![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
blah OK, so, the essay. I feel like I'm missing a section.
Is there a case for censorship of art?
This is largely coming from Plato's notion in The Republic that mimetic art should be banished. Is about art and truth, and art to improve. Does (and should) art have a moral dimension?
sections:
-what I am classing as "art" (basically everything that might be counted - film, photography, theatre, sculpture, painting, advertising, poetry, literature...). focus mainly on photography, because I just like it. I can justify my choice, but that's not really important at the mo.
-what I mean by censorship - outright banning, but also considering restrictions.
-what the purpose of art is (if its only purpose is beauty then ugly should be suppressed, if education is a goal then should lies be censored?)
-morality and art. Can good art be morally bad? need art be morally good?
-is it fair to only censor unaesthetic moral corruption? Surely not, but that's how UK law works, essentially.
case for censorship based on these ideas.
Remember that I am aiming for a "no, not really" answer. I am prepared to make exceptions though.
Can anyone see a glaring gap in thought there. Remember these are the very barest of bones for the essay. I have a fair bit more than this, but it mainly falls under these headings.
It's damn hard to concentrate with the beautiful book I bought today sitting here.
I promise to be less boring come Friday.
April 14 2004, 11:25:26 UTC 8 years ago
Is it a proper function of the state to regulate morality?
Can art morally corrupt (whatever that means)?
Who has the right to decide that a particular work is immoral and/or corrupting? (The tough question, usually answered by 'the community' but then who or what is 'the community'?)
April 14 2004, 13:35:24 UTC 8 years ago
This is a political question, though. Important, but one I intend to avoid. I am coming at the subject from the angle of the purpose of art, not the duties of the state, and I simply don't have the scope in a 6000 word essay to do the political debate.
Can art morally corrupt (whatever that means)?
That is basically the question I intend to answer. If art can corrupt, then there is a case for censorship (note: I am still not prepared to say that it should be censored, merely that there is a case for it). If the purpose of art is to emotionally move, or pass on ideas, then it probably can corrupt. If art has a moral dimension, it has the capacity to corrupt. If art is about representation, and aesthetics, then it really isn't capable of corrupting, as it has no moral dimension.
Ish. These are still working thoughts.
April 14 2004, 11:58:58 UTC 8 years ago
I'm not sure the purpose of art is either beauty or education. I think it's to somehow produce an emotional reaction in the audience, to cause a state of mind that wasn't there before.
April 14 2004, 13:27:58 UTC 8 years ago
Easy - the courts. It's not right, but that is how it is, in the case of obscenity charges, at any rate. Did you know that here a jury can be asked to rule on a piece of art's obscenity. If they allow its publication they don't have to state whether they found it not offensive, or valuable (beautiful) enough for its aesthetic worth to out-weigh its obscenity, but that is how rulings are made.
But is art moral? Can art be immoral? Or is that merely "challenging" or "emotive" or whatever? Can the states of mind it causes be dangerous? Is Marilyn Manson really at fault for the Columbine shootings? ;)
April 14 2004, 13:55:41 UTC 8 years ago
Perhaps Marilyn Manson is merely another expression of the undercurrent that caused Columbine -- it's hard to pin down cause and effect.
I'm having a hard time with the 'moral / immoral' question.
April 14 2004, 14:40:38 UTC 8 years ago
I think that Marilyn Manson (ha! almost called him "mm", but that's you, and could be confusing) is not at fault for Columbine, but hey, maybe his music did give the shooters ideas. As I don't think art should be censored I think that even if his music could be a root, a cause, it is not the fault of the artist. Individual responsibility and all that. Anyway, immoral art. yeah.
OK, here's a controversial piece.
Now, I happen to think it is incredibly beautiful. BUT that is a crucifix in urine. Hence the title "Piss Christ". This caused outrage. It was labelled immoral and blasphemous. Is it? Is that a problem? Does that have any power, even if it is?
April 15 2004, 02:04:50 UTC 8 years ago
The outrage is the responsibility of the audience, I think. So-called blasphemy is shaky ground: why should one group of people claim their (irrational) beliefs need protection from offense? If it were a hedgehog in urine, I'm sure some hedgehog enthusiast would be horribly offended, but they wouldn't get to cry blasphemy.
April 15 2004, 11:05:39 UTC 8 years ago
On this comment...
Isn't art partly/mostly the interpretation made by others of the work presented? The name 'Piss Christ' is offensive yet the work is not.Perhaps a majority of art should not be labeled and be based on interpretation only by 'the community.'
April 14 2004, 12:37:48 UTC 8 years ago
You'd first need to establish those circumstances under which the government may legitimately intervene. While I like to think it should be only to prevent or punish harm, history is littered with those who thought otherwise. Once those circumstances are defined, you'd need to identify situations in which an artist's creation could cause harm to a recipient (a metaphysical issue, that).
You can probably see why I don't see any case for the censorship of art. :-)
April 14 2004, 13:20:38 UTC 8 years ago
Yes, by censorship I mean primarily the banning of publication or performance of a work; but I may stretch the point to restrictions by age, or to editing, and to the partial truths/expressions of propaganda.
I'm focusing on photography because I can reference exploitative porn, and question cut-off point for "art", I can reference photojournalism, and some of the incredibly distressing images we see because of it, but also because photographs are easy to alter. They look like truth, but may be far from it. It is easier to mislead with a photograph than a painting, because photographs are so 'real'.
