What should any art be banned in America?

[shintao]

The following article kinda gets into groups who love to ban the freedom of expression in America. Regardless of how offensive an art piece might be, it is just as much art as the most unoffensive Universe is. The article points out, regardless of the art, someone is going to hate it, dislike it, and want it removed. So the real question, in fairness might be: If you hate art pieces and want them banned and removed, are you willing to surrender all the art pieces that you like? Like all the pictures & decorating pieces in your home, yard, car, clothes, etc. Oh, you say, the world would look so bleak if we reduced it to gray. If you are not willing to do that yourself, you have no right doing it to others.

Museums shouldn't bow to censorship of any kind

 

[Sunshine]

The following article kinda gets into groups who love to ban the freedom of expression in America. Regardless of how offensive an art piece might be, it is just as much art as the most unoffensive Universe is. The article points out, regardless of the art, someone is going to hate it, dislike it, and want it removed. So the real question, in fairness might be: If you hate art pieces and want them banned and removed, are you willing to surrender all the art pieces that you like? Like all the pictures & decorating pieces in your home, yard, car, clothes, etc. Oh, you say, the world would look so bleak if we reduced it to gray. If you are not willing to do that yourself, you have no right doing it to others.

Museums shouldn't bow to censorship of any kind

So you could do an oil painting and portray your boss as a pedophile and since it is art, it should stay?

 

[uscitizen]

But "art" shows nekkid people!

 

[Revere]

Please distinguish "banned" art from works the artists expects taxpayers to pick up the tab for.

 

[uscitizen]

I think the OP was pretty clear on that.

 

[martybegan]

The actions of a group of citizens in protest of something they do not like is not censorship. Only the goverment can be accused of that, and only the goverment is held in check from doing it by the first amendment. Now if they tried to legislate closing the exhibit that would be censorship. The Catholic League has every right to try to pressure the museum to shut down the video, just as the writer has the right to complain about it.

I find the Norman Rockwell comparison a bit of a stretch. The writer dislikes Rockwell as an artist, not because he is morally offended by the content of his art. For the comparison to be on the same level, there would have to be a Norman Rockwell painting of a group of thugs beating the crap out of a gay couple.

 

[Dis]

The following article kinda gets into groups who love to ban the freedom of expression in America. Regardless of how offensive an art piece might be, it is just as much art as the most unoffensive Universe is. The article points out, regardless of the art, someone is going to hate it, dislike it, and want it removed. So the real question, in fairness might be: If you hate art pieces and want them banned and removed, are you willing to surrender all the art pieces that you like? Like all the pictures & decorating pieces in your home, yard, car, clothes, etc. Oh, you say, the world would look so bleak if we reduced it to gray. If you are not willing to do that yourself, you have no right doing it to others.

Museums shouldn't bow to censorship of any kind

So you could do an oil painting and portray your boss as a pedophile and since it is art, it should stay?

f you're going to make that drastic of a comparison, perhaps you have an answer for who should judge, and what constitutes art vs. trash?

 

[shintao]

The following article kinda gets into groups who love to ban the freedom of expression in America. Regardless of how offensive an art piece might be, it is just as much art as the most unoffensive Universe is. The article points out, regardless of the art, someone is going to hate it, dislike it, and want it removed. So the real question, in fairness might be: If you hate art pieces and want them banned and removed, are you willing to surrender all the art pieces that you like? Like all the pictures & decorating pieces in your home, yard, car, clothes, etc. Oh, you say, the world would look so bleak if we reduced it to gray. If you are not willing to do that yourself, you have no right doing it to others.

Museums shouldn't bow to censorship of any kind

So you could do an oil painting and portray your boss as a pedophile and since it is art, it should stay?

There are laws(?) against that I believe. But if it was legal, then yes it should be ok. It doesn't mean you are chained and forced to look at it, turn your head. Statutes portray children nude, correct? Are you covering them up like Ashcroft did?

 

[daveman]

It doesn't mean you are chained and forced to look at it, turn your head.

That works for Fox News, too. Just sayin'.

/threadjack

 

[Revere]

If the Smithsonial Institute displays it, am I forced to pay for its venue?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I don' t know much about art, but I do know if some lady did this in September in Oregon, she would be more afraid of the flu than the cops.

