Chapter six in our text explored all the different venues related to "what we do with art". At the end of that chapter under the caption "Food For Thought" the addition of censorship was added as another thing that happens to art. Censorship is a highly controversial subject matter when it comes to art and throughout history it has happened over and over. From the "fig leaf campaign" in the Renaissance to Serrano's 'Piss Christ' in the post modern era, people have censored art, artists, and exhibitions for a variety of reasons.In class today we talked about Kathe Kollwitz and how she, like so many artists during the time, had to leave Germany due to the type of art work she was creating. We have also talked about the Taliban in Afghanistan destroying timeless and precious works of art because the works challenge their religious beliefs. In the Cultural Revolution in China led by Mao Zedong, people tried to erase their cultural history by destroying great works of art. All these are forms of censorship on a huge governmental scale.
Think about the artist we watched today on Art21, Barry Magee, and how he created graffiti based works in spaces that were public. Graffiti has always been seen as a crime of vandalism; is it right for him to freely create his images where ever he wants? What is the difference between the work he creates in the gallery and the images on walls and trains that eventually get covered or painted over? Is that a form of censorship?
There are many types of censorship and your text brings up a number of tough questions with no real or clear answers. Please take the time to respond to one or more of the questions listed and use references to artworks when possible...believe me, there is no shortage of controversial works of art out there.
Who defines what is obscene or vulgar?
Are there other reasons why art works have been censored besides being deemed obscene?
Should individuals decide for themselves what they read, look at, or listen to?
Should art be strictly uplifting?
Should art be moral, or concerned with morality?
Does art in public spaces have to meet certain moral criteria? Should it?
37 comments:
In response to the last question..
i dont think that art should be modified or re thought per say just to meet certain moral criteria in public spaces. If artists had to change their original idea of a creation just because of morals then they would'nt fully be expressing themselves. Art is art, and not everyone exposed to a certain piece will fall in love with it, but why modify an art work just for one person? thats just my opinion. Art in public places should'nt have to meet any criteria, personally.
In response to the question,
Should art be strictly uplifting?...
I don't think art should be strictly uplifting. Artists should have the freedom to choose what emotions they want to evoke from the viewers of their artwork. For example, Banksy, a well-known pseudo-anonymous British graffiti artist, has created many simple and approachable yet insightful pieces of artwork. Most of his artwork is not uplifting at all but it does stir up many other emotions when it is looked at. The most recent of his work deals with the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Banksy's drawings on Israel's West Bank barrier induce many feelings that are not uplifting at all. When I look at the memorable things he has drawn, I feel saddened and almost helpless. Banksy draws on the walls to get peoples' attention and to "encourage us to ask why the hell it's there in the first place (www.briansewell.com)."
Aftering viewing his drawings, it expanded my perspective and connected me to what is going on around the world.
I'm going to start with the art work as an example. Guillermo Vargas Habacuc starved a dog to death and called it art. The dog was already sick, but that doesn't excuse the inhumane way of killing the animal. This doesn't necessarily follow the usually connotaion of vulgar and obscene, but to me this is one of the worst things you could ever do for "art". Which leads me to who defines obscene or vulgar. Obviously many people wouldn't consider that obscene or vulgar. The general connotation nowadays has to do with sex or gruesome violence. Currently I believe its the media who defines obscenity, but it previous generations I think it was probably more of a church thing or culture thing.
First off, I'd like to say how thrilled I was that we talked about Chuck Close in class yesterday. I remember studying him in high school, and he's one of my favorite artists. Did you know that giant self portait we looked at was painted with just 1 tablespoon of black paint?
About the discussion- I hate the idea of censorship, and I hate the idea that art should only be uplifting even more. Art is a way to express oneself- can't one feel sad, hurt, or angry? Of course- everybody does- so why couldn't those emotions be shown through artwork? It's ridiculous to me. Art doesn't have to be moral or joyous at all. It can be whatever the artist wants. I'd much rather see a deeply disturbing/immoral/offensive painting that has true emotion and meaning and reason behind it than a basic sunny landscape.
I think that people should choose for themselves what they read, look at, and listen to. So many people want censorship when they don't like something. Each person has the right to make their own decisions. The artist puts their idea out their, and whatever we make of it is up to us. I may not agree with "Piss Christ", I say it's offensive and degrading. Does this mean I think that it should go away? Not necessarily. If I claim to believe in something, how will I be able to show what I believe if there's nothing to disagree with? Why should we think lower of people and their ability to make their own decisions by taking away art just because it challenges them?
