and as for really disturbing depictions of violence and sex, i do indeed find it ironic that the bible itself crosses all manner of lines but the groups that would advocate censorship most would fight tooth and nail to keep the bible itself.

and as others have said, one person's right to express stops at the tip of someone else's nose.

you may say that forbidding the killing of chickens for performance sake is a form of censorship but in fact, i say that it's simply forbidding the killing of chickens (again, for frivolous purposes).

censorship is problematic and wrong but physically harming others and other things is not a problematic issue and is clearly wrong.

as for using news footage in poor taste, it should be allowed. let the 'market' deal with it.

actually, what i find really disturbing in our society though is that even though the law is pretty good about not censoring people (for the most part), society itself is so thin skinned and hypocritical that artists and others actually have to worry about DEATH THREATS! that phenomenon never ceases to absolutely bewilder me....

finally - we should clarify our examples some:

- depictions vs. actual
- rating vs. censorship

jin

jin choung
08-17-2003, 03:41 PM
hmmmmmm,

as for the NEA sponsored pieces having to withstand 'reasonable' degrees of censorship - i think that's as much of a slippery slope as when we talk about privately funded obscenity.

what's offensive to you may be pretty much 'within reason' but what about tax payers who are really devout and can't tolerate things that are pedestrian in your book or mine?

it has the potential to make anything NEA to be so bland as to be completely irrelevant to even the dullest of child.

that said, i don't think there is the same problem by simply getting rid of the NEA altogether. i personally don't find that to be a great way to go but it is tolerable and if an artist really is passionate, (s)he will find a way.

jin

Bog
08-17-2003, 07:21 PM
I will accept responsibility for clearly labelling such of my work that I don't think minors should see.

I will accept responsibility for warning people that the work I do may not always be suitable for those of a squeamish nature.

I will attempt to impress upon those who squeak when they see my more unrestrained work that I have to live with my imagination 24/7, and it's no surprise that I don't sleep well.

Anyone who disregards the above and then whinges can kiss my lily-white Irish *rse.

anieves
08-17-2003, 07:32 PM
Oh great, here we go, first what the hell are you doing posting this junk in the finished art forum? second, we do not need the internet police telling me what is offensive and what isn't, third, where are this kid's parents, do they have a clue what their son is doing? maybe they do, maybe they don't but it is THEIR job to approve and disapprove NOT YOURS OR MINE. fourth, comunism is a *****. and finally free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want without repercussions. Free speech means that the GOVERNMENT can not prosecute you for something you say... on the other hand I CAN. If you live in the States I suggest that you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... not just read it but UNDERSTAND it.

this thread should be moved to general discussions or deleted althogether...

Zarathustra
08-18-2003, 09:48 AM
Art is a dangerous thing.

Now there's a statement.

First off, this is DEFINITELY the wrong place for this thread.
With that said, now I can rant:

I'm adamantly oppossed to NEA $$$ given to individual artists.
- It just opens a ****storm of controversy and I think the $$$ would be better spent spread out to various regional projects and institutions.

I'm adamantly oppossed to censorship in ANY form.
- Ratings are nice to give parents a heads up, but it's their responsibility to shield their kids if that's what they want OR take the time to explain the material to their kids (radical idea, huh?).
- Why is it that I can't see something because a kid or sensitive person might? Nonsense. Everything should just be out there (like it is in REAL life) and you deal with it (once again, like in REAL life).

I'm against cruelty to those who can't defend themselves and did nothing to warrant the cruelty.
- Anything a person wishes to do or have done to themselves for public viewing is fine
- Children, animals and the mentally challenged need protection
- If you caused harm, then punishment should be viewable to, in the very least, the victim(s)


Damnit, why didn't you post a link to this kid's work?! Now I want to see it.
:D

lone
08-23-2003, 11:24 AM
i don't think anyone has addressed the topic of the thread - is it justified?

Bog
08-23-2003, 11:30 AM
Lone,

Art is a reflection of our world and our perceptions of it. As a species, one of our simplest perceptions is "If I can't shag it, I'll kill it and eat it. Heck, I might even shag it anyway."

So yeah. We're a violent organism. So violence in our art is justified. We parody it, to make it more tolerant to our sensitive sides. We glory in it, to satiate our predative side. We draw it in all it's stark horror to say, as a species, "What the holy howling hells have we done?".

It's justified.

Zarathustra
08-23-2003, 11:46 AM
i don't think anyway has addressed the topic of the thread - is it justified?

Anyway?

This is nonsense. There does not need to be justification for something to exist, in art or life.

lone
08-23-2003, 12:12 PM
i didn't mean to imply it wasn't, i meant to point out (however incoherently) that the question had been neglected.

Hiraghm
08-23-2003, 01:30 PM
You artists are very selective in what art you are willing to defend.

Bog
08-23-2003, 01:37 PM
No we're not!

We all hated The Phantom Menace!

;)

Zarathustra
08-23-2003, 01:56 PM
We all hated The Phantom Menace!

HA!

Hiraghm: Us artists? You're not an artist? Well, WE artists may dislike each other and/or each other's work, but we have to defend THE RIGHT to create without restrictions as well as to exhibit without restrictions. Sadly, that includes Lucas' right to create that piece of crap.

We artists have to protect each other. Hell, even Michaelangelo was censored!

riki
08-23-2003, 07:20 PM
Which artists aren't we defending?? I think I missed Phantom Menace or was it Denice the Menace?? Sorry always get confused with those two :)

Personally I don't think movies like T3 and the Matrix or SW are violent. It's just over-the-top Hollywood Action, kind of comical style like Road Runner. You blow em up and they keep coming back.

My idea of violence would be snuff flix, that sort of thing. Also some HC action could also be classified as violent. Sites like thestileproject and sickpuppy are sometimes funny but kind of sickening at the same time.

Hiraghm
08-23-2003, 10:46 PM
Zarathustra, you've seen some of my work... would you say I'm an artist? :D

All I meant was that I don't see the lot of you who are opposing censorship locked arm-in-arm outside the courthouse in Alabama preventing them from moving that beautiful sculpture from the rotunda. And it wasn't even paid for by taxpayers.

riki
08-23-2003, 10:51 PM
I defended 'Piss Christ' when it came to Melbourne.

Well I paid to see the exhibition at the NGV, just before someone attacked it with a hammer.

jin choung
08-23-2003, 11:30 PM
COOL!

i so wanted a place to talk about the alabama thing! hee hee, i am so delighted.

anyway, i don't believe in censorship of art.

but i do believe in CONSISTENCY.

america is indeed a melting pot and so it shelters a great mass of people who would very much disagree with the message of judaism and/or christianity.

in order to justify the ten commandments sculpture, it would by definition be ok at the discretion of a chief justice in another location to put up a sculpture of buddha, or perhaps kali, or maybe even 'the law of hamurabi' in its original script or maybe a crescent. or what about wiccens then? or heck, maybe a nice large oil painting of harry potter while we're at it?

and what about atheist judges? should they also be able to make statements about religion by doing a grand diorama of all the religious symbols in the world burning in hell?

see, on the terms that we've been discussing which is FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, all of the above is EQUALLY PROTECTED.

BUT (and this is a CRUCIAL POINT)

this is not what all the christians are fighting for. they are not talking about freedom of expression for all. they are talking about freedom of the expression of christianity and only christianity.

in those terms, i don't think many non christians would agree at all and is framed in a decidedly different light than what we artists have been talking about in terms of freedom of expression.

in fact, i think those of the flock that have congregated in alabama to protect that monument are supremely short sighted and they better pray that they fail unless they want to see sculptures celebrating sauron adorning the white house.

separation of church and state is a good thing. non christians don't want christianity being shoved down their or their children's throats and i'm sure christians don't want judaism, islam, hinduism, shintoism, taoism, buddhism, zoarastrianism shoved down theirs.

as for all the arguments for the PRIVELEGED EXPRESSION OF CHRISTIANITY because of tradition....

well segregation and slavery (which was practiced by the founding fathers no less) is tradition too. tradition cannot determine the MORALITY of anything.

and unless anyone can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that judeo-christian beliefs ARE IN FACT TRUE, the only issue here is one of FAIRNESS to all the beliefs of all the people.

jin

riki
08-24-2003, 12:45 AM
haha go jin, looks like your on a roll :)

What's the deal with the 10 commandments statue anyway?? I saw something on the news about it last night, but didn't really get what all the fuss was about.

It's strange but whenever I think of Christianity, I always think of Sheep-Skin Slippers. Not sure what's up with that??

Maybe need some Psycho-annalysis :)

Hervé
08-24-2003, 01:02 AM
Riki...... sheep skin slippers are my favorite for the cold winters we have here...

I was reading your posts Riki... you're right about desperate violent Performers... they are just desperate .... very much, but I can understand those people in those raw days...

In Austria (I think it was in Austria) a professor (also known for his plastinisation of corpses) showed a "autopsie" in public... big success... people love to be close/facing death...

I see myself as A good" pâté", hummmm, diner's served, Darling !

Love & sheep skin slippers for all...

There is a french singer (J. Higelin) that said "... caviar for the happy few, Champagne for everybody !"

Hervé
08-24-2003, 01:09 AM
Jin, Death is the universal God(michet) of everyone... he he
Excellent points Jin

I just wish very hard I could sell my soul for money...but apparently nobody wants it...

LW challenge... (coz it's a gallery thread)

Trompet.... tad dahhha dahhttIIIiiiii

"MODELLING A SOUL"

What ?

riki
08-24-2003, 01:14 AM
haha lol

Hey Hervé yeah I saw that exhibition, it was touring at the same time as my last trip to Japan. Pretty gruesome stuff, I don't think I could stomach to see how they prepare the bodies. I can just imagine what it must smell like.

Lots of disturbing things have come from Austria, do you remember that extreme performance group. I think back in the 70's? They liked to roll around in the nude with bits of meat and offal. Sorry can't remember the name??

jin choung
08-24-2003, 03:16 AM
sell your soul?!

didn't you see that episode of the simpsons where bart sold his to milhouse for five dollars?! automatic doors wouldn't open for him and all of a sudden, he began to spook animals! have we learned nothing from the simpsons?! :)

as for sheep skin slippers - wow, that could be a very profound religious symbol about how life is cushioned and warmed by the 'lamb of god'? very spiritual riki!

as for the deal, a chief justice apparently put up a lobby sized monument of the ten commandments in foyer of his court house.

someone sued to have it removed on the basis of separation of church and state and they won.

the chief justice appealed but lost. he was ordered to remove it. he's refusing to do so and has since been suspended. and i've got to believe that this is a serious charge. it's one thing for civilians to disobey the law but if you are an actual OFFICER OF THE COURT and you refuse to do so, that is deep doo doo.

if anything, he should have found some legal way of continuing the fight. but civil disobedience is simply logical suicide for a judge!

anyhoo, the judge evidently is seeing this as 'the forces of evil' wanting to smack down the ways of god (which it really is not) and he's determined to become a judicial martyr for it.

and he has inspired many christians to form an evangelical barrier of resistance to keep any attempt at removing the monument at bay.

-sigh-

jin

riki
08-24-2003, 03:32 AM
as for sheep skin slippers - wow, that could be a very profound religious symbol about how life is cushioned and warmed by the 'lamb of god'? very spiritual riki!

Not to mention deeply erotic :)

Sorry just joking. But I can see now why the 10 Commandments story has become such an issue. Scary but kind of entertaining in a way.

Hiraghm
08-24-2003, 09:29 AM
No where in the Alabama case has any other chief justice been prevented from placing any kind of non-taxpayer funded piece of art in his courthouse, regardless of the message, merely because this piece of art was placed there.

The Christian Coalition has petitioned for an injunction against the scuplture's removal, because doing so infringes upon their freedom of speech (I gather they helped pay for the sculpture.)

Whether the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic religious view is accurate or not isn't the issue. The issue is whether A) people can express their deeply held religious beliefs in public places, something clearly protected by the first amendment, and B) whether a government official has the same right as an ordinary citizen, or even a sicko left-wing "artiste". (any "artist" who uses actual human waste materials in his work has a screw loose...)

If this must be removed because not all humans are Jewish/Christian/Islamic, then we cannot have any art that involves words, because it is virtually impossible to depict any word in all languages, equally. If a statue has text written in English, Spanish and French, no doubt some extremist will object that the text is prejudicial, because it is not in Viet Namese also, and therefore presumes that english/french/spanish are the only true langauges.

If a devout Christian, Moslem, or Jew is expected to tolerate artwork that offends their sensibilites for the sake of something as nebulous as "art", I do not see how athiests or weirdo-theists (pagans, scientologists, buddhists, wiccans, etc) cannot be expected to tolerate artwork which offends their sensibilities.
Rather than comparing the depiction of the 10 Commandments to depictions of the various dominant religions being burned or desecrated, a more accurate comparison would be a mural depicting the slaying of the Minotaur by Thesseus, or a statue of Julius Caesar (proclaimed to be a god.) All three are a part of our heritage as humans, and I regard the legend of Theseus slaying the Minotaur as much my heritage as the ten commandments, and would object as strongly to its removal.

The question, when one picks and chooses what art one will defend and why, quickly becomes "am I defending art for art's sake, or am I promoting my own political/religious/social agenda?"

Seems to me most artists are A) liberal and B) anxious to defend art that is offensive to someone, but not artwork that is inspiring to anyone.

Can anyone here tell me they would object to being able to walk into their local courthouse, look up, and see a reproduction of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? So the theme is religious; it's a magnificent work of art! Most great art in the past was associated with religion, be it Greek paganism or Catholocism.