And I knew you'd be absolutely against censorship. :)
April 14 2004, 14:10:52 UTC 8 years ago
Hmmm
Should you, as a preliminary, define what art is? I mean, not just name the types of art, but explain what a thing has to be, in your opinion(?) to be considered as art.I.e., art is an act or thing, "creatively expressing" the inner vision of the artist, manifested in a photograph, painting, play, sculpture etc.
Is "intent" of the artist a determining factor in whether the product is art? Are "sanity" or "criminality" factors?
There was a man who lived in Chicago, more or less as a hermit, alleged to have been schizophrenic, who wrote a "novel" that was something like 500,000 pages long and drew literally thousands of linear feet of illustrations to depict the story. He never intended for anyone to see it, but it was disclosed after his death and is now being studied as "outsider art". The problem is, the stuff is considered by many to be child pornography. Can something like that qualify as "art"?
Argh, I don't say stuff too often but when I do I sure say too much. Sorry. :-)
April 14 2004, 14:27:51 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Hmmm
Hey, I happen to like comments of all types, especially well thought through, interesting ones. :)I would talk more about what art is, and its definition, and what it means to me to "be art", but that is a HUGE subject. I only have 6000 words to work with (which is a lot for me on one thing, but it's still not terribly many). To properly define "art" and discuss what it is, with reference to intent, and audience and all those other interesting questions I'd have to use at least 2000 words. I can't spare them.
I've already got my little "I'm using 'art' in a very broad sense" paragraph done, in which I do state that it's not an easily defined word, and that I simply cannot look into that in this essay. I've said I am treating the word as a well understood word, which I cannot simply define without a circle ("art is that which is presented as art").
Having skipped over the intent of ar, and the audience, I am left to consider its purpose. And that's not a terribly easy thing to answer, but at least it is interesting.
April 14 2004, 14:31:41 UTC 8 years ago
Hmmm
Well, you've chosen an excellent subject. And, I think you are right about what you said above.When I was in graduate school in philosophy, I took a couple of courses in philosophy of art and LOVED it. I actually thought of changing my field to art history, but didn't, luckily for the world of art history. :-)
PS I never think you're boring. Well, almost never...Uh, I'll leave it alone. :-)
April 14 2004, 14:36:26 UTC 8 years ago
Hmmm
P.P.S.The artist to whom I referred was Henry Darger and he wrote 15,000 pages, not 500,000 or whatever I put. I was hallucinating. :-)
And, luckily for the world of philosophy, I didn't finish my Ph.D. :-)
April 15 2004, 14:48:03 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Hmmm
What is the distinction you are making between 'intent' and 'purpose'?And surely, insofar as we consider the question of whether art should be censored, it is largely effect rather than purpose, that is important.
April 15 2004, 15:27:12 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Hmmm
Actually, I'm using shorthand because I know what I mean, as doesAnd yes, the effect should possibly be what is considered, but as everyone is different "what effect with this piece have?" is an impossible question to answer. If art has no moral purpose, then all reactions are entirely in the audience, and censorship of the work is unfair.
April 15 2004, 16:07:07 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Hmmm
You talk about 'purpose' in normative terms - 'art should be' - but are you only considering purpose in this sense? Surely you can then have art without any moral purpose, but which still has a moral effect, and hence invites censorship?April 15 2004, 16:22:15 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Hmmm
I'm just writing about the effect of art, intended or otherwise. Got to mention Elvis! :)*lip curl*
April 15 2004, 16:29:19 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Hmmm
Well, if it's any help - if your new profile pic counts as art, then it is definitely having an effect, intended or otherwise.April 15 2004, 16:36:54 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Hmmm
But you just said that the question of effect was impossible to answer!You should just accept that it's actually all about politics (or at least, social psychology).
Anyway, I'm sure whatever you will write will be excellent. Wrong possibly, but excellent nevertheless.
My gawd. That picture. I need to lie down.
April 15 2004, 16:41:35 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Hmmm
Yes, I did. And it is. The effect of 'Suspicious Minds' is utterly variable. But it would be wrong not to mention that art does HAVE effects on people.Actually, I've found a chapter of a book that basically answers the same question as I am trying to answer. The book is called "An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art" and the chapter is "Art and Morality". The problem with Philosophy is that it applies to so many things that it's hard not to touch on other areas. The focus is what's important.
What is it about this picture? I was thinking about mentioning it, actually. I just took a picture of me at arm's length, then cropped out a square I liked, but it's getting all sorts of comment.
April 15 2004, 16:52:02 UTC 8 years ago
Re: Hmmm
Not sure exactly what it is about the picture. I am nowhere near understanding even my own artistic or erotic impulses. Something about the sinuous silky hair, caressing smooth skin. And that there is so little adds to the effect - it tantalises, taunts even. I have more to say, but I need to stop typing now to wipe my keyboard clean of drool.G'night and g'luck.
April 14 2004, 16:20:42 UTC 8 years ago
I'm not sure that you can discuss censorship without becoming political. Censorship is a debate that only occurs in a democracy. For the most part, it is a battle of those who wish to exercise a right to free speech versus those who feel they have a right not to be offended. As far as I know, there is no political system that grants freedom from offense. On that philosophy, I would further say that censorship should not occur unless it specifically violates the rights (granted under that political system) of others.
April 15 2004, 11:10:59 UTC 8 years ago
Love the Republic. You are definitely into challenges m'dear. :)