People who set standards in hope to define which arts are obscene or vulgar do vary. Depending on which country you live in, the standards would follow your type of society/the general public or so I would like to think. Considering that our country as a whole is much more uptight than say the recognizably more relaxed society of Europe, we probably should dedicate an island to all art that exists whether it be disturbing, sexual, joyous, or mildly offensive to all humanity or not to any. Essentially, you would have the Right to be offended or not. By others controlling what you are able to see in your daily life, your kept at a standard. yay
i think art is deemed obscene because the people who deem it obscene don't understand it. People are afraid of things they don't recognize. They are afraid of a person whose mind they can interpret. Some people find different things beautiful. Take murder for example, murders can take pride in their work, they find death and how it is carried out beautiful. Yes, it is wrong to murder and all that jazz but if we were all brought up to think that using paint in a piece of artwork was terrible, we wouldn't understand why people would do it either. Sorry if i sound like a freak, im just trying to explain myself... some people may think something is obscene and fucked up while others who understand where it is coming from think it is beautiful
Im going to start off saying how much i liked the artwork expresses in tuesdays class. I like many other people like graffiti painting. I do not do my own but i have seen some really great expressions shown through graffiti. I think that people should be allowed to express themselves with graffiti but keep it to places that it may be allowed. I can see why the law might me gettin tight on those who do it on the side of public biuldings, homes, etc. These places may not want stuff like that becuase of customer notification and so on.
Artist should have the right to explain their feelings and expressions through graffiti. I'm from an urban community and i always see graffiti in subway stations, on walls etc. Yes, graffiti is art work. We learned two weeks ago that art doesn't have a specific meaning so who's to say these artist aren't showing art. I love graffiti i thinks it gives underground artist a way to show what there capable of, there morals and opinions about a situation.
responding to the question..should art be strictly uplifting?
I do not think that in any way art always has to be uplifting. One of the greatest things about art that makes it so unique is its ablility to make us react in so many different ways. An artist should have the freedom to illustrate whatever emotions he or she wants to. For me, whether a piece of art makes me smile or makes me sad, it has still caught my attention, and that is all that matters.
Does art in public spaces have to meet certain moral criteria? Should it?
Well I know the overwhelming majority of my classmates feel that, no, art should be whatever the artist wants it to be. America is the land of the supposed free, right? Let's be honest, there is a high moral criteria for art in public spaces and it is well justified. In order to remain a free country we must let the people regulate what they want and more importantly what there children want to see. This means that as a nation we must regulate what we put into public spaces and in front of the uneducated or morally biased minds. I am not supporting that there is no place for censored work in this world, because even though this type of art is not for everyone being it is a little weird or risky causes it to be even more priceless and beautiful. So, in short, yes, we must regulate what is shown in public spaces. Not only to keep the more moral people of this country happy, but also to remain a unbiased county and keep the mystery and fan base that a censored work brings in intact.
In response to the question should art be strictly uplifting
I dont think art should be strictly uplifting. In my opinion art should express all types of emotions and different pieces of artwork should make you feel different emotions when viewing them. Emotion is a great thing to express in artwork.
i feel that graffiti is a cool way for people to express themselves. plus i think it gives the town or city a little more flavor and a unique personality. some cities are remembered for their graffiti art, like in punxsutawney where this art is displayed on the concrete wall of the riverbank. the art is mostly about the groundhog that the town is most known for. this adds to the pride in which these artists show for their town. when i go to a city and see graffiti im always interested in seeing what messages are conveyed by the artists.
In response to the last question...Does art in public spaces have to meet certain moral criteria? Should it?
Yes, I think art in a public place should meet certain moral criteria. Forms of art in certain places in public can be considered vandelism. I think it completely depends on the place because different places in public have higher levels of significance than some. For ex. A company that is a public place compared to a recreation center. They are both considered "open to the public" but art at a recreation centered would be tolerated because it is a setting where art is accepted. Art on the side of maybe a company where you pay bills, you wouldn't expect art on that kind of building. In response to Jdiegan I agree that America is the "land of the free" but thats in terms of the country being an independent country, rather than free to do whatever you like. In your terms if American was to be "the home of the free" than people would be able to do, Whatever, whenever.
As for the film, I do not think it's right for him to freely create his images anywhere he wants. I think there's a line of respect for who the property belongs to. The difference between the work created in the gallery and the work created on the trains is the art gallery is meant for art to be made. The trains are made to be means of transportation. Even though they are going to get painted over it's not right...I think of it like, suppose you see a train ride by and its freshly painted over, is it ok to create art on the train then?
