Offensive Art?

A woman who attacked a painting by Paul Gauguin hanging in the National Gallery in Washington DC said the French artist was "evil", court records show.

I feel that woman was an idiot quite frankly, but can you ever have Art that does need to be censored/is too offensive?

What about if there were a contemporary piece that espoused racist/whatever ideals?

Personally I'd say no to the censorship, but I'd think less of the artist if their intent was to espouse racist/whatever views.

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

You cannot have anything that needs to be censored, ever: at the very most, it may be necessary to inform people beforehand that the contents of a work may be very offensive, and to forbid minors to access it without parental permission.

As for art, yes, you can have Art which is highly offensive, but still of very high quality: to make an example, the Divine Comedy contains a passage about Mohammed being tortured horribly in hell - and that is ridiculously offensive, even though that poem is a masterwork.

edited 6th Apr '11 5:17:43 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

It could only be reasonably censored if it's causing actual harm, and I'm having trouble thinking of situations in which that could happen.

What about art that was produced illegally? Ie, photos of people artfully murdered? (No I don't know if that's ever really happened)

Wax on, wax off

Well, photography that featured children in sexual ways would be harming someone. Apart from that I don't think so.

Be not afraid...

That's not so much a matter of censorship, but rather of consent: unless these people did agree to be murdered, photographed, and have these images displayed, no one has the right to publish these photos.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

We already do, it's called Shakespeare.

Fight smart, not fair.

"photography that featured children in sexual ways would be harming someone"

How so?

Enjoy the Inferno...

Probably because it's child pornography and that's a pretty terrible thing.

Anyway, offensive art isn't bad. Art that is offensive for the sake of being offensive and nothing else is bad.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

That's not an answer, really.

Enjoy the Inferno...

What's your opinion on pedophiles then?

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Again, there is also an issue of consent. Children cannot consent to have such photos of them displayed, and their guardians cannot either.

edited 6th Apr '11 7:19:56 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Since you asked....

Better answer, though I don't see how suggestive pics necessarily harm kids, per se.

edited 6th Apr '11 7:23:35 AM by MRDA1981

Enjoy the Inferno...

Wasn't Gauguin the one who abandoned his family to go fuck native women/children in Tahiti?

edited 6th Apr '11 10:39:21 AM by Myrmidon

Kill all math nerds

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

Enjoy the Inferno...

edited 6th Apr '11 10:39:28 AM by Myrmidon

Kill all math nerds

Wow. That was rude. Thumped.

Enjoy the Inferno...

edited 6th Apr '11 10:39:34 AM by Myrmidon

Kill all math nerds

If one leaps to the conclusion that sexually explicit images of children is inherently harmful, one would have to make the same conclusions about a supposedly consensual recording of a murder, artful or otherwise. The mere implication of consent, however ill-advised it may be, is not the whole point of the story.

Children can and do consent to sexually explicit situations, whether they are aware of it's implications or not. We do not regard it as proper consent though, because it's impossible to confirm it. There are biological limitations, coupled with general lack of world experience that make the issue moot in most circles. Beyond that, the mere power difference in the relation between a child and an adult makes the situation generally unsalvageable. And beyond even all that, communities at large don't want that to be perceived as acceptable; parents don't want that to happen to their children, nor most people who work with them. EDIT: I originally made a comparison to Not In My Back Yard but feel that's inaccurate, as that's about something that's inherently necessary, but no one wants to deal with. Not the same thing here, so scratch that.

Likewise, just because someone supposedly gave consent to be murdered doesn't mean that's the end of it. They have family who would quite likely object, and a community at large that doesn't want that to be seen as okay. Plus it's hard to trust the perpetrator to always agree to a consent if they started off by doing something that is disapproved of by most of society. Only God and the actual perpetrator knows how they really feel about it, and we can't read minds so we still have to follow with what is generally regarded as okay even if we think we can handle stepping out of bounds. Especially if stepping out of bounds is killing a dude or sexing a kid.

Hope that made sense, sorry if it didn't. Naturally the same conclusion isn't necessary for non-representative art; no one is hurt directly in that case, and you only have public decency to worry about, hence why we have restrictions on who can look at stuff and where.

edited 6th Apr '11 7:50:21 AM by Ratix

Reminds me of the signature I have over on Charas Project forums. Kinda long, but it sums up what I was annoyed about at the time I wrote it up. Not sure I'd entirely agree with it now, but here it is:

I study languages. Language is worth studying. So are mathematics, culture, and cats.

Some things are not worth studying. For example, smut. And even if someone could make a plausible case for the study of smut, it is still wrong to use public funds to support such pursuits. No one is free to use my tax dollars to fund college classes in "the art of porn", or to fund the creation or display of sexually depraved artistic expression. The United States government has no right to use my tax dollars in this manner, no matter how many people vote for it.

It is a vile thing that my country has come to the point where smut is considered art. Am I wrong? Perhaps. Be that as it may, those who want to fund smut can pay for it out of their own pockets, not mine.

I'm guessing I was too annoyed to make it more diplomatic. But anyway.

I do think there's at least one thing in my argument there that's pretty dangerous. Well, there's the inherent assumption that tax dollars should be used to fund art (which I'm on the fence about), but beyond that, there's the assumption that the government should be making decisions about how offensive the art is, and using tax dollars to persuade artists to change it.

I mean, what happens when they decide that, say, religious art is too offensive to be funded? Or how about a particular type of religious art, like something depicting creation (might offend people who accept evolution)?

Letting the government decide who gets paid and who doesn't based on nebulous qualities like "offensive" is... disturbing.

Not to mention that case in Texas where a comic book shop clerk got convicted of being a sexual predator because he sold adult comic books. They didn't even have to prove he sold them to minors, since they're comic books, and now he's legally required to avoid contact with children and accept random searches of his home to see if, in the privacy of his own house, he's drawing sexy pictures.

The world is crazy. Yargh.

edited 7th Apr '11 2:59:48 AM by Kilyle

Only the curious have, if they live, a tale worth telling at all.

The reason I said sexual photography of children would be harming somebody is, well - if you're photgraphing children in a sexual context, you've put children into a sexual context in order to photograph them.

Be not afraid...

That would not apply to CGI, comic book or anime characters, and neither would it apply to 18+ adult models that look like teens.

Would it?

edited 7th Apr '11 3:06:22 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

And I guess there isn't a way to appeal that? Once you're labelled a sex offender, even unjustly, it's for life?

Edit: Ninjas.

edited 7th Apr '11 3:10:03 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

@Lony Jay: Seconded.

@Savage Heathen: No it wouldn't. It's surprising how much people fail to grasp that.

On the topic of porn, one of the weird (but quite logical if you thing about it) things is that the Age Of Informed Consent for sex in privacy is different from the one for porn. This is understandable, but can lead to debate on some edge cases.

edited 7th Apr '11 3:13:07 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Apparently, looking at/translating/distributing manga is rape in Sweden.

edited 7th Apr '11 3:26:51 AM by MRDA1981

Enjoy the Inferno...

Ages of consent run from 14-18 and the age of consent for acting in porn is 18, right?

edited 7th Apr '11 3:15:13 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.