The main complaint these days is we are supposed to pay for offensive trash. The government takes money from us to give to an artist whose major claim to artistic cred is just how offensive his stuff to the people paying for it.

 

[code1211]

The following article kinda gets into groups who love to ban the freedom of expression in America. Regardless of how offensive an art piece might be, it is just as much art as the most unoffensive Universe is. The article points out, regardless of the art, someone is going to hate it, dislike it, and want it removed. So the real question, in fairness might be: If you hate art pieces and want them banned and removed, are you willing to surrender all the art pieces that you like? Like all the pictures & decorating pieces in your home, yard, car, clothes, etc. Oh, you say, the world would look so bleak if we reduced it to gray. If you are not willing to do that yourself, you have no right doing it to others.

Museums shouldn't bow to censorship of any kind

I have to admit that I was and am offended by the piece of art that was a Crucifix in a glass of urine. I have a degree in art and know that in many cases, art is the result of a chain or progression of creativity that led to the piece before us.

If the above is art, then a Koran in a vat of urine would also be art and should also be displayed. I wonder if the open minded curator would still have an open mind when half of museum had been blowed up. Maybe a portrait of Mohammed depicted in a homosexual act.

If the goal is to shock, then let's shock. Don't be shocked, though, when the viewers join into the exposition. Actually, blowing up the museum or destroying the artwork would also be art. Art is a funny thing.

At some point, though, adult supervision needs to be employed and the juvenille snickering adolescents who perversely stick it in your face need to be ignored and given a time out to calm down. Monkeys do things in the zoo that are interesting to some, but are not art.

 

[shintao]

It doesn't mean you are chained and forced to look at it, turn your head.

That works for Fox News, too. Just sayin'.

/threadjack

That is right, and I haven't seen FOX since it's first year (outside a few videos), just have no interest.

 

[daveman]

It doesn't mean you are chained and forced to look at it, turn your head.

That works for Fox News, too. Just sayin'.

/threadjack

That is right, and I haven't seen FOX since it's first year (outside a few videos), just have no interest.

Uh huh.

 

[shintao]

If the Smithsonial Institute displays it, am I forced to pay for its venue?

I have a nam poem in there, and your taxes are paying for it I assume.

But you can always pretend your taxes just go to whatever you like, and not to anything else. And I'll prentend mine go to whatever you refuse to fund. Hows that?

 

[shintao]

The following article kinda gets into groups who love to ban the freedom of expression in America. Regardless of how offensive an art piece might be, it is just as much art as the most unoffensive Universe is. The article points out, regardless of the art, someone is going to hate it, dislike it, and want it removed. So the real question, in fairness might be: If you hate art pieces and want them banned and removed, are you willing to surrender all the art pieces that you like? Like all the pictures & decorating pieces in your home, yard, car, clothes, etc. Oh, you say, the world would look so bleak if we reduced it to gray. If you are not willing to do that yourself, you have no right doing it to others.

I have to admit that I was and am offended by the piece of art that was a Crucifix in a glass of urine. I have a degree in art and know that in many cases, art is the result of a chain or progression of creativity that led to the piece before us.

If the above is art, then a Koran in a vat of urine would also be art and should also be displayed. I wonder if the open minded curator would still have an open mind when half of museum had been blowed up. Maybe a portrait of Mohammed depicted in a homosexual act.

If the goal is to shock, then let's shock. Don't be shocked, though, when the viewers join into the exposition. Actually, blowing up the museum or destroying the artwork would also be art. Art is a funny thing.

At some point, though, adult supervision needs to be employed and the juvenille snickering adolescents who perversely stick it in your face need to be ignored and given a time out to calm down. Monkeys do things in the zoo that are interesting to some, but are not art.

An artist has the freedom to create, and for many reasons. To shock, to make you cry, or whatever string of emotion he wants to pull. I write music & entertain occassionally, and some songs make you cry, some laugh, some happy, tap your toes or clap your hands, etc. But it is not going to please everyone.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/3/11/873525/CntryClb.mp3

 

[shintao]

I don' t know much about art, but I do know if some lady did this in September in Oregon, she would be more afraid of the flu than the cops.