I think that it is right for Barry Magee to create his images where ever he wants. Art work is not hurting anything therefore should not be considered a crime. I think that it is interesting to see artists art work on trains and walls. The differance between art work on walls and trains to art work in gallaries is the art work on walls is open to everyone. Art work in gallaries is closed too just those interested in going to see the art work. I have never been to an art gallary, but love seeing what artists create on walls and trains. Artists art work can be seen by so many more people by creating outside where it is open to anyone. Art work should not be censored because it is peoples emotions and creations. The art work would not be true if it had to be censored. I hate the idea that artists work done on trains and walls gets covered up. If people do not like the art work then they should just ignore it, they should not get the idea of censorship.
What is the difference between the work he creates in the gallery and the images on walls and trains that eventually get covered or painted over? Is that a form of censorship?
This is indeed censorship, and censorship that's needed. When people graffiti walls or trains it should be looked at as vandalism. Without censorship there would be graffiti and markings all over cities, towns, and public facilities. The reason the trains and walls get repainted is because of the markings, not because of ware and tear. Im not saying graffiti isn't art, but i think if you want to express yourself you can do it in the confines of your home, or on your property not on public grounds.
I think that individual people should be able to choose what they see, read, and listen to. I don't agree with the 'Piss Christ' because I have strong religious views, but I think if we censor it how long would it be before religious artwork is censored? With that said I still believe that there should be a small bit of censorship in public place where children might be.
I feel as though that art is an expression of someone and how they feel about a certain topic, so what seems moral to them can be totally different to another artist. Since there is no real definition of art anything can be considered art. So if to and artist their piece of work is what they feel is good then they should not have to change what they have created for the viewer and themselves. The artist should define what is vulgar and obscene for them self because everyone has a different view of things and the world and their art should not have to be altered to what others believe is moral or not.
For Example, people at the time thought that Monet and Van Gough were vulgar and they tried to censor them but now they are looked at as geniuses.
In response to the question,
Should art be moral or concerned with morality?
I agree with mmiller012 that art shouldnt be modified to meet these standards because everyone has different morals. An artist expresses their own thoughts and ideas..thats just part of art. Even though everyone doesnt believe the same things, its an opportunity for artists to show their thoughts and beleifs.
I also have a response to the last question
Art in public areas should not be modified to meet criteria of those who will see it. Art is an expression or a feeling from the artist if they in turn have to change their idea to satisfy everyone else they would no longer be representing themselves they would be representing what the people around them believe is right. Everyone sees everything differently, just because one person sees something as immoral does not mean that the rest of the population will, we are given the choice to like and express what we want that is what makes everyone unique.
Finally people that see art as obscene may simply not understand what the artist is trying to portray. This could leave the onlooker confused and uncomfortable. Often times the more clearly art is defined the more comfortable people are around it.
In response to the question, "Should art be moral, or concerned with morality?"
I am wondering who is the judge of what is moral and what is not. Different countries all over the world judge what is moral differently.
In response the the question, "should are be uplifting?" I believe that there doesn't have to be strictly uplifting art. If art is way to examine a country's history, or story shouldn't the story but uncensored? I believe that everyone or rather every country has it's ups and downs and if we are going to continue to use art as a way of looking into the history of a country there should be a wide varitey of art. That shows the ups and the downs of that particular place.
i do not think that anyone can say what is moral and what is not moral. Different peole have different beliefs and thoughts. Morality shouldn't be defined at all because not everyone has the same opinion.
In response to the question, should art be moral, or be concerned with morality?....
Art is what the artist chooses it to be. If an artists wants all their work to be strictly moral, that is up to them to decide. It is also up to the viewer of the art, to decide if they wish to view it. A person can only view moral art if they wish, that is perfectly okay, however, on the flip side, it should also be okay if someone wants to view art that is not necessarily dealing with moral art. The artist decided their work was not going to be moral, and those who chose to see it should also know. Those who complain about seeing vulgar or "immoral art", most likely have never seen it in reality, they are just aware that it exists, and the idea of its existence bothers them. However, those viewing the immoral art do not prosecute those who wish to see the lighter side of art, so where is the fairness?
in my opinion i think that art is a way to express someones feelings and thoughts on a subject. people should not chandt others creations in order to make morally correct. in reality what is correct? different people believe in defferent things and look at different pieces and take different intakes on them. in a nation that is suppose to be "free" we are allowed to express our own opinions on subjects. one way ppl express their feelings is through artwork, novels, and so on. a type of artwork is graffitti. some ppl think its vadalism and others think of it as a way to express their feelings to society.