As I said, you artists are sure selective about what artwork you defend.

riki
08-24-2003, 09:59 AM
I don't think it has anything to do with art or artistic expression or freedom of expression. Placing Religious Iconography in a Courtroom or government building is a Political statment. Just like raising a flag.

A courtroom is supposedly impartial regardless of race, colour or creed. A Chief Justice holds a position of power, and with that office comes certain obligations and responibilities.

riki
08-24-2003, 10:01 AM
Anyway what would Nick Faldo think about all of this ?? :)

Zarathustra
08-24-2003, 11:40 AM
I don't think it has anything to do with art or artistic expression or freedom of expression. Placing Religious Iconography in a Courtroom or government building is a Political statment.

BAM! That's it, in a nutshell. If, say, Pepsi had it in their main office you could choose not to drink Pepsi. You can't choose your courtroom. The appearance of the commandments in that place, although an innocent and personal act, stills appears to be a government statement and that can't be allowed.

Certain jobs make demands of your personal freedom - hairnets for kitchen staffs, uniforms for police, no smoking in offices, etc. If you can't handle the restrictions on your personal freedom for a given job, then you don't take the job. That justice knew he was violating the rules for his position but did it anyway.
He could open a private practice and display whatever he wants. He's willfully defying the terms of his position and now, the edict of the court. He deserves what's coming for him.

That guy will become rich working the Christian circuit giving lectures and writing a book. Don't worry about him.

Hiraghm
08-24-2003, 02:29 PM
Placing Religious Iconography in a Courtroom or government building is a Political statment.

So? Political statements are not protected speech? Since when?
This is not paid for by the government.


A courtroom is supposedly impartial regardless of race, colour or creed. A Chief Justice holds a position of power, and with that office comes certain obligations and responibilities.

Demonstrate that that hunk of marble caused partiality in the decisions handed down inside the courtroom, and you might have an argument.

His obligations and responsibilities are not in conflict with this artistic expression of history and religion.


The appearance of the commandments in that place, although an innocent and personal act, stills appears to be a government statement and that can't be allowed.


In your opinion, and in the misbegotten opinion of those other judges who are guilty of malfeasance in office. Tinker AFB may appear to be a government statement about Christianity to me, that doesn't mean it is, or that I can demand it's removal because of my personal interpretation of the message behind Tinker AFB.

This sculpture does not violate the non-existant "clear and present danger" clause of the 1st Amendment. It prevents no one else from exercising their religion, or expressing their views.
One of the biggest arguments liberals have used in the past to promote their agenda has been that speech doesn't hurt people, that knowledge is good. Well, then, being exposed to this beautiful, not perverted, not disgusting, but beautiful expression of history and religion does no harm, either. Taxpayers didn't pay for it, citizens are not required to obey it, or acknowledge its truth (if any.) It does not require them to be come Jewish, Islamic, or Christian. It's a statement, nothing more.

Please tell me, again, how the presence of that piece of artwork in the rotunda in any way has or will affect the decisions handed down within the courtroom. That's what establishment of religion is.

Judge Moore didn't know he was violating these imaginary rules because he wasn't, and they don't exist. The activist federal courts are imposing their agenda on the law. That should be more frightening than being exposed to an historic monument is.

But, it's not about defending art. It's about promoting your common agenda. Everyone else must tolerate whatever filth and garbage some Greenwich Village bohemian deems to produce, but non-believers are all too delicate of houseplants to tolerate a beautiful, positive scuplture.

Now take this discussion to the General Topics area where I can ignore it as it so richly deserves. You're all a pack of hypocrites for defending filthy and disgusting presentations posing as "art" and condemning this uplifting and beautiful presentation of art. You have no business condemning any form of censorship. Before digging that mote out someone else's eye, best see to the beam in your own.

FYI, I'm agnostic in my religious views, before anyone suggests I'm some kind of fundamentalist for taking my position in protecting all art (or no art.)

This is why, Zarathustra, I don't call myself an artist, and why I seldom place my artwork here for criticism anymore. I just can't produce vile enough stuff to be labelled "art".

lone
08-24-2003, 02:57 PM
i was really looking forward to arguing the pros and cons of violence in art...but it looks like it ain't gonna happen.

jin choung
08-24-2003, 05:14 PM
hey hiraghm,

i'm not a buddhist but i think they would take issue with you calling them 'weirdo theists'... dontchathink?

actually,

ok, let me get your position straight... just to be sure that YOU 'are an artist that is not selective about freedom of expression'.

and again, for me it is an issue of consistency and calling a kettle black that is a kettle black.

if we allow the judge to keep the ten commandments, would it be equally ok with you and the assembled christian coalition to allow another judge in, say, california to put up a monument of buddha? a statue of kali in the seattle courts? and a justice in washington dc to put up a pentagram and a goat head?

if you are cool with that, then good - you are being consistent at least.

although in doing so, you are going against a pretty prudent statute separating church and state and also opening up a can of worms in the process.

but as for the christian coalition, i will bet you dollars to doughnuts that they are being QUITE SELECTIVE about the freedom of expression they want to defend.

they are not defending the right for a buddhist judge or an islamic one or a satanist one. they are defending christian values and images in association with government and that's all.

and that is not fair to everybody else.

jin

p.s. imo, the ACTUAL TRUTH of the judeo-christian claims is somewhat important because christians fight so hard because they believe that their faith is REALITY that is MORE TRUE than everyone else's religion. they think it is more valid.

if we say that the judeo-christian message is just as compelling as buddhism, shintoism, islam, paganism, etc. then the issue is clarified... why should preference be given to judeo-christian?

at that point again, it is simply a matter of fairness.

Zarathustra
08-24-2003, 06:06 PM
Please tell me, again, how the presence of that piece of artwork in the rotunda in any way has or will affect the decisions handed down within the courtroom.
It's the APPEARANCE of impropriety. Why is that so difficult for you to see?

It prevents no one else from exercising their religion, or expressing their views.
Once again, APPEARANCE. You go to court for a fair, impartial trial so there should be no apparent preferable view in the court.

Now take this discussion to the General Topics area where I can ignore it as it so richly deserves. You're all a pack of hypocrites for defending filthy and disgusting presentations posing as "art" and condemning this uplifting and beautiful presentation of art.
First off, it seems you couldn't resist this thread if you had to go to the ends of the Earth to find it.
As Duchamp explained, art is all around us. Everything, essentially can be considered art. The argument, then, is what is good art or bad art. Even then, this Alabama case has NOTHING to do with what is good art.

Is the statue art? - Inherently yes
Is it good art? - Probably is. I havent seen it so I can't critique it. Truth is, it doesn't matter.
Is it appropriate for a government official to present it in a public, government institution? - no

If I follow your logic, Hiraghm, then he could post a statue of a hanging black man? I mean, "It's a statement, nothing more", right? Some would argue such a "beautiful expression of history and religion does no harm", right?

btw - in response to "I seldom place my artwork here for criticism anymore. I just can't produce vile enough stuff to be labelled "art"."
Let's see what's up in the gallery as I type....uh, pig-tailed little girl....architectural sunrise...opening sequence for a eurosports show...cute sun character...astronaut...still life....
Yeah, it's pretty vile around here. You're a better man for not dirtying your hands by stooping SO low.

jman66
08-24-2003, 08:45 PM
when will the moderators close this thread or move it to a place where it belongs?

onslaught
08-24-2003, 09:07 PM
I Feel the only way to really justify if the clips are violent or not is
actually post one on the net so we could see. Then we can really see what your talking about.

Hervé
08-24-2003, 11:20 PM
Does someone ever heard of "the Islamic voile" for girls been in school... dont know about US, but forbidden in France now...

What is your point of view about those girls...

Hervé
08-24-2003, 11:22 PM
What about "Agent Provocateur" sexy lingerie... dont you feel porno is coming to your Toy's R Us favorite store....

jman66
08-24-2003, 11:45 PM
seriously... isnt it about time someone moves this thread to the GD forum?

riki
08-25-2003, 01:39 AM
I'm finding profound messages now on a Jumbo Donut Wrappers over at http://www.engrish.com

Maybe some joyful talking is needed in these parts.

Hiraghm
08-25-2003, 04:23 PM
It's the APPEARANCE of impropriety. Why is that so difficult for you to see?


Because appearance is irrelevant to free speech. A statue of MLK on public property gives the appearance of impropriety; he was a religious leader.

However, you must agree, then, that a statue of Themis is equally improper and must be removed from public display?


Once again, APPEARANCE. You go to court for a fair, impartial trial so there should be no apparent preferable view in the court.


Ah, Bill Clinton logic; doesn't matter whether I am biased or not, just whether or not I get caught.

Please tell me what crime a person can be charged with that the presence of the scuplture in the rotunda would influence? He isn't a prosecutor, he's a justice; he doesn't try cases, he tries trials. "This guy is accused of (pause while I try to think of a crime not covered by the 10 commandments) theft? no.. murder? no... adultry? oh, wait, a guy isn't going to be accused of that because it's not a crime.... Taking the Lord's name in vain? Nope, also not a crime."
So I guess the sculpture does indicate justice Moore's bias against... criminals. You think he's going to let a Christian murderer off because he's Christian? Let's say that's true. How does the presence of the sculpture cause this?. If he's biased, he doesn't need a expression of his religious views in order to exercise his bias. Or are you more concerned about the appearance of propriety than of actual propriety?


Is it appropriate for a government official to present it in a public, government institution? - no

Yes. We have art all over our government institutions, of all kinds.


First off, it seems you couldn't resist this thread if you had to go to the ends of the Earth to find it.


My desire to ignore it began after reading the responses I knew would come when I pointed out the hypocracy of "artists".


If I follow your logic, Hiraghm, then he could post a statue of a hanging black man? I mean, "It's a statement, nothing more", right? Some would argue such a "beautiful expression of history and religion does no harm", right?


Absolutely! Think about it a minute. Who is going to look at a statue of a hanging black man and think it a good thing? You think maybe Jewish people look at a Crucifix and feel glee? To say, "no, you can't put up any statue of a black man hanging" also means you can't put up such a statue which in its depiction portrays the plight of slaves! I would object strenuously to the taxpayers funding such a statue, however.

I said more than you quote, zarathustra...
I said..

This is why, Zarathustra, I don't call myself an artist, and why I seldom place my artwork here for criticism anymore. I just can't produce vile enough stuff to be labelled "art".

I don't call myself an artist because I can't produce vile enough stuff to be labelled "art". I seldom place my artwork here for criticism because it's not good enough to be judged by people who defend the works of H.R. Giger but condemn that sculpture.

Notice how no one responded to my question about the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel being painted on the ceiling of a courthouse rotunda?


jin,

I referred to Buddhism and the rest as "weirdo-theisms" less because they are weird (except scientology which *is* weird,) and more because they have been most adopted in the past in the U.S. by immature Americans rejecting their Judaeo/Christian roots rather than suddenly seeing the light; often for no better reason than shock-value. Such people I consider "weirdo-theists". I don't consider Tibetan monks to be "weirdo-theists", however. Well, no moreso than Cistercian monks.


if we allow the judge to keep the ten commandments, would it be equally ok with you and the assembled christian coalition to allow another judge in, say, california to put up a monument of buddha? a statue of kali in the seattle courts? and a justice in washington dc to put up a pentagram and a goat head?

I can't speak for the Christian Coalition, but as for me; absolutely! Or a statue of L. Ron Hubbard in the California State House. I might object A) if taxpayers had to fund it or B) it used a real goat's head that would therefore present a health hazard.

I would almost certainly express my disdain and disgust for the pentagram unless it was a beautiful sculpture as is the one in Alabama. I didn't like the cross-dipped-in-urine "art", and I don't consider it personally to be art, but my only objection to it was that it was taxpayer funded.

OMG.. I just realised.. we have to tear down the defense department building.. it's in the shape of a religious symbol! (the pentagon was considered one of the "holy" shapes by ancient Greeks, thought to have devine powers.)

Isn't Cleopatra's Needle on public land in NYC? Has to come down. Cleopatra (as were most rulers of her day) was a goddess.

jin choung
08-25-2003, 05:00 PM
hey hiraghm,

well good. you are completely self consistent. you believe in the right for EVERYBODY to express whatever they please in whatever setting.

you are clearly against separation of church and state but that is a separate issue.

at least in terms of expression and the first ammendment, you are consistent and for that, i am glad.

but please note that for the other christians standing around that monument right now, they WOULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU! they would not be in favor of letting a judge somewhere else put up a pentagram.

they do believe in PRIVELEGED EXPRESSION of judeo-christian imagery and no other.

that is why we 'hypocritical artists' (i just use it for flavor... no offense taken - really) won't help defend that monument. it puts us in league with others whose motivations are less than pure - and worse - less than fair.

so you don't believe in separation of church and state. i disagree but since you are of a logically consistent inclination to then let EVERYONE'S beliefs enter into governmental discourse, i'm not inclined to argue with you much over it.

just from a pragmatic stand point, i think when the buddhists start chanting, you're gonna have a boatload of christians walk out of a proceeding but that's just pragmatics then ain't it.....

jin

Zarathustra
08-25-2003, 05:50 PM
Michaelangelo's work from the Sistine Chapel anywhere in a government institution - inappropriate. The quality of the work is irrelevant. That's my final take on that issue.
I'm not sure how to interpret your opinions, Hiraghm, about anything can be shown by government officials in government space. That's quite radical. Unfortunately, Christianity in the US has a political agenda (or perhaps a better way to put it is there are people who use Christianity to further their political agenda) so therefore an image from Christianity can be interpretted as a political statement. I don't want to see a Donkey or Elephant in a court.
I still think this is an issue of accepting the rules of your job - mandatory dress codes, hours, etc. I don't think a government official has the same right to display imagery as you and I do in our own home .