The main complaint these days is we are supposed to pay for offensive trash. The government takes money from us to give to an artist whose major claim to artistic cred is just how offensive his stuff to the people paying for it.

Yeah, it really sucks when your money goes to something you don't appreciate, whatever it is. It is kind of a draw back of freedom isn't it? It means you must suffer, sacrifice, and experience pain to have freedom. And everytime you limit someone's else's freedoms, you have just limited your own. So learn to sacrifice and suffer.

 

[code1211]

It doesn't mean you are chained and forced to look at it, turn your head.

That works for Fox News, too. Just sayin'.

/threadjack

That is right, and I haven't seen FOX since it's first year (outside a few videos), just have no interest.

It seems odd to condemn a reporting style with which you are unfamiliar...

 

[code1211]

If the Smithsonial Institute displays it, am I forced to pay for its venue?

I have a nam poem in there, and your taxes are paying for it I assume.

But you can always pretend your taxes just go to whatever you like, and not to anything else. And I'll prentend mine go to whatever you refuse to fund. Hows that?

Pretending is not a viable fiscal policy. It's what has brought us to our current situation.

 

[code1211]

The following article kinda gets into groups who love to ban the freedom of expression in America. Regardless of how offensive an art piece might be, it is just as much art as the most unoffensive Universe is. The article points out, regardless of the art, someone is going to hate it, dislike it, and want it removed. So the real question, in fairness might be: If you hate art pieces and want them banned and removed, are you willing to surrender all the art pieces that you like? Like all the pictures & decorating pieces in your home, yard, car, clothes, etc. Oh, you say, the world would look so bleak if we reduced it to gray. If you are not willing to do that yourself, you have no right doing it to others.

I have to admit that I was and am offended by the piece of art that was a Crucifix in a glass of urine. I have a degree in art and know that in many cases, art is the result of a chain or progression of creativity that led to the piece before us.

If the above is art, then a Koran in a vat of urine would also be art and should also be displayed. I wonder if the open minded curator would still have an open mind when half of museum had been blowed up. Maybe a portrait of Mohammed depicted in a homosexual act.

If the goal is to shock, then let's shock. Don't be shocked, though, when the viewers join into the exposition. Actually, blowing up the museum or destroying the artwork would also be art. Art is a funny thing.

At some point, though, adult supervision needs to be employed and the juvenille snickering adolescents who perversely stick it in your face need to be ignored and given a time out to calm down. Monkeys do things in the zoo that are interesting to some, but are not art.

An artist has the freedom to create, and for many reasons. To shock, to make you cry, or whatever string of emotion he wants to pull. I write music & entertain occassionally, and some songs make you cry, some laugh, some happy, tap your toes or clap your hands, etc. But it is not going to please everyone.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/3/11/873525/CntryClb.mp3

I agree completely that not all art is tasteful and pleasing. Being beligerently offensive and crude is a different matter altogether, though. The artist and the museum who display the crucifix in urine do so to demonstrate their freedom and their belief that a symbol is only some wood and plaster and urine is just a liquid of a different compostion.

Wow! I'm richer for the revelation. NOT!

The reason I mentioned that this should be extended to the showing of a Koran in urine is that the Muslims, when presented with the same "revelation" will reveal another revelation and kill the artist, blow up the museum and destroy all of the "ART" of this type that "within their bending sickle's compass" might come.

Let's call this "Performance Art".

We all know that a symbol is only a symbol. I keep pictures of loved ones. Caps with team logos. You get the drift. Art is fine and dandy, but sensibility is important, too. Just as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre is not protected as a First Amendment right, other intentionally offensive or dangerous initiatives should also be restrained.

Regarding the artists right to create, I will agree with that as far as I agree with any right. Rights should be exercised with the same understanding that we are taught in grade school: The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

So you do have a right to create. If that creation involves carving obsenities with a knife into my skin, I object to your medium and subject. If it involves carving obsenities into my sensibilities, again, I object to your medium and subject.

There is a time and place for things to be shown and done. Like all things done within the confines of society, rights of the individual must end when they violate the rights of other individuals.