I feel that it is everyones personal choice when they decide what the listen to, read and look at. NO one has the right to tell someone els what the have to listen to, read or look at. Everyone has different likes and dislikes and everyone doesnt agree on the same things. Therefor everyone should enjoy reading, listening to, and looking at things they choose and like.
I believe controversial art is what makes art interesting. A person does not have to agree with the artists perspective for a person to learn from the art. Art is someones perspective and it expresses themselves so if it is offensive to someone else it should not matter. If someone is offended it is okay because not everyone has to like art for it to be art. Art is supposed to show perspective and it is supposed to be controversial.
I feel that as long as art is not destroying public proberty or too obscene in public places then it should be allowed. I mean you can't have nudity around elementary school or drawing stuff on a public billboard, thats destruction, not art. Other than that I don't feel we need much censorship in art.
I feel that as long as art is not destroying public proberty or too obscene in public places then it should be allowed. I mean you can't have nudity around elementary school or drawing stuff on a public billboard, thats destruction, not art. Other than that I don't feel we need much censorship in art.
i think that placing moral limitations on artwork prevents the piece from living up to the artist's full creative potential. Any modifications cause the artwork to be something different than was intended.
i think it's irrelevant whether a piece is uplifting or not. art should not be about what viewers WANT to see but about what the artist wants to CONVEY.
i am commenting on the question of should all artwork be uplifting...
No i dont think that all artwork should be uplifting because the work of art is being created by the artist. He or she has a right to create whatever kind of mood they want. Maybe the piece of art is uplifting maybe its a bad piece. I believe the mood of the art work is and should be left up to the artist.
should art be strictly uplifting?
No. art does not have to be uplifting whatsoever. I believe that art is an expression of ones feelings through their creativity. This being said, art is obviously not always going to trigger happiness but could do just the opposite. Art that causes people to feel depressed can also have good factors. For example, Kathe Kollwitz's work is clearly not uplifting but very dreary. However her work informed people of the brutality of war, death, and poverty.
Art does not have to be uplifting but I do believe that art always will trigger some type of emotion whether it be good or bad.
for some odd reason I just cant get over the guy who paints with elephant poo..Im not treying to sound rude in any way. I think that all artists share a great pasion and desire for there work, and I do respect that. Maybe its just very new to me. Dont get me wrong some of his work is very fascinating to look at. I was just pondering as to where I could go to veiw some of his works for myself.Another question that has been floating on my mind is to who actually bought any of his works, I mean Dont they reak of poop?? I couldnt even imagine what elephant poop smells like. If you know of any art galleries or museums please let me know.
In response to the question of whether or not Barry MaGee should be able to spray or paint where ever he wants (i.e., graffiti), or whether its right - its not; simply put.
From experience, I know that its not right to tag, spray, or paint wherever you wish. And, in most cases, its illegal.
I used to stencil a few years ago - always huge, life-sized, 3-layered images of wild animals in urban areas -, and though every time I put a new one up, someone always painted over it. Why isn't it right, though? Its not right because its not your property. If you want to spray all over the side of your house, thats fine. But no one has the right to spray all over the side of a building or a train, like MaGee was doing.
Once I had the consideration for other people's property under my belt, I started asking establishments whether or not I could do stencil work for them (for free). The reaction was less than what I expected, most people just said "what? why?" No one was happy about it, or liked the idea of free advertisement, or at least attention grabbers associated with their store or building. I took this as evidence that not only is it illegal, but its socially unacceptable.
Which is sad.. because theres a lot of nice work out there in the world of stenciling (www.stencilrevolution.com, for those who are interested in seeing some), and if it were more socially acceptable, I'd probably still be doing it.
So, in conclusion, its not right... but I wish it was.
In today's society it is the community it self that usually defines what is vulgar or imoral. However, usually only officials or people of power in society will have a say in today's world. I think that artwork outside such as on certain walls like on bridges and stuff is not too bad in fact sometimes better because would you rather drive by art or a cracked and broken down wall, as long as it is in good taste that is. Now if it is on someone's own property i can understand that they don't want their own property vandelized.
America is suppose to be the land of the free, where people can make decisions for themselves. Do what they want to do, read what they want to read, and listen to what the want to. That's how it should be; anything else would be dictatorship.
On the idea of the man who paints and uses elephant poop in his art, theres only one way to look at it..."hillarious". As we can all see the painting at the top of this blog, look at what he painted. In a way it seems as though its himself in a way. He's in a super man outfit with stars everywhere. Does anybody think he could be calling himself a superstar in which in our day and age can be thought of as also being called "THE SHIT". I mean he can literally be thought of as calling himself the shit. Personally I think its funny.
Post a Comment