Hiraghm, I think it's rude to say all the work here is too vile for you to post any of your own. I mentioned people's work that were in this forum at the time and I failed to see a "vile" example. Architecture, cute characters, a little girl...I'm sorry, but it sounds like sour grapes on your part. Are you bitter because no one liked a previous image you posted? If so, don't insult these other people.
Explain "Bill Clinton logic" to me...I don't watch Fox News, so I'm not familiar with this phrase.

riki
08-25-2003, 05:57 PM
I'm not sure what kind of court it is, criminal civil?? But there are cases that could be influenced or informed by religious views.

- Terminal ill patients fighting for the right to commit suicide.

- Gay couple fighting to get married or ordained.

- Research Labs that wants to start cloning human organs.

- Sexually abused folk suing the Church
(Lots of that lately)

- The case of Christian v's Muslim.

But it isn't even a matter of religion. It's not appropriate in this situation, to put up any kind of signs or symbols that suggest belonging to any kind of organization. It doesn't matter if it's the Mormons, Freemasons, the local Football team or a Corporate Entity.

It's a matter of perceptions and the courts must be percieved as impartial.

Sure people do belong to these organizations and they need to officially declare it, and remove themselves from cases where there us a conflict of interest.

Special rules need to be observed in court. You may have the freedom of speech but that doesn't mean you can discuss your court case with the Judge after hours at the local pub.

DigiLusionist
08-25-2003, 08:41 PM
I thought Moore's primary point was that the Ten Commandments has served as one of the foundations of legal and moral law in our country's Constitution and history.

Therefore, it is a historical monument, as much as a religious one. And our country was founded by Christians. Yes, they provided for our religions to be allowed to worship, but how is it that Christianity is not allowed to be a part of society anymore?

As a former agnostic, I remember thinking how narrow-minded religious folks were. I even smiled and nodded when the Seperation of Church and State argument was bandied around.

Now, however, I see things from a different perspective. Atheists and anarchists (meaning, those who think the rights of the individual are the only thing that matter, and damn the society) love to thumb their noses at God. That's their perogative. But until they respect my perogative to think counter to their views, I refuse to afford them the same respect, and will simply see them as sophomoric fools. After all, they know a little, so they must know everything, right?

And, until the world becomes the Utopian Nirvana liberals like to frame their arguments by, I believe a measure of censorship is a responsible thing. I don't care if a nimrod wants to plaster the face of Mary with crap. It's not for me to make him pay for offending a faith. It is my right, however, to not have to see that malarky. So if it's being shown in an enclosed place, I can simply choose not to go there and see it.

That is the limited form of censorship of which I speak. And it is a responsible one, at that.

jin choung
08-25-2003, 09:55 PM
wow digilusionist,

you're position is completely indefensible.

you're saying that the ten commandments monument should be allowed to exist damn whoever gets offended but if someone puts up something you don't like, you want to make sure you don't have to be exposed to it?

what about the atheists that HAVE TO go to court and are subjected to the ten commandments?

what about their rights?

at least hiraghm is being consistent and fair. if someone has to be exposed to the ten commandments, someone else should have to withstand a gigantic pentagram created with feces.

yup, lots of things are in our nations history. country was formed by christians. country loved slavery too. let's put up a big monument celebrating the decades of slavery shall we? or how about the wonderful years of segregation. good times. good times.

as i said before, historical precedent says NOTHING ABOUT THE MORALITY OF A THING.

you may feel that the ten commandments is not as offensive as a slavery monument. but people of different faiths may feel differently.

but heck, let's not stop there. like you said, the country was founded by christians. let's put crosses up in every federal building. yeah, it might offend jews and muslims because of that whole inquisition thing but that was blown way out of proportion to begin with.

but like you said, the country was founded by christians. a cross on every badge i say! a smiling jesus on every magistrate!

the country was founded by christians, love it or leave it!

jin

Zarathustra
08-25-2003, 09:57 PM
...how is it that Christianity is not allowed to be a part of society anymore?

That's a good question. How is that? Maybe where is it not allowed? Are you not allowed to be a Christian somewhere in the US? I didn't realize it wasn't allowed anymore. Are you sure you're not confusing Christianity with smoking? THAT's what's not allowed to be part of society anymore.

DigiLusionist
08-25-2003, 10:12 PM
No, Jinn. My position is not indefensible. You're mixing up arguments.

Atheists have the right to what? Not be offended by God? I thought they don't believe in God, and therefore couldn't care less. Frankly, I'm offended by anyone who is offended by God. But, we're all allowed to be offended by whatever we deem offensive, right? Atheists are big boys. they can worry about their own rights. They don't need me to worry for them. After all, they don't worry about anyone else's.

And I never said Moore was right or wrong about the monument issue. I merely brought up what he stated his original reasons were for having it in the courtroom were.

Yes, our country was founded by Christians. But, check your facts. The WORLD at the time participated in slavery. There were African tribes supplying the world powers of the time with other tribesmembers they conquered and enslaved.

And no, our country did NOT LOVE slavery, Jinn. The Civil War was a result of our country NOT loving slavery. The issue is way more complicated than we should be included in this particular issue. Since it has no bearing on it.

I will say definitively that in our zeal to push God out of our society, we are removing moral foundations which formed the basis for justice in our country. When Neitsche said, "God is dead." he wasn't reveling in some atheist's wet dream. He was lamenting the rejection of God in society.

As for people of different faiths feeling "offended" because they are in a Christian society, I don't know what rational response to make to that.

I sure as shooting wouldn't move to France and start demanding they post everything in English, and that I think the very foundations of their society are offensive and in need or removal.

Accomodation of other culture and faiths in our society is one thing. Enduring disrepect from them, while being expected to respect their viewpoints, is another. What about that?

jin choung
08-25-2003, 10:12 PM
actually,

the christian right position of priveleged expression seems to lack a singular inability to consider others -- which is quite unchristian:

that is,

they can't possibly imagine what it would be like for the other parties - to put themselves in the shoes of others.

what if the christians had to be subjected to muslim prayers as part of government proceedings? what if every school day started with buddhist chants and ceremonies? what if every school meal was first offered up to idols before they were served?

christians can't even begin to imagine that what they are forcing others to endure is nothing less than the equivalent of the examples above.

to everyone else but christians, christianity is JUST ANOTHER RELIGION. it has ZERO RELEVANCE to them and it is absolutely insulting that they should be expected to consider otherwise.

this land IS A MELTING POT. it is not a nation by christians for christians. just as it is not a nation by whites for whites. nor men for men.

race has begun to allow plurality. as has sex. it's about time religion does the same.

jin

p.s. in as much as taking this land involved a great deal of genocide, you can't imagine that they were very good christians in any case. in that case, it would be just as right to claim that this country was founded by homicidal sociopaths as by christians.

DigiLusionist
08-25-2003, 10:25 PM
Well, Jinn. Christianity IS just another religion in other parts of the world. But here in the States. It's the most important one in terms of our societal development. So, I'm not sure what your point is.

We don't have to be "subjected" to Muslim services in government functions for the simple reason that we're not based on that religion. Members of societies who believe in that faith are now part of our society, but Christianity isn't suddenly irrelevant to it.

Why are you arguing that it is?

DigiLusionist
08-25-2003, 10:29 PM
As a matter of fact, let's not continue to argue anything religious here. Let's take this off-line, if you want to continue.

The original question on this forum was: is violence in art justified.

My answer would be, sure. violence is a part of life, and art reflects life. True art, that is.

Mere drawings merely get a star from the teacher and are hung on the refrigerator.

jin choung
08-25-2003, 10:29 PM
wow dig,

i was being sarcastic but fine then....

yah, let's put a cross on the whitehouse! heck, let's put a burning cross.... what the heck?

hey good ol' tommy jefferson had slaves. a bunch of (perhaps all) founding fathers had slaves. america didn't love slavery? they sure showed a funny way of frowning on it.

the stuff in our governmental traditions don't go far enough then:

why sidestep the issue then? not in god we trust then... that's not necessarily christian after all. let's say in jesus we trust. and jesus is probably more photogenic than washington... let's put him on the dollar bill.

we'll start every school day with the lord's prayer - and damn those foreign devils with their unamerican and alien traditions if they don't like it.

and we'll partake of communion before every trial.

screw all this republic stuff while we're at it. what are we? christians or not?!

theocracy! theocracy! theocracy!

jin

p.s. you touch upon a good point though - you don't care about atheists, atheists don't care about you. although it is somewhat unchristian, our nation is ADVERSARIAL.

it does not presume that ANYONE has access to what is right. therefore, it assumes that right does not exist. it's not about right or wrong - it's merely about whose side are you on.

democrats vs. republicans. prosecutors vs. defense. executive vs. legislative vs. judicial. that's what check and balances presupposes - that none of us would TRUST each other as far as we can throw them. and so, it's a mexican stand off. everyone has to play nice because everyone's got a gun to everyone else's head.

in that regard, global politics played out that way too. some people shake their head at the concept of MAD - mutually assured destruction. but i think that it was the only way that the world normalized to the begrudging peace of the coldwar.

so as long as you're not claiming 'right' or the side of 'virtue' but merely your team, then that's cool. it's very american.

concept of DIALECTIC seems to be a universal truth even in human societies.

jin choung
08-25-2003, 10:36 PM
fine,

i just now saw your post for a cease fire.

cease fire engaged.

jin

Zarathustra
08-26-2003, 12:10 AM
The Civil War was a result of our country NOT loving slavery

Wrong. Lincoln made the Emmancipation Proclamation later in the war to keep the British out of the war (they were anti-slavery, but were heavily courted by the South and appeared ready to at least lend arms). Most of the North was not willing to sacrifice their sons over slavery.

Oh...I see the cease fire announcement. Ok, I'm in. This is too taxing.

anieves
08-26-2003, 09:01 AM
This country is ruled by the rule of LAW. This judge in Alabama doesn't uderstand that the issue wasn't about God, it was about the rule of LAW. How about If I was a Buhdist and wanted to put a big 5000 pound Buhda in the front of the courthouse hu, would you like that?

Neal Boortz said it better than I possibly could:

Taken from boortz.com:

"THE RULE OF LAW PREVAILS

The State of Alabama has removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from the Alabama Supreme Court Bench. Moore, as you know, defied a federal court order to remove that monument with the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Judicial Building.

This isn't about the Ten Commandments. It isn't about Christianity. It isn't about loving Jesus. It's about the rule of law.

Roy Moore said that the Ten Commandments were there in that courthouse to acknowledge God and Christian morality as the vary basis of American law. Sorry, nice thought ... but it doesn't wash. Christianity isn't the only religion out there that frowns on such human actions as murder. Sooooo ... I thought I would give you something to really hate me for today. We, as Americans citizens living under a promise of religious freedom, get to chose the God we worship. If fact, we get to chose to worship no God if we wish. The government, though, has but one "god," if you want to call it that. Maybe it sounds better if we call it a "supreme entity." That supreme entity is the rule of law. Our society has worked for so long because our government, with its exclusive power of coercion, has a finely defined set of laws that it must follow. We, as it citizens, or "subjects," if you will, are supposed to know just what our government can and cannot do to us or for us under our laws. There's no freelancing. We know that when we work and acquire property, the government can't just come and seize it without following some Constitutional standards and due process requirements. Unless, that is, we live in Alabaster, Alabama. (But that's another story.) We also know that we are free to develop our own religious views, and to follow those views without government interference, so long as we don't seek to use force or fraud on another. As we follow our religions whims our government is supposed to pretty well leave us alone, neither hindering us nor guiding us. Roy Moore felt differently. He felt it necessary to use government facilities to promote a particular set of religious beliefs. Thankfully, this time, the rule of law prevailed ... just as it should."

-Neal Boortz

riki
08-26-2003, 06:08 PM
Amen to that :)

MorituriMax
08-26-2003, 10:32 PM
Super double secret probation Amen to that anieves...

KissMyGrits
08-28-2003, 06:10 PM
You guys have read way to far into this. I'm right:

Art should only be censored when they create art only for the purpose of flaunting authority or popular convention. That isn't art.

**Edit**

Just in case this is somehow off topic, I wouldn't know because I'm not going to read all that up there.

jin choung
08-28-2003, 06:12 PM
you are wrong.

you have defined art. that definition may work for you. it doesn't work for me. so who's right?

says who?

ergo - no censorship insofar as my right to express does not do bodily harm to another.

jin

p.s. it's funny how when my fingers are off on the keyboard, my name is 'hub' - symbolic? i think so....

KissMyGrits
08-28-2003, 06:28 PM
Well, you are obviously wrong, because I am obviously right, because I am. Sexy too, for that matter. Don't worry about it, people mistake the mistake of saying that I'm wrong at least several times a year. Of course, they quickly realize that I'm right, regardless of anything.

jin choung
08-28-2003, 06:29 PM
and in a vain, futile attempt to head off the whole religious thing again, that's not a matter of expression perse - it is one of fairness.

according to hiraghm, it would be fair and i would not fight him much on it.

but digilusionist wants priveleged expression of christianity because it is a christian country - which is simply unfair to everyone else.

again, slavery was an american tradition too. so was segregation. lot of christians loved that stuff too. we changed.

and as for being a christian country - that argument is tantamount to 'it's my ball and i can do with it what i want'. and in another sense, it's hypocrisy because this nation was founded more on a dedicated campaign of genocide than christianity proper.

and finally, the argument 'we were here first' clearly does not fly because the american indians were here first.

why not totem poles?

jin

p.s. sorry, these were some points that i had before but didn't get an opportunity to raise.

Hervé
08-29-2003, 12:40 AM
What I consider to be art becomes art.... I am more a Marcel Duchamps type of guy....

scottn
08-29-2003, 06:13 AM
I would really like to see the short that sparked this debate. As far as disturbing (and crap) films go, Baise Moi (probably spelt wrong!) and Cannibal Holocaust have to take the cake.

Who acts in Irreversible? I havn't seen it.

Hervé
08-29-2003, 07:01 AM
Monica Bellucci and her boyfriend... just a big Cannes festival scandale, no big deal... people tend to do that when their creativity is below zero... ha ha...

manfriday
08-31-2003, 09:59 AM
This isn't about the Ten Commandments. It isn't about Christianity. It isn't about loving Jesus. It's about the rule of law.

And the rule of law (ala the constitution) states that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I do not believe this was meant to remove all religion from public view, which is apparently what many atheists and folks like the ACLU want.

This was a matter that should have been left to the state and local government, not the federal government.

As for the notion of putting up a statue of Buddah or some religious icon NOT associated with christianity..
That too would be a matter for state and local government.
I think that was the whole idea.. The state and local governments would be more in tune with the religious persuasions of those living there than would the federal government.
If a city was populated mainly by asian folks who happened to be Buddhist and they put a statue of Buddha in their local park, who the hell am I to complain? They are the majority in the community, not me.

jman66
08-31-2003, 02:43 PM
thats better

MorituriMax
08-31-2003, 09:48 PM
How about we let it die off when it dies off, not when someone comes in with a lame talking down to everyone post..

If you don't LIKE the thread, don't READ the thread.. let it die off for yourself.

Thank you

jin choung
08-31-2003, 10:02 PM
yah,

i've always felt this was the most ludicrous kind of request - just leave it the hell alone if you don't like it!

who's forcing anybody to continue reading if you don't like it?

i agree that this thread probably belongs in the OT board but what the heck... it's hear, they're not moving it - chill.

jin

anieves
09-01-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by manfriday
And the rule of law (ala the constitution) states that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I do not believe this was meant to remove all religion from public view, which is apparently what many atheists and folks like the ACLU want.

This was a matter that should have been left to the state and local government, not the federal government.

As for the notion of putting up a statue of Buddah or some religious icon NOT associated with christianity..
That too would be a matter for state and local government.
I think that was the whole idea.. The state and local governments would be more in tune with the religious persuasions of those living there than would the federal government.
If a city was populated mainly by asian folks who happened to be Buddhist and they put a statue of Buddha in their local park, who the hell am I to complain? They are the majority in the community, not me.

NO. THIS IS NOT FOR STATES TO DECIDE there something called freedom of religion. If this is for the state to settle that would mean listen carefully... being on a public government building would mean that it IS STATE SPONSORED RELIGION since the ten commandments are clearly base on christianity, and that my friend is anti constitutional.



AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

humm I just noticed this was moved... Finally!

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 12:03 PM
What I find most interesting is that one of the comnandments states quite clearly, "Thou shallt have no other gods before me."

If that isn't a crystal clear indication of how some christians view other peoples freedom of religion, I don't know what is. Give Roy Moore the same power as the Taliban wield and someday we'll have monuments in every front yard, and if you don't go to church on sunday, the cops will show up to see what you are up to.

anieves
09-01-2003, 12:20 PM
EXACTLY, it is a very scary thought. If ppl have been paying attention and listened to this guy talk you would reach the conclusion that this guy is clearly a Theocrat. He sounds like a preacher... BTW have you seen the signs that the pple outside the building had? If that is no proof I don't know what is.

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 12:54 PM
He did an interview recently on Fox's Hannity & Colmes.. Colmes asked him if he believed that God was everywhere. Moore replied, yes.. but when Colmes followed up with, "Well then how can God be removed from the courthouse?" Moore danced away from answering that one. He never did answer it.

manfriday
09-01-2003, 01:09 PM
there something called freedom of religion

Exactly! I think the problem is that many folks seem to think this means freedom FROM religion.
It does not.


If that isn't a crystal clear indication of how some christians view other peoples freedom of religion, I don't know what is.

What? that like most of the other major religions of the world the christians think they aer right and all the other religions are wrong? Why is this so shocking? they all think that way.


Give Roy Moore the same power as the Taliban wield and someday we'll have monuments in every front yard

Give ANYONE the same power that the taliban wielded and you will have the same problems folks in afganistan had.
It wasnt the monuments that were the problem over there, it was the opression.
one does not need religion to be opressive. I think most communist nations are (or were) evidence of that.

I really don't understand the connection here folks.. We have gotten along fine for a couple hundred years with the ten commandments, and other religous icons in public places.
It seems like it is only recently that people have really gotten their undies in a bunch over it and started fretting over the possibility of a theocracy here in the US.
I just find it funny because religion was a heck of a lot more "prominent" in the american public and politics years ago than it was now.
And I think most people would agree that our government is only growing larger and a little more frightening with each administration.
And all the while religous icons are being torn down from public view.
I am not saying that it is the removal of religion from public view that is causing the decline of society or the increasingly frightening government, which I honestly believe will one day become as oppresive as any of the goverments we have had to "liberate" people from..
I am just saying that I dont think the whole "we dont want to become a theocracy like the taliban" argument flies at all.
Governments by their nature tend to become opressive. I think that is why the FF's wanted to keep the US government small and as out of peoples lives as possible.

bah. im ranting.. sorry

carry on

vbk!!!
09-01-2003, 01:26 PM
scottn :

ive seen "irreversible" and this movie is very well done.
if there'are violent scenes inside people forget there are very sweet and soft scenes too (at the end). what a shame to reduce a film to 2or3 scenes only ( but it's enough for Mr censor).


riki :

"Art have to be" and real artist have to defend this idea
that's all.
ask seriously why your friend make this kind of stuff. maybe has he a good answer and reason to give ( and maybe have a good reason to say about his works that is Art :)


people:

if censorship could be against some kind of art it would be sooo sweet. But Censorship is against people, against mind.
during the Colonel dictatorship in Greece everything was censored : forum, short dress, and the letter "Z" (it's a title of a movie of Costa Gavras).
"Z" means in Greek "I am alive".

Censorship is very dangerous because it reduce your perception.
i understand that some people can be shocked by some picture and that some art stuff need to have a "cultural background" to watch it. i'm agree to warn people about it but i leave the final choice to each mind.

hope someone understand.
english is censored in my country :)

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 01:28 PM
manfriday wrote:
What? that like most of the other major religions of the world the christians think they aer right and all the other religions are wrong? Why is this so shocking? they all think that way.

And your point is? I was just pointing out that in THIS case, the christians are the ones who are trying to get their monument installed in a government courthouse.. I agree with the above, but was making a specific point about an event currently going on here in alabama. I wasn't trying to make a general statement about the world.

manfriday wrote:
Give ANYONE the same power that the taliban wielded and you will have the same problems folks in afganistan had.

Again, I'm not interested in generalizations.. I'm pointing out how screwed up a country can become when religious institutions get the kind of power the Taliban had. You can substitute any country where the Religious folks get unlimited power over government. The USA in this case has specific limitations on the power of religious institutions and people like Roy Moore are trying to get around those limits, step by little itty bitty step. Like water, they are trying to erode the laws that keep them out of our lives if we don't want them there. They use rationalization as one of their most powerful tools. "Oh, it's ONLY a monument.", "Oh, it's ONLY at every intersection.", "Oh, it's ONLY in your front yard.", "Oh, it's ONLY on every channel." etc etc..

manfriday
09-01-2003, 01:41 PM
I was just pointing out that in THIS case, the christians are the ones who are trying to get their monument installed in a government courthouse.

I disagree. in most cases the monuments and icons have been installed long ago, and it is just folks like the ACLU trying to get rid of them. Perhaps the alabam case is different, but in all the cases in MY neck of the woods these icons have been around for many years and then someone decides to make a case of it.


Like water, they are trying to erode the laws that keep them out of our lives if we don't want them there.

Yeah, I dont think we need people like Roy Moore doing this, when the government is perfectly capable of doing exactly that all by itself.
You dont have to worry about religion taking more hold of the government.
The ACLU is doing a bang up job of removing religion from public view all across the US.
And while I do agree that the FF's did inted for the goverment to stay out of the church and the church to stay out of the goverment, I do not think Freedom OF religion is synonymous with freedom FROM religion, which is (i believe) what the ACLU is trying to accomplish.
Again, these monuments and icons have been around for a LOOOONG time here in the US. I just dont see any evidence of them ever doing any harm, or influencing the government or making it more theocratic.
The government is becoming more "controling" over our lives, and all the while these monuments are comming down and religion is becoming less and less visible in public.
I just dont see where people get this whole "the US will turn into a theocracy like the taliban if we dont get rid of these religous icons that have been around for years" argument.

jman66
09-01-2003, 02:04 PM
As far as censorship goes:
The whole thing comes about simply because the norms of what society feels is either "good or bad" Of course since these norms vary from person to person there is a whole buttload of gray area. Combined with societies shifting views, there is no way to keep everyone happy 100 percent of the time. Overall I think censorship is a bad thing because it makes the assumption that art can be good or bad. Rating systems are good so that we may choose to avoid that which we dont want to see, but censoring because one or many people dont like it ... nah, that's not gonna fly... regardless of wether or not some 15 year old is depicting violence it does not make them a bad person.

As far as the religion thing goes:
Perhaps it was just people making a mountain out of a molehill to remove it from the court. But if so, the people on the other side are also making a ridiculously big deal about keeping it there.

These people like the christian defense coalition or whatever they are calling themselves... Its not that they want to protect christians from anything.. .its that they want to maintain some sort of political agenda. Otherwise the would be more than happy to keep the 10 commandments in their churches and in their homes, instead of in the public (hindu muslim christian jewish) etc. courthouse. We've decided long ago on separation of church and state. if it is "Just a monument" then stop whining when its comes time to take it out of the courthouse. Go put it in the church. Use common sense... It's all about agenda...

vbk!!!
09-01-2003, 02:21 PM
i dont understand :
how it could a separation between governement and church when the president swear on the Bible ?
why not swear on the constitution ?

why "god bless America" at the end his oration ?

US are leaded by Christians.

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 02:28 PM
manfriday...
never mind.. you seem to be one of the people who don't mind that religion is where it doesn't belong.. we ALL have to worry about any particular religion getting its foot in any public institution, from the government to the schools..

NOBODY in this country is kept from worshiping god.. they just can't drag us into their particular faith. Any student can pray as often as he wants in school... so far nobody has come up with a way to read the minds of the people praying.. or does god not hear it if he doesn't say it out loud?

I'll do my best to make sure people don't forget this country was founded on freedom from, of, and in spite of religion. semantics can make the distinction between from and of... anyone can bring up the founding fathers and what they think they would have done.. they are dead so you can put any words in their mouth that you want.. if it had been their intent to base law on the 10 commandments, then you can be sure all 10 would have been in there..

FROM:
Freedom from being forced to put any one religion before any other religion, or to place the rule of any religion above us.

OF:
Freedom to choose your own religion or no religion regardless of the interference of any government or religious agency.

I don't mind a monument of the ten commandments in a public courthouse.. IF <BIG IF> they also put the same size monument to EVERY religion in the same room.. contrary to the statement "one nation under god" this country is not under god.. it is "a nation WITH many gods"...

Zarathustra
09-01-2003, 02:31 PM
vbk!!: You left out "In god we trust" on the currency and "One nation, under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

Yeah, these things are among many that make people hate the US government around the world. We say one thing and expect others to behave a certain way when we act to the contrary.

Until we eliminate any hypocritical rhetoric, we can't stand on that proverbial, moral high ground and tell the world how to be.

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by vbk!!!
i dont understand :
how it could a separation between governement and church when the president swear on the Bible ?
why not swear on the constitution ?

why "god bless America" at the end his oration ?

US are leaded by Christians.

If the president were a muslim, would he be swearing on the bible? It's one of those things that carried over from the past..

Have you seriously ever seen a bureacracy get rid of anything in less than 1000 years? They can start doing things a certain way in 10 minutes, but it takes forever to change it.

So when we get a muslim up there you can be sure he won't be swearing on the bible. Besides, whats your point? One thing doesn't have any connection to the other.. the fact that they swear on the bible doesn't mean that every religion should have to switch their belief to the christian god? Or do you think it does? I hope not.

If the president started trying to make the commandments into law then that would violate the seperation clause. If he himself is a believer, that is his right.. and no one can tell him not to believe while he is in office. If it affects his office then that is wrong.

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
vbk!!: You left out "In god we trust" on the currency and "One nation, under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

Yeah, these things are among many that make people hate the US government around the world. We say one thing and expect others to behave a certain way when we act to the contrary.

Until we eliminate any hypocritical rhetoric, we can't stand on that proverbial, moral high ground and tell the world how to be.

When you come up with something better, let us know what to replace it with.. it's not something that NEEDS to be changed as long as people realize it doesn't mean you have to change your belief to their god. The Army says, "Be All you can be." but does that mean that they let you kick the president out of office if you join up and say you want to be president?

AS far as I know, has it ever been shown that god has embezzled money from us? Has he run a company like Enron? In which case, you can probably be certain that "in god we trust" is more accurate than "in Enron we trust." "In Bush we trust." "In Mengele we trust." This doesn't then mean that God is in some way placed in charge of our lives or can tell us how to live or worship.

The "One nation under god" i covered already.

So do you have evidence that we can't trust the god as portrayed in the christian ethos? Is he going to steal from us? Embezzle?

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 02:41 PM
Had a thought.. regarding why we still have "In God We Trust." on our currency..

We still have a congress and a House in this country.. despite the fact that we have an internet. If we wanted to we could pass all legislature online.. yet we don't.. wouldn't it be more accurate and reflect everyones views if we let the people vote themselves.?

The only reason we have senators and such is that it used to be impossible for the average citizen to travel to washington and vote on laws or bills.. this is no longer the case... yet we STILL have this system..

Hmmm.. this seems like something much more relevant to worry about than what a dollar bill or a coin says on it in small print.. strange that with that logic, it doesn;t say "One Godly dollar".. etc

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
vbk!!: You left out "In god we trust" on the currency and "One nation, under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

Yeah, these things are among many that make people hate the US government around the world. We say one thing and expect others to behave a certain way when we act to the contrary.

Until we eliminate any hypocritical rhetoric, we can't stand on that proverbial, moral high ground and tell the world how to be.

The world hates us because we have "In God We Trust" on our money?

<shaking head>

manfriday
09-01-2003, 02:54 PM
you seem to be one of the people who don't mind that religion is where it doesn't belong.

Well, obviously you and I simply disagree on where it does and does not belong. I hate to break it to you but religious beliefs can, do, and always HAVE helped shape policy in our government and law-making.
And it was supposed to. That is part of the nature of a Representative Republic.


If he himself is a believer, that is his right.. and no one can tell him not to believe while he is in office. If it affects his office then that is wrong.

are your really suggesting that an elected official should hang his personal beliefs and convictions on the hat stand when he enters the office? that they should have no effect on his decision-making?

vbk!!!
09-01-2003, 03:12 PM
"God is the real enemy
If God exit ,Mankind is Slave
The goal of Mankind is freedom
We have to kill God to be free"

Mikhaïl Aleksandrovitch Bakounine

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by manfriday
are your really suggesting that an elected official should hang his personal beliefs and convictions on the hat stand when he enters the office? that they should have no effect on his decision-making?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if he makes decisions which favors christians (or whatever his fath) over athiests, then that is wrong. If he favors religious beliefs over non religious beliefs then that is wrong. His decisions should affect every citizen with the same good regardless of their faith.

He is, after all, the peoples president.. All of them.. not the most highly elected preacher in the country. He makes policy decisions about the state of our military, the condition of the countries infrastructure, and things like that.. he is not our moral consicence.

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by vbk!!!
"God is the real enemy
If God exit ,Mankind is Slave
The goal of Mankind is freedom
We have to kill God to be free"

Mikhaïl Aleksandrovitch Bakounine

Okkayyyyyyy, is there a typo there.. exit? exists? It doesn't make a lot of sense either way. How can you kill god? .48? Law rocket launcher? Nuke?

vbk!!!
09-01-2003, 03:24 PM
i say it for you : choose what you want.
Personaly i can't kill God because i don't believe in it basically

Zarathustra
09-01-2003, 03:33 PM
Max, you're just being provocative.

My point was saying there's a separation of church and state while there's apparently not one ("in god we trust" along with the others mentioned) is indicative of a two-faced persona some parts of the world accuse the US of having. You can't keep saying one thing and doing another and expect people to trust you.

Ha ha to the god embezzling money and other jokes that season your responses. I'd say you'd be a hit on Politically Incorrect, but quite silly for, say, Meet the Press.

We could never vote online because it's too easy to cheat. Wonderful idea, though. File it under "ideal world". Keep throwing out those wild ideas - something might be plausible.

manfriday
09-01-2003, 03:34 PM
I'm saying that if he makes decisions which favors christians (or whatever his fath) over athiests, then that is wrong

as long as it is in line with the constitution it is not wrong.


If he favors religious beliefs over non religious beliefs then that is wrong.

The elected official should be concerned with only his own beliefs as they can be applied within the framework and spirit of the constitution. Noone elses beliefs matter. He was elected by the people because of his beliefs (at least thats the way it is SUPPOSED to work.. we both know that both parties are totaly sold out to special interests whether it be big business or trial lawyers).


He is, after all, the peoples president.. All of them.. not the most highly elected

Correct, but his first responsiblity is to those who elected him, and thus his conscience and beliefs should dictate his policy, as his beliefs are the reason people voted for him.
We are a representative republic, not a direct democracy.
Our elected officials were never supposed to vote what the polls tell them to vote.
They are supposed to be elected based on thier beliefs, and then represent those who elected them by shaping policy based on those beliefs.
Of course we also both know that THIS doesnt happen either.. politcians vote what the polls tell them to. It's sad really.


he is not our moral consicence.

No, but the moral conscience of the voting public had a significant role to play in his election, and he has a duty to live up to the beliefs that people voted for.

jman66
09-01-2003, 03:34 PM
a 9mm to the temple should do it... trouble is he's a hard man to get a hold of these days.

I think the argument that "religion alwasy has been a part of govt" is somewhat due to the fact that it really hasnt been that long (couple hundred years) since we've agreed on separation of church and state, so old methods and ideas are still found lingering around until some whiney little bastard makes a big fuss as with the pledge ordeal a while back.

In a world where we are trying to give everyone equality it is probably important that we do not favor one religion/race/etc over another especially in decision making that affects all religions/races/etc.

On the other hand perhaps people are too worried about being PC these days. In all likelyhood the presence of that monument in alabama probably had zero effect on the day to day decision making going on inside of that courhouse, but some whiney group had to cry about it... bring about even more crying from the opposite side.

you know, you can get a lot of attention.. get your face on tv etc if you decide to throw a tantrum like some of these schlubbs are doing

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by vbk!!!
i say it for you : choose what you want.
Personaly i can't kill God because i don't believe in it basically

Roger that... it? 8 )

I always thought it was a her... but then if god is all knowing, etc etc, then she should know women are the more powerful of the sexes..

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Max, you're just being provocative.

No I wasn't.. just looking at things logically.


My point was saying there's a separation of church and state while there's apparently not one ("in god we trust" along with the others mentioned) is indicative of a two-faced persona some parts of the world accuse the US of having. You can't keep saying one thing and doing another and expect people to trust you.

It's only two faced if it's the same person changing his tune. Are you suggesting that the same people who made the policy to place "in god we trust" on our money are still alive today, saying things differently and being two faced?


Ha ha to the god embezzling money and other jokes that season your responses. I'd say you'd be a hit on Politically Incorrect, but quite silly for, say, Meet the Press.

I wouldn't be caught dead on that show.. too much spin there from people who are MUCH more provocative than me, and on purpose.


We could never vote online because it's too easy to cheat. Wonderful idea, though. File it under "ideal world". Keep throwing out those wild ideas - something might be plausible.

It's easy to cheat NOW. Ever heard of Secure Servers? You don't think there is any cheating when we DON'T vote online? You ever give your credit card number to ANYONE, off or online? You don't think they might cheat you? Why is a national voting system a wild idea? No more wild than nanotechnology, the hubble telescope, the world is round not flat, landing on the moon..

jman66
09-01-2003, 03:43 PM
hey, god was a woman in dogma...

manfriday
09-01-2003, 03:46 PM
hey, god was a woman in dogma

actauly the apostle said "ya know, she isnt REALLY a woman..."

God was an old man in Dogma too.
But I must say I liked God better in the guise of Alanis.

Kevin Smith's awsome. I loved that movie. :)

vbk!!!
09-01-2003, 03:48 PM
MorituriMax : :) interresting :)

i'm curious about american system

prisoner can't vote right ?
and many prisoner are black or latino.

Who vote in united states? only white anglo saxon......

vbk!!!
09-01-2003, 03:49 PM
oh i haven't seen dogma yet

i'll try to get it soon

vbk!!!
09-01-2003, 03:55 PM
anothers question :

when is the vote in united state, which day of the week ?

what is the "Great elector" "Big elector"( sorry i khnow only the french term)?

do people vote directly for the president or for someonelse ?

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by manfriday
actauly the apostle said "ya know, she isnt REALLY a woman..."

God was an old man in Dogma too.
But I must say I liked God better in the guise of Alanis.

Kevin Smith's awsome. I loved that movie. :)

Err? Who was the woman then? Or was he looking like a woman? I'm confused..

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by vbk!!!
MorituriMax : :) interresting :)

i'm curious about american system

prisoner can't vote right ?
and many prisoner are black or latino.

Who vote in united states? only white anglo saxon......

Convicted felons lose the right to vote.. there may be other exceptions.. can't think of them right now.. only white anglo saxon? Are you saying that 100% of americans are convicted felons? That is not correct. Many more than whiote anglo saxons vote in the usa.

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by vbk!!!
anothers question :

when is the vote in united state, which day of the week ?

what is the "Great elector" "Big elector"( sorry i khnow only the french term)?

do people vote directly for the president or for someonelse ?
Um, do a google for "Presidential Election Primary USA"

Also google "Electoral College USA Politics"

manfriday
09-01-2003, 04:19 PM
Err? Who was the woman then? Or was he looking like a woman? I'm confused..

I think the idea was that God was of no particular sex, and that He took on a physical appearance that the person he was trying to reach out ot could accept.



Convicted felons lose the right to vote.

Is this a federal law? I thought it was different from state to state, as election laws are specific to the state?

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by manfriday
I think the idea was that God was of no particular sex, and that He took on a physical appearance that the person he was trying to reach out ot could accept.

Is this a federal law? I thought it was different from state to state, as election laws are specific to the state?

Err.. I am pretty sure it is federal law as federal law would apply to national elections.. for state elections it may vary.. but not positive.. hard to track down anything.. I'd just always heard growing up that felons could not vote for the president.

Someone else know a link where we can see this? Curious.

CB_3D
09-01-2003, 04:57 PM
...since the censors have to watch porn and splatter all day, aren´t there any reports about one of them grabbing a pumpgun and going on a rampage?? I mean, these guys have to watch that stuff day in day out!

Oh, and i am against any kind of censorship! Ratings systems yes, of course.

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 05:37 PM
How about censorship of movies showing old men raping little boys? girls?

CB_3D
09-01-2003, 06:50 PM
well, as hard as that may be to accept , no, not even there. BUT,if you are talking about real children being actually abused i would hope that laws forbid the act per se, and i really wasn´t referring to forbidden products like childporn, animalporn and snuffmovies.

As to "legal" movies, i don´t want this theme generally censored out of our media, certainly not...be it movies, literature or else. How do you decide where thoughtfull intepratation with social value ends and the intolerable and exploitative begins?

EyesClosed
09-01-2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by MorituriMax
How about censorship of movies showing old men raping little boys? girls?

I think people need to learn to censor what they view/do and stop trying to censor what others view/do. I mean, who are they to tell another adults what they can do--what is right?

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 07:06 PM
Ah I see.. so as long as the old male rapists can get their stuff to the store without being caught, they should be able to make a buck off of it? That's what you end up with if you don't have any kind of censorship..

Or better yet, how about releasing old film footage of jews being led to their various deaths in concentration camps.. say an old nazi who was never caught decides to market this and it shows explicit footage of experiments being performed on jewish prisoners.

Or even how about a video or book written by irish terrorists showing how to make bombs with common materials, or even palestinian terrorists selling how-to books on how to ambush people, blow them up, or torture of people kidnapped by those terrorists?

No censorship for any of that?

MorituriMax
09-01-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by EyesClosed
I think people need to learn to censor what they view/do and stop trying to censor what others view/do. I mean, who are they to tell another adults what they can do--what is right?

Yeah, who are adults to tell other adults they cannot chop people up with machetes or kill them for stepping in their yards.. who are adults to keep telling adult priests to stop abusing children.

The nerve.

We should let everyone out of jail, since we can't be using the law to lock them up for comitting crimes..

EyesClosed
09-01-2003, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by MorituriMax
Yeah, who are adults to tell other adults they cannot chop people up with machetes or kill them for stepping in their yards.. who are adults to keep telling adult priests to stop abusing children.

The nerve.

We should let everyone out of jail, since we can't be using the law to lock them up for comitting crimes..

What are you talking about? This isn't about people breaking laws, but about censorship of art and similar things. Of course if someone breaks a law, they should be punished accordingly.

Censorship of art/literature is wrong, because it's based on views that vary from one person to the next. Just because you think something is wrong, doesn't mean the next ten people will. What you want is communist. It may not seem like it at first, but it'll eventually grow to that.

Who cares if someone reads about making bombs. Who cares if some adult watches rape videos. Like I said: don't view what you don't like.

anieves
09-01-2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by vbk!!!
i dont understand :
how it could a separation between governement and church when the president swear on the Bible ?
why not swear on the constitution ?

why "god bless America" at the end his oration ?

US are leaded by Christians.

This is not mandatory. Just like Jews testifying on the stand... they don't have to swear on a Bible.

Now you have to understand that the word God doesn't imply a specific religion. Christianity does.

anieves
09-01-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Zarathustra
vbk!!: You left out "In god we trust" on the currency and "One nation, under god" in the pledge of allegiance.

Yeah, these things are among many that make people hate the US government around the world. We say one thing and expect others to behave a certain way when we act to the contrary.

Until we eliminate any hypocritical rhetoric, we can't stand on that proverbial, moral high ground and tell the world how to be.

As my reasponse above... The word God doesn't imply a specific God. So, worship which ever God you want THAT is your constitutional right.

anieves
09-01-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by MorituriMax
Had a thought.. regarding why we still have "In God We Trust." on our currency..

We still have a congress and a House in this country.. despite the fact that we have an internet. If we wanted to we could pass all legislature online.. yet we don't.. wouldn't it be more accurate and reflect everyones views if we let the people vote themselves.?

The only reason we have senators and such is that it used to be impossible for the average citizen to travel to washington and vote on laws or bills.. this is no longer the case... yet we STILL have this system..

