Tasteless Art vs. The First Ammendment

[Isabelle]

We have a guy in our town who is in serious trouble. Last year, he was arrested after he created the sculpture of a bare torso and placed it in the front yard of his home (he already had a life size sculpture of his buttocks). A neighbor called 911 to complain that the statue was obscene, and he was charged. Despite being charged with more than $300,000 in fines, he had refused to remove the statues because he says he is covered by the First Ammendment and the freedom of speech. He is now in jail awaiting sentence in November.(felony charge)

Since reading this story I started hunting for other "artists" that may have caused conflict and I came across the following. (This is more of a serious nature).

I would like to draw your attention to a controversial artist in NY named Clinton Boisvert.

Boisvert placed a bunch of Fed Express boxes in the Union Square subway station. The boxes were spray-painted black; each bore the single word "Fear."

The police and bomb squad arrived; and the subway trains were stopped, leaving commuters worried, inconvenienced, and annoyed.

Apparently, the police feared that the boxes were part of an act of terrorism, and might contain weapons.

Boisvert was criminally charged for putting the boxes in the station. Should he have been? Can art that mimics, or comments on terrorism be a kind of criminal conduct?

Should the First Amendment have provided a defense for Boisvert's actions? After all, his art event took place in a public place, and it involved both actual speech (the word "Fear") and symbolic speech, in the form of the black boxes.

IMO this type of "art" is no different from someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is meant to cause fear and confusion, and give jollies to the perpetrator.

From a Christian perspective if you look up some of the writings of the Apostle Paul... We are to seek after things which are praise worthy and of good report... By what Paul talks about, classical paintings, books, etc...are indeed art... (IMO) The work of Boisvert is not nor the guy in my town for that matter.

Once he got out of that jam he decided on another piece of art which is more a commentary on terrorism, than a facsimile of it. Boisvert's second work included a metal male figure with a penis covered with photos of 9/11 victims. He placed it in Union Square http://www.nypress.net/print.cfm?content_id=8385 Although he wasn’t charged for this piece of artwork he could have been.

I realize that not all statements can be made in a feel good eye pleasing way, and just because something doesn't have pleasant eye appeal doesn't mean that it isn't without merit. But please this artwork stinks to high heaven!

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Isabelle
But please this artwork stinks to high heaven!

So?

Good, uncontroversial art doesn't NEED protection.

The bare torso/buttocks art also seems fine to me.

I'm a little more waffly on the FedEx boxes: those are far too close to communicating a threat, which isn't legal. He apparently knew how people would interpret them, and he apparently considered that interpretation to be art. I disagree: it sounds to me like he intentionally caused people to feel threatened, which is not protected speech, I believe.

Daniel

[vanilla]

If its tasteless, it isn't art.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by vanilla
If its tasteless, it isn't art.

Tasteless according to whom?

And where is "art" mentioned in the first amendment, anyway? It's about freedom of expression, not about artistic worthiness.

Red herring.

Daniel

[rjung]

Unpopular speech is that which needs protection the most.

[SUPERKARLENE]

Originally posted by Isabelle

From a Christian perspective if you look up some of the writings of the Apostle Paul... We are to seek after things which are praise worthy and of good report... By what Paul talks about, classical paintings, books, etc...are indeed art...

So far as I know, this is utterly false.

What classical paintings? What classical books? Paul spent most of his ministry outside Jerusalem. He was a circuit rider, visiting persecuted communities established long before he converted. What Christian art would there be when he visited Ephesus? Corinth? If these people made any public renderings of Jesus, they'd die! It would be destroyed! Besides, Christianity in it's beginnings was overwhelmingly a religion of the working poor, when would they have the time to create a fresco?

As for the books: scrolls. They used scrolls. And at that time, poor probably also translated to illiterate, so what use would a scroll be?

By and large, Christian art at that time didn't exist. The earliest image that we have of Jesus is a small bit of Roman grafitti. It's on a wall in Rome, and crudely depicts Jesus, with the head of an ass, on a cross. In Vulgar Latin below, it says"This is your God!" (http://www.jesus-messias.org/del7/)

Now, all of this is stuff I learned in a class, Images of Jesus. But I'm supposing Christian art. Let's say that Paul got a glimpse of Roman and Greek art on his travels. What would he have seen? Is this what you were
thinking? (http://karweanie.diaryland.com) (In case you're wondering, I found those pictures on Google, and then posted them to my site, for ease of reference. Any Google Image search with the words "Roman statue" would yield