Hmmm.. this seems like something much more relevant to worry about than what a dollar bill or a coin says on it in small print.. strange that with that logic, it doesn;t say "One Godly dollar".. etc

ok, man, I have to disagree here. No that's not the only reason we have Senators and representatives. What you are saying is that then this country should be ruled by Majority rule. NO WAY!
Our founding fathers saw the danger of majority rule, they never wanted such system and therefore they created a Republic and not a democracy. Yet when you ask around ppl think they live in a democracy; we don't. We live in a republic. Democrats would love that system which BTW would completely destroy the constitution, but thank God we don't. Majority rule is as scary as State sponsored religion... maybe even scarier...

Now, this debate is a totally different one.

manfriday
09-01-2003, 09:18 PM
I am pretty sure it is federal law as federal law would apply to national elections

See that's the thing.. they dont really..
That was part of the fiasco with the 2000 election..
states are in charge of how they handle voting and the laws that regulate them.

I think as far as the federal govt is conerned they are just worried about getting the electoral votes in from the states.

The funny thing is that federal law doesnt even dictate that a states electoral votes go to whomever won the election in said state.
If Florida had desired to do so, the legislators could have ignored the voters and given the electoral votes to whomever they wanted.

I remember some of the nuttier liberals suggesting that some of the bush states do exactly that during the time the whole election debacle was going on.

strange stuff a representative republic!

Rory_L
09-02-2003, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Hiraghm

"This guy is accused of [...] adultry? "


A hideous crime all of us over 18 are guilty of committing! :D

Well, sorry, but everyone`s already said at length anything of any importance I might have posted, so I`m left with the silly jokes.

One thing, addressing the original question...

Images of violence in art do have a place I think, both personally for the artist and for the society in general. There are artists who create with a desire to influence their society. They`ll produce images of violence, to comment on the community`s failings. Does anyone think that they shouldn`t?

Then again, within a society there needs to be the balance between individual and community, doesn`t there? And violent images cannot exist without society-attached values. Intent sits in the picture and can`t be cut out. To illustrate, a picture of a black man hanged from a tree, painted by a black man is generally regarded as acceptable by society; but the exact same painting, produced by a guy wearing a bed sheet and a white, pointy hat isn`t. The visual language is no more violent, but the cultural, value-added meaning is more violent.

So there, guess I did have something to say, after all: violence is needed in art for social comment, but only is violence if considered to be such by the target society.

Discuss!

Cheers,

R

meshmaster
09-02-2003, 10:34 AM
In the "land of the free" there are a lot of censors...
Why do teachers feel that certain curse words should not be used at school, but in the same breath say that we live in the land of the free where censorship should not exist...

http://www.funnyjunk.com/pages/history.htm

manfriday
09-02-2003, 11:22 AM
what are you talking about? we have always had censorship to some extent.
Freedom of speech was intended to allow people to speak out against thier govt without fear of jackbooted thugs kicking thier door in a poping a bullet into their heads on some dark rainy night.
It was'nt so that kids could cuss thier heads of and not get detentions.
heh.

anieves
09-02-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by manfriday
what are you talking about? we have always had censorship to some extent.
Freedom of speech was intended to allow people to speak out against thier govt without fear of jackbooted thugs kicking thier door in a poping a bullet into their heads on some dark rainy night.
It was'nt so that kids could cuss thier heads of and not get detentions.
heh.

Can we have a civil debate? calm down.

You are right. Some ppl think that freedom of speech give them the right to say whatever they want without repercusions. This is not the case; freedom of speech protect you from the government to prosecute you for something that you have said. The Gov can not prosecute you, however I can. I said this before in some other thread....

manfriday
09-02-2003, 11:33 AM
Can we have a civil debate? calm down.

errr. Im confused. Im plenty calm. :)



You are right.

*sigh* I never get tired of hearing this. ;)

meshmaster
09-02-2003, 01:10 PM
that the courts have basically deemed art has to be "descent" and that decency is based on location - so some piece of artwork that is indecent in one state may be descent in another... that has more to do with nudity, etc than with violence, but I think the same sort of rules apply... also, Violence is necessary in art, in my opinion, because all art is about violence, or ideas that go against or for some other idea, so the ideas that it goes against are being rejected in a sort of idealogical dramatization of violence...

dzogchen
09-02-2003, 01:12 PM
Violence in this film. Is it art? I am feeling sick......

http://www.ichithekiller.net/trailer/trailer_high.html

anieves
09-02-2003, 02:02 PM
for the ppl involved in that film probably was, and the whole debate starts again... it's a vecious cycle.

The face on the wall... was that Lightwave?;)

sketchyjay
09-02-2003, 05:57 PM
Here's a bunch of thoughts in no particular order that I feel like saying somethign about.

Well the battle that is being fought by the cheif justice seems to indicate to me that he is NOT impartial. A rational mind would realize that the speration of state and church means no religous iconography. Period. If he wanted something to be read he should of put the constitution on display since He Obvious hasn't looked at it in a while...

I think the Of and From argument is something that will come back and bite us all in the tush in a few generations. The Laws were never setup to replace the teachings of religions. The attempt to remove all religious teachings will also remove alot of moral teachings and with luck something better will come out of it but not before things get really screwed up.

As for too much violence... Has anyone one seen Dead Alive or Tetsuo iron man. Theses are some wickedly horrifying movies that I think, like any violent artform need to be properly labeled or rated but not censored. Just let people know what's in it so they can make a choice as to if they want to be exposed to it.

But aside from the whole censoring issue, you should have the guy who made the short do what he enjoys doing. Otherwise he'll always be an imatation following behind the real innovators. If he enjoys doing really violent 3D art let him. Eventually he will get out everything he wants to do with that art form and move on, or not. Let him choose. Bleeding 3D eggs are a minor thing to worry about. Now if he wants to roll around in pheces and sharp metal then worry.

Jay

Rory_L
09-02-2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by anieves
for the ppl involved in that film [it] probably was [art]

That`s one of my points. The makers belong to a community which does not see this level of violence as unendurable as we do.

Mores and taboos are social constructs and not universal laws. You just can`t make a set of laws to live by that are equitable for all the peoples of this planet. It`s hard enough getting all the folks of one society to agree on what`s fair.

________________________________________

Anyway, I think I`ll pass on that Ichi-the-Killer film. I watched the director`s previous film, Audition, at the Leeds Film Festival a couple of years ago...and I still can`t cut a slice of cheese without thinking of severed feet!

Though when you think of it, there is a connection isn`t there: smelly cheese and unwashed feet!:)

R

KissMyGrits
09-02-2003, 09:15 PM
Society is a frustrating thing. Technically majority vote best serves the purpose of government working for the people, but the majority doesn't know what's good for it. For that matter, general laws are just censorship of action. Censorship applies to all legislative things. You can't kill somebody just like you can't be racist in art. It's all the same thing. A Republic as a form of government, idealistically, is the best option. But publically elected officials is just a terrible idea, because society's fate still lies with majority vote. The thing is, we need smart people to run this country. Majority vote is out of the question, so i suggest we proceed in the American Idol fasion, except without the people calling in. Instead I will chose. We need one ruler who isn't stupid, then he can find other smart people, then they can run the country together. This is the best possible form of government in my opinion. The problem is finding somebody intelligent enought to start us off. I think I'm the perfect cantidate. It just seems that everybody in politics is just SO STUPID. It's frustrating to see them destroy our country. I mean COME ON! http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/ It's sad really. If they are doing anything that they can't be TOTALLY OPEN TO THE PEOPLE ABOUT then there is something wrong with both them and the public. We have to remember that government is a representation of the people.
For all the answers worth having:
MADDOX.XMISSION.COM
Ferrealz yo, best site in the universe.

KissMyGrits
09-02-2003, 09:27 PM
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~adlr/america.gif.

www.marycareyforgovernor.com

sketchyjay
09-02-2003, 10:59 PM
Kiss: No matter how smart a person is, power currupts and maybe a smart person may rationalize his meglomania better than an idiot in power but the result will be the same. Smarts does not make a person less pregidous or above letting their emotions get the better of them. Maybe less often but they are human too. I've known people in mensa or what ever it's called. And they can be as nerotic, bad or good and anyone else.

Oh and don't forget that no matter how smart he is an assassin on a grassy knol will still take him out if he steps out of line and doesn't consider the idiots below him.

There is no winning argument. We are all humans subject to human falabilities. A republic is a step in the right direction but a dictatorship just doesn't work. Look at the middle east and africa. dictators have to crush any oposition to stay in power or another dictator who wants power will try to get in.

Maybe we should setup a computer as the ultimate impartial governing body. give it the foundations for laws to govern mankind and it simply expands a new utopian rule. Of course it will lead to a war that will make us into batteries and give us cool hackers to worship

:D

Cheese and feet...well I think i'll just avoid this movie. The only problem with review and censor ship is we have to have a point man who has to stick their head out and see if the art is appropriate or just plain wrong. Poor guy.

Jay

Hervé
09-02-2003, 11:12 PM
I think this thread is very intersting... keep talking, I enjoy everyday...!

Thanks, Hervé

riki
09-03-2003, 12:16 AM
Sorry I was looking for the gun debate. Must've wanderred in by accident. Now where did they put that?? :)

Hey check this out Hervé

Global Rich List

I just discoverred I'm in the top 10% of the richest peep in the world.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Now please give me what I need, more blood and porn :)

Hervé
09-03-2003, 01:02 AM
hey Riki, hard to beat.... this year (suck to death) I am in the 79,91% richest people on earth.... let's wait next year.... so lucky to have a comprehensible wife.... he he

Later, Hervé

riki
09-03-2003, 01:28 AM
Mind you being in the top 10% doesn't actually count for much. Maybe I can afford to buy a latté after all :)

Hervé
09-03-2003, 04:33 AM
O O Ooo, I dont know what is a latté, is it like café con leche.... ??

And off course you're right, dont need much to be in the top ten.... sister of my wife is 0,6%, with an income of $150,000... (both husband and her) but they are lawyers, so this is the school for money... !

Hervé

Beamtracer
09-03-2003, 04:34 AM
America is a violent country, so I guess it's natural that this is reflected in art. It's ironic that nudity is more likely to offend the American audience (full nudity is not allowed on network prime time TV).

Europe is the other way around. They have lots of complete nudity on their evening TV screens and they don't care, but they have a lower toleration of violence.

Hervé
09-03-2003, 04:36 AM
Notice... btw I dont talk to them anymore, they are slef-important and they make me very nervous...

I had to precise that before someone starts to ask for money... he he...

Hervé

Hervé
09-03-2003, 04:46 AM
oups, did not see your post Beam, well you are 100 % right... I think people need way more porn&blood shows on TV until they are saturated, then we'll do something else...

If you try not to give any bonbons to a kid, he'll want even more of them, now give him 5 pounds of bonbons, he'll get some cavities, gain some weight, would have no girlfriend, so at the end, he'll blame the bonbons where he is the only one to blame.... no not his parents... you know you are stupid even very young...!!

Mankind is curious, nothing to do against that ... sometimes it pays, sometimes you pay...

cheers up... hervé, the later the better... well not too late...

riki
09-03-2003, 04:48 AM
I don't mind nudity just as long as it some hot young chick and not the pizza delivery man :)

Hervé
09-03-2003, 05:49 AM
..... and you better Riki.... ;)

Still dunno what's the latté .... Riki...

riki
09-03-2003, 05:54 AM
Maybe coffee??

Hervé
09-03-2003, 06:08 AM
I am sure it must be some weird potion that U hide somewhere in your house and that makes you very horny... no? ... coffee ? sure... 5 pieces of sugar for me...

he he he-rvé

riki
09-03-2003, 06:16 AM
Damn the latte Police :) I always get nabbed by ewes guys hehe

I remember one so called intellectual (who wrote his doctoral thesis on democracy) accused me of drinking my cappuccino the wrong way.

uuuggh please no sugar in coffee, it's sacrilege. :)

Hervé
09-03-2003, 06:25 AM
ok, very good...

In luxembourg, when you say 5 pices, generaly means 0 sugar... I love cappucino's as well... and most of all Nice Expressos...

Cheers Riki..;

riki
09-03-2003, 06:37 AM
hehe cheers hervé

yeah there's no wrong way to drink it :)

I heard on the radio that janet jackson puts it up her bum, apparently gives you a quicker hit, good for depression :eek:

haven't tried it myself :)

Lightwolf
09-03-2003, 07:18 AM
Hi there y'all,
O.k. now I've caught up on the thread, this is going to replace the "War" thread, cool ;)
Seriously though, I thought I'd just throw in my personal, very subjective definition of Art:
"Art is anything that is thought provoking, that makes me think about something differently. Art is something that gives me a different point of view."
- roughly speaking.
In that ontext, violence can be justified in Art. The question for me is if it is the depiction of violence, or the actual act of violence. Acts of violence on innocents are obviously a no, no, we all agree on that.
Does the image of a dead, nude soldier make you think? Does it portray violence, or the result of violence?

Cheers,
Mike - who does not consider himself an artist btw.

riki
09-03-2003, 07:23 AM
Sister Wendy said that "Art is an expression of humanity".

Hervé
09-03-2003, 07:29 AM
well I dunno, but if I see a real picture of let say a dead soldier.. I always wonder about his family... the ones that stay really suffer... and sometimes in the case of a series of photos (like in Paris-match magazine) actually showing the people before---> after... like this a taliban getting killed in 5 photos, then I only see the suffering from the guy... strange, it is like I suddenly care about the act of his death... then not his family... and you could inverse the case... I mean exchange the soldier for a taliban, it makes me feel the same... Am I insane ??

Art is everywhere, you, me, everywhere...

Hervé

Lightwolf
09-03-2003, 07:33 AM
Salut Hervé,
That is basically what I mean. Art happens in your mind.
That's for me where I draw the line between decoration and art.
Decoration is nice to look at, art doesn't tend to be, in many cases it has to be to get those grey cells working.
But maybe that's just me.
Cheers,
Mike

Hervé
09-03-2003, 09:56 AM
... and I do think you're right Lightwolf, some great pieces had to take the excuse of being made to represent scenes in the Bible, look at Rembrandt (yes again), the violent painting he made were all representations of Biblic scenes, and the rest was just nice portraits and landscapes and dead natures....

Now on the fact that Christianity has always had the taste for telling the painters of that time to actually paint the most violent epic moments is another debate.... so many chopped heads on Silver Plates in the Bible.... wait a minute, Are "Violent Biblic Scenes Paintings" art...?

I think everyone knows the answer...

Hervé

Beamtracer
09-03-2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by riki
I don't mind nudity just as long as it some hot young chick and not the pizza delivery man :) Why not, Riki? Should nude art always be stereotypical? Should only bodies that fit the latest fashion be seen? ie anatomically impossible Lara Croft types?

riki
09-03-2003, 06:41 PM
Hi Beam, sorry I wasn't referring to art, since Hervé was talking about nudity in Europe. It just reminded me of the time I was back-packing in Rome and Prague, Belgium. The hostels there all had shared toilets and showers which I thought was cool.

But anyway call it freedom of choice if you like. :)

I don't mind ugly nudes ie Lucan Freud's (spelling??) painting etc are actually quite beautiful.

Beamtracer
09-03-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by riki
It just reminded me of the time I was back-packing in Rome and Prague, Belgium. The hostels there all had shared toilets and showers which I thought was cool. You should have tried Germany where people are naked on the beaches and even in the city parks. It might shock for the first minute or two but you soon get used to old fat people walking around nude.

The United States is probably the most prudish of all the "western style" nations. No nudity on network TV, which is ironic considering nobody complains when they show you the inside of a human body (all the blood and guts). It's only the outside they worry about!

riki
09-03-2003, 08:25 PM
I had to share a dorm with 8 girls in Rome, most swedish, in the middle of a stinking hot summer so of course no clothes, the room had 8 bunk beds that surrounded a shower which was in the middle of the room, against one wall. Of course they only had cold running water.

It actually felt strange bumping into the girls out on the street, seeing them all dressed up.

Uuggh the good old days :)

KissMyGrits
09-03-2003, 08:29 PM
Damn, riki, you happen to have a camera on you?!

riki
09-03-2003, 08:33 PM
haha unfortunately I was travelling with my GF.

Rory_L
09-03-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by riki
Lucan Freud's (spelling??)

That`ll be Lord Lucan Freud, the toff artist whose pictures mysteriously disappear as soon as they`re painted! :D

Just joking, Riki.

I thought that Freud and Bacon painted their `ugly` life drawings to say that ugly is beauty too.

I still think that for something to be `violent` it needs violent intent behind it. When your girlfriend slaps you across the mush because you`ve praised her beauty infront of her friends and embarrassed her it isn`t violence. When she does it on finding you snogging her friends it is!

And may I be the first of many to say, Riki: model and animate the shower scene and post it on the Finished site! :)

R

KissMyGrits
09-03-2003, 08:36 PM
Sketchyjay: I know what you are saying, but what I mean to say is that I know plenty of people who would just be sooo much better for governing than all the idiots they have now. Common sense is the greatest trait a person can have. As far as I can tell common sense, logic, and wisdom are all the same thing, and they are what could truly save this country. It doesn't matter how much you know about government, or even the situation at hand, all that matters is that you have plenty of common sense, then there is no problem that can't be solved. I think Thomas Hobbes said it best (1600s philosopher believed in natural corruption of mankind), but unfortunately I don't have a quote on me. The gist of it is that the government should be just as rich as they want to be, then they will have no reason to seek any more power. Well, it's complicated. It doesn't really matter how rich they are, they just need to be the incorruptable type of person, of which I am aware of plenty. That's why it is frustrating. There are all these great totally trustworthy people that are brilliant, and you don't ever see them elected to office. The political system just isn't appealing, as far as I can tell. I wouldn't want to go into that formal an environment either, now that I think about it. It's just so frustrating that it makes me repeat the same things over and over. If I felt like I had the energy I would bring up how stupid people are and how they will never learn, but I'll just use an example: Briney Spears, Maddona, price on sexuality, what more can I say?

KissMyGrits
09-03-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Rory_L

And may I be the first of many to say, Riki: model and animate the shower scene and post it on the Finished site! :)

This brings a thought: how does everyone feel about 3d pornography? For that matter, the posting of 3d pornography? For that matter, the posting of 3d Britney Spears pornography?

I mean it would require lots of talent, and I been thinkin'...

riki
09-03-2003, 08:50 PM
haha that reminds me of another time, on a beach north of Cairns in Australia, with miles of empty coastline. I came across 2 girls sharing a bikini. One had the top half, and the other had the bottom. I gotta say sharing and caring makes the world a better place :)

KissMyGrits
09-03-2003, 08:52 PM
Good god, I need to get out more...

riki
09-03-2003, 09:08 PM
One of the art galleries that I work for the 'Australian Centre for Photography' recently had a porn show with some 3D porn/art.

re: http://www.acp.au.com/exhibitions/2003/staring_dark.shtml

KissMyGrits
09-03-2003, 10:27 PM
Whoa, they don't mess around.

Rory_L
09-03-2003, 10:45 PM
Everyone, but everyone is corruptable, Kiss. It`s a fact. Might not be money. Might not be power, but there`ll be something that can be used as a lever to bend an `incorruptable` person crooked.

R

Hervé
09-03-2003, 11:42 PM
A friend of mine worked in the facilities dep. of Sony Music in LA.... well he told me he putted a fence and a lock to the storage room where all the gifts Sony is giving away were.... (really all stupid gadgets)... you would never believe that those people would steal something so stupid and put they carrer in jam... (they make very good money there...)

He told me.... "why this big lock and this metallic fence ? Well, just to keep honest people honest..!"

Hervé

to quote who knows who...

"how do you bring the peasants back in the farm after they've seen Paris...!?

Hervé
09-03-2003, 11:49 PM
did I say kids are so violent because all the entertainment is exactly copied from the most hardcore reality news.....

I see the difference between kids with violent TV programs and games and songs, and kids without... (yes it does exists !)

Well watch out Mr. Adult, you going the wrong way teaching kids how to manipulate guns...

just a pov.

Hervé
09-04-2003, 01:22 AM
Can I send you something private Riki ?

Hervé

riki
09-04-2003, 02:02 AM
yep of course Hervé. My email address is on my web re: http://www.suture.net I don't won't to post it here just to avoid the spambots.

Beamtracer
09-04-2003, 04:57 AM
Riki, that Australian 3D porn you linked to earlier is pretty interesting. The only trouble is I can't tell who's a man and who's a woman.:confused:

I could imagine you in Rome sharing the dormitory with 8 young naked women and a communal shower.

riki
09-04-2003, 06:52 AM
haha could get a bit smelly and a bit hairy, but I guess somebodies gotta go there :)

anieves
09-04-2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by KissMyGrits
Sketchyjay: I know what you are saying, but what I mean to say is that I know plenty of people who would just be sooo much better for governing than all the idiots they have now. Common sense is the greatest trait a person can have. As far as I can tell common sense, logic, and wisdom are all the same thing, and they are what could truly save this country. It doesn't matter how much you know about government, or even the situation at hand, all that matters is that you have plenty of common sense, then there is no problem that can't be solved. I think Thomas Hobbes said it best (1600s philosopher believed in natural corruption of mankind), but unfortunately I don't have a quote on me. The gist of it is that the government should be just as rich as they want to be, then they will have no reason to seek any more power. Well, it's complicated. It doesn't really matter how rich they are, they just need to be the incorruptable type of person, of which I am aware of plenty. That's why it is frustrating. There are all these great totally trustworthy people that are brilliant, and you don't ever see them elected to office. The political system just isn't appealing, as far as I can tell. I wouldn't want to go into that formal an environment either, now that I think about it. It's just so frustrating that it makes me repeat the same things over and over. If I felt like I had the energy I would bring up how stupid people are and how they will never learn, but I'll just use an example: Briney Spears, Maddona, price on sexuality, what more can I say?

Common sense and logic doesn't have a place in politics, Ideally it should have a place but you have to realize that when politicians get in power the very first job they tackle is figuring out HOW TO STAY THERE.

Common sense or logic has no place in politics, Example, Look at the Democratic party in California now, they are about to pass a bill to give Legal driver liscences to Illegal immigrants. Common sense tells me why in the hell would you want to do this? Simple, politics, More voters for the democratic party and if you don't agree then you must be a Latino basher and/or racist. With driver licenses Illegal immigrants can now vote. What scares me about this is not the ppl that come here with good intentions and make a good living... is the pple that don't what scares me.

California is going down the drain big time. But Bustamante's solution is to increase taxes. This guy doesn't have a clue of basic economics, but most likeley he will be the winner... I say let it be, vote for this guy you deserve what's comming at you.

What you call idiots I call brilliant politicians. Look at Clinton, what a disaster he was for this country BUT he was a brilliant politician he managed to stay in power for a second term, and now his socialist wife might run too, God help us all.

Madonna, Britney thing... publiscity stunt! nuff said.

KissMyGrits
09-04-2003, 05:57 PM
I'm not saying that politicians aren't smart, they are very good at what they do (which has very little to do with the public's best interest), but we need somebody who isn't in politics to be a politician. We need a politician who doesn't need to worry about voters and campaign contributions. When you say that nobody is incorruptable, that's just wrong. I mean it may seem that way but I know quite a few of those elusive people who can't be swayed. Even if you threaten them, they have the common sense to get themselves out of a bad situation. I, for instance, in the case that I had political power, would only accept enough money to get by healthily. I don't really care how I live, I can be happy with very little. I would not corrupt my seat as a public figurehead no matter what the case. You may think this is just arrogant to say, but you must realize that the reason for all of my "steadfastness" is that I have lived my whole life whatching corruption destroy lives unjustly. Call me crazy, but I have been immensely frustrated day in and day out for years, just whatching people be the way they are. You can't imagine the lengths I would go to in order to avoid avoid being that way that people are. On a related note, it's amazing how humans have almost entirely halted evolution. Some animals are protected by us so that every single one exists in the same way. Others are just whiped out. Natural selection can no longer occur, even in our own species! We allow all people to remain in the gene pool. I think you should have to take an equivalency test in order to qualify for procreation. We don't need any more people that we aren't absolutely positive will be worth our time. All of these things lead me up to a point: Anarchy. You may say that anarchy just doesn't work. It's completely unviable, people will die by the millions, just because. But that's the point. We need to weed out the sick and the weak... And the stupid. We have set ourselves so far above nature that we don't evolve. So your new test is: survive. Then you can reproduce. We just plain DON'T NEED THIS MANY PEOPLE. THEY HAVE NO USE AND DESTROY EVERYTHING WE TRY TO CREATE FOR THEM. There I go again... It may be argued that it is necassary to keep all the people to maintain the amount of food required for the entire population to survive, or something like that, but that just doesn't make sense. This is the best plan ever, and will save our society.
Now, on a lighter note, Britney Spears and Maddona.
You may say "Well, sex sells. Whatcha gonna do?" I say "screw that!" This is the most offensive thing I have ever seen. Not because it was Britney Spears and Maddona kissing, that was all fine and good (and jesus was it good), but because some music industry rep. said to them "If you two will be lesbians for like two seconds on the VMAs you will both get a million-bajillion dollars." And they said "OK!" because they are stupid. Once people can buy and sell other people's sexual preference there is something wrong with EVERYBODY. Does nobody see this but me? This stands as a figurehead of grossly extreme capitalism, which is just too much. I mean I'm a capitalist in all intents and purposes, but DAMN! That is just WAY too much commercialism. People selling records because they were homosexual was bad enough, but selling more records than you already were because you were homosexual for one kiss is just not right! ... This isn't comin out exactly like I want it too, but I think the overall effect is there. Am I insane, or what? This kind of thing makes me wish I had a bigger chainsaw.

sketchyjay
09-04-2003, 07:07 PM
I agree with Anieves take on people in power wanting to stay there. Hence my view on dictatorships. The only way to stop a politition from worrying about staying in power would be if it was an office for life type deal. Problem with this is even if you got every smart person together to lead the world and they weren't corruptable and didn't worry about politics they would still, ALL of them, have to get along for the rest of their lives (in office). If they start bickering and otherwise fued then it will begin to break into camps of who is whose friend and the neutrals. This gets us to a place were we will begin to stagnate as each group begins to undermind the other.

When I think incorruptable I think someone who has complete controls over their emotions because it's those emotions that will get him into trouble.

Now no one has complete control over their emotions. We all have weaknesses that can be exploited, which is the whole point of being incorruptable-being weaknessless. They may not take a bribe but may sleep around. They may avoid sex and money scandals but are biggited. They may be non of the above but think their so superior because of this that they ignore the warnings of the common man around him. He may be too humble and react too late. So being incorruptable is a game of now focusing on removing ones weaknesses instead of playing politics. I think this would have the same result as regular politicing.

So being incorruptable is a worthwhile goal but not something that will help someone in politics. Think about it. If someone is in charge of running your live don't you want a say. After all look at this whole debate. I think we are all intelligent rational people and it is pretty much a given that alot of this discussion is subjective. So an super intelligent being in charge would still be doing what he things is right according to his own subjective viewpoint. Which will not neccessarily be good for everyone.

This is not to say that society can't grow or that we have no hope but to say that we are still rehashing old ideas or putting our hope on supernatural results and conditions. (communism is a great idea but impracticle in reality, disposible razors/diapers/cans etc are a great idea but bad for the environment) There is something other there just that no one has thought of it yet.

Evolution takes place over thousands if not millions of years (for us higher lifeforms) so I wouldn't worry about it. Now anarchy for the sake of killing off the weak will leave the strongest in charge not neccessarily the smartest. (if that was the case human history would have resulted in us all being super intelligent). Life is chaos and you just can't expect a clean result. This is just like the political idea. It won't work because it assumes that intelligence beats a royal flush and if you think hard enough you can stop the thug from braining you with a tire iron.

In the end the thugs will win in an anarchy. Now were did I put that club... just incase :D

As for The kiss thing. Hell if someone asked me to anyone for a bijillion dollars I'd be there. And that is not stuipid that is getting rich off someone elses stupidity. Well unless it was a shark or someone in the mafia giving the kiss of death or something. :eek:

this is getting good... well this whole topic is good.

lots of fun reading.

Oh! to return to teh topic of the thread violence in art... is it justified? well if it is appropriate to the subject matter then yes. Even if I find it totally distasteful it is appropriate, just not to me...

Jay

KissMyGrits
09-04-2003, 08:15 PM
I agree. But this frustrates me even more. Well at least we have finally found a significantly tangible relation between human nature and the contemporary world. Our politics are defined by our genetic imperfection... Who'da thunk it? It's almost like a kind of natural predetermination... That doesn't leave many options. Oh well, I guess in that case we haven't done half bad for ourselves. But I still definitely think that we coul have better people in office.
I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at with the Britney Spears/Maddona thing. I am offended all to hell. I mean, think of one reason that they would do that on the VMAs. What is that reason? Money. Now think of another reason. If you answered you are wrong. There is none. They didn't do it because it's "fun". They didn't do it because they are playin slip 'n slide on eachother all night every night. They didn't do it because it added to their performance. They did it ONLY because it would get a bunch of sexually frustrated people to buy records... Somehow... This ties right into the thread topic. It seems to me that there is to much art that is shocking or offensive or violent just because it makes people say "DAMN, THAT'S SHOCKING/OFFENSIVE/VIOLENT!" That's stupid. Art is meant to inspire a reaction, but if the entire purpose is to get people angry? That's just dumb. I could make some movie where a bunch of people get thrown in a wood chipper while on fire, but what's the point? Shock art goes so far, and then doesn't go any farther (just like vegetarians), which I think means it's not real art. If we would just stop being upset about art altogether then this phenomenon would dissappear, and art could just be art. That's what commercialism does to art. It just makes artists do whatever the most people want to hear, which is often shocking to some, which makes even more other people want it. The VMAs incident is just the embodiement of the entire ordeal.
On a side note it seems funny that nobody cares about Christina Aguilera kissing Maddona also. They even cut most of her kiss.

Rory_L
09-04-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by KissMyGrits
We don't need any more people that we aren't absolutely positive will be worth our time.[...] We need to weed out the sick and the weak... And the stupid.


Is that a joke or are you serious? :(


R

KissMyGrits
09-04-2003, 09:58 PM
Serious as a heart-attack.

sketchyjay
09-04-2003, 10:25 PM
Like I said there is, to me, obviously a better social structure/society but at the moment it is not something we can envision. Hell we went from caves/gardens (depending on your religious upbringing) to a feudal society to empires to republics to democracies and who knows what will come next? There is a saying which I can't fully remember but says basically that you cannot see a solution from the same POV that got you into the mess in the first place. So eventually someone somewhere will say hey how about a _____ocracy and we'll all slap our heads and say a collective "Doh!" and take the next step forward.

Anyway the whole MTV award stunts are just that, stunts meant to make us keep them in mind. Hell look at Tom Green his whole persona is based on shocking us for the sake of shocking us. Personally I could care less if they took off their clothes lathered each other up and bounced breast to breast on a trampoline I'd still wouldn't by a bad cd by them. Although I'd love to watch. :)

Art usually is a form of communication. A way for an artist to express what is going on with them, or what they see, or what they feel. Now with that point of view I see even the guys that shock us as artists. Yeah their message is basically hey you think that is shocking then you haven’t seen this! Although not something I always want to see it is still art. What I don't think is art is when someone says hey this group really likes violent so let me put this together to get some money out of them. In that case it ceases to be a communication and becomes a deception.

jay

KissMyGrits
09-04-2003, 10:37 PM
Hm. There are always these great revolutions of the mind throghout history, do you think that we are the first age of people that see one coming? I mean in my eyes change is absolutely necessary... But it doesn'r seem that there is anything to change to... It would have to be closer to the perfect societal structure. Does human nature allow that? I hate that we are only limited by ourselves. Our thought process has such potential. I feel like everyday society needs to be changed drastically, but there is nothing to change it to. Is this what it feels like right before revolution? Did anybody see that movie Waking Life? When that chick and that dude were on that bed and they were talking about how once one person figures something out a bunch of people figure it out at just about the same time... Like som telepathic evolutionary link. Is that what revolution is like? It's something I need to experience. Hm. This whole post was a lot more abstract than I thought it was going to be. I think I often read way too far into things, which accounts for most of my problems. For that matter, everybody go out and rent Waking Life. It's the best movie I've ever seen.

KissMyGrits
09-04-2003, 10:38 PM
Why doesn't anybody get as upset as me about this kiss thing?! ><

Rory_L
09-04-2003, 11:12 PM
They`re too busy being shocked at your wanting to exterminate the weak and stupid.

Hervé
09-04-2003, 11:36 PM
Hey , want to exterminate the weak & stupid, why dont you come here in front of me, and try to exterminate me first.... ! huh !!;)

sketchyjay
09-05-2003, 05:07 AM
the weak and the stupid? what if they are smart and weak or stupid and strong? Guess we are all on your list.


:D

Jay

anieves
09-05-2003, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by KissMyGrits
-snip-I don't think you quite understand what I'm getting at with the Britney Spears/Maddona thing. I am offended all to hell. I mean, think of one reason that they would do that on the VMAs. What is that reason? Money.

Well life is offensive, deal with it;)
In this country ppl are way too worried not to offend anybody, political correctness is out of control. They saw a chance to make money and they took it, what's so wrong with that? It was a publicity stunt to have pple talk about it for a week or two, nothing more nothing less.

If you get offended you have 2 options, 1-deal with it and 2-speak with your wallet. The Dixie chicks saw what angry ppl can do... hitting them where it hurts the most; the pocket book.

anieves
09-05-2003, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by KissMyGrits
-snip-Did anybody see that movie Waking Life? When that chick and that dude were on that bed and they were talking about how once one person figures something out a bunch of people figure it out at just about the same time... Like som telepathic evolutionary link. Is that what revolution is like?

If this was true we would have a revolution about our current tax system! :mad:

wait!... we are starting to see such revolition with the fair tax bill:cool:

KissMyGrits
09-05-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by anieves

In this country ppl are way too worried not to offend anybody, political correctness is out of control. They saw a chance to make money and they took it, what's so wrong with that? It was a publicity stunt to have pple talk about it for a week or two, nothing more nothing less.


It's an insult to our intelligence. In my mind, it's of the more unforgiveable kind (definitely not the first of those). I guess I always think "This is how things should be... But there is nothing we can do about it..." And then I get all deppressed. =D

And when I say whatever it was that I said, I just mean leave things up to nature, like they are supposed to be. I don't see how the human race could posibly naturally evolve in the state it's in. It's a stagnation of genes.

lone
09-06-2003, 08:05 AM
mankind is not likely to evolve any further until it frees itself of its obsessive overestimation of the value of emotions. i say this because A: it is more likely that the further evolution of man will be of the mind, rather than of the body. B: the history of man, up until the 19th/20th century, has been that of the ongoing battle to overcome our emotional knee-jerk reactions, and for the last 100+ years, we've been backsliding.

i'd say it was an insult to maybe 25% of the population at best. the rest don't have a clue.

KissMyGrits
09-06-2003, 02:30 PM
AHMEN BROTHER!

Corey_LA
09-17-2003, 04:10 PM
Well I think that like others say "there should be no limits to art" is true because remember it's just art no one is killing chickens except a butcher and it is only a computer screen don't forget that!!!!!!!!!!!!

riki
09-17-2003, 06:52 PM
it is only a computer screen don't forget that!

So when you find out that your insurance company or bank manager has been checking into your private medical records, they can come back and say

"It's just a computer screen!"

meshmaster
09-18-2003, 12:47 PM
A


R

T


IS

Jockomo
09-19-2003, 11:41 AM
I believe violence is justified in art. Here is an example.

Movies like "Fast and Furious" encourage stupid kids with tricked up Hondas to drive really fast and recklessly and kill themselves in horribly violent auto accidents.

This is an important part of natural selection and should be appreciated as such. We need movies like this to keep the population of stupid people to a minimum.







WARNING: Sarcasm was used in the above post. This disclaimer has been sponsored by the Organization for the Sarcastically Impaired.

KissMyGrits
09-19-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Jockomo
This is an important part of natural selection and should be appreciated as such. We need movies like this to keep the population of stupid people to a minimum.

WARNING: Sarcasm was used in the above post. This disclaimer has been sponsored by the Organization for the Sarcastically Impaired.

You had me sold right up until the warning part. I had forgotten how often some of the most undesirable people have a way of removing themselves from the genepool. I don't know if that's good enough for me though, we still need to help them along a little.

Zach
09-22-2003, 03:13 AM
Listen, as long as violence exists, it is justified to portray it in art. Otherwise, if you say that "art" is only "art" as long as it consists of certain criteria (ie excluding certain subject matter), then you are sounding like Adolph Hitler.

We are human. We have emotion. We deal. For some lucky people, they have art. For others, they have... Columbine?

Sex, violence, death, despair... these exist today, do they not? Is it intelligent to pretend they don't? The portrayal of violence causes at least one of 3 things inside a person to happen, 1) To commit the same type of violence, 2) To be complacent within this violence, 3) To be against this form of violence.

Let us not forget that art is a broad subject and spans many a genre. Let's say "war" violence in films. Is it necessary to portray the first sequence in "Saving Private Ryan". Well I thought it was effective. It gave me a starting point that immediately gave me the "feeling" that you can be snuffed out with a blink of an eye without even the least concern of what type of person you are. War is like that. It doesn't matter who you are. As long as you are immobilized the other side will be better off.

If violence is portrayed within any given artform, automatically the outside person will, consciously or subconsciouly, come to grips with his/her own mortality. This can be a devastating realization, but so can poverty, disease, environmental destruction, starvation, and the Malthus Theory. Should we just ignore these things that exist in the world?

I say, "NO!"

Well, how will others find out about these things? Books, the so-called American "liberal media", News Papers? Art provokes us enough to challenge us in what we think about a certain subject matter. Being challenged will only make you stronger because it allows you to find substance within your own opinions.

Now I can call you derogatory names in regard to the emotion I'm feeling about you being concerned with yolk spilling onto the floor or whatever, and maybe you think your teenage friend has some angst that he needs to repress, but I think I would rather see him tossing it out onto the internet (by the way, the reason why the internet got so big in the first place is because there are no laws to govern the darned thing! It is the Wild West of Information, and Please God, Please don't change it!) than create his own living yolky mess in reality.

meshmaster
09-22-2003, 06:34 AM
life is violent... enough said.

Hervé
09-22-2003, 11:16 PM
Very strange conversation... I can see there is still people who say "I accept this piece as an art piece" or "I dont think this piece is an art piece".... well com'on gentlemen, this converstion is about Classicism (art has to be a certain way, no place for dreamers here)... against Romantism (let's create...do what you feel like) and this debate is still going on since the 18 century.... subjects of disagreement are somehow different, but the conversation has strictly the same foundation, a bit different.... it went from 18 cen. -Could I, should I really paint a women washing her hair ..... woaw... to today's new questions - should I make in 3D a dolphin liking an elephant crotch... ? - same woaw...

I guess it' back to school time...

Never heard of "different day, same **** !"

"Have a nice day" (the prisoner)

Hervé

Keep going , it is in fact a great pleasure to see the human kind has not changed. I could add "different day, same questions..."

Hervé
09-22-2003, 11:24 PM
[ If violence is portrayed within any given artform, automatically the outside person will, consciously or subconsciouly, come to grips with his/her own mortality.]

Well I am more a Picasso type, for me it's living near teens that makes me face death.... but I do love babys and old people....

KissMyGrits
09-24-2003, 08:23 PM
I know babies always make me think of death... But I'm not sure it's for the same reason.

meshmaster
09-25-2003, 02:07 PM
violenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartis violenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisart andartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviole nceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviole nceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandar tisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceis artandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolencevi olenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisvi olenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartan dartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenc eisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenc eviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandarti sviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisar tandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviol enceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviol enceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartanda rtisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolencei sartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolencev iolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisv iolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisarta ndartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolen ceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolen ceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandart isviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisa rtandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolencevio lenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisvio lence

KissMyGrits
09-25-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by meshmaster
violenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartis violenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisart andartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviole nceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviole nceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandar tisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceis artandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolencevi olenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisvi olenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartan dartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenc eisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenc eviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandarti sviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisar tandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviol enceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviol enceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartanda rtisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolencei sartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolencev iolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisv iolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisarta ndartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolen ceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolen ceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandart isviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisa rtandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisviolencevio lenceisartandartisviolenceviolenceisartandartisvio lence

Zach
09-26-2003, 02:19 AM
living near teens that makes me face death

No joke, everyone's got a gun and a chip on their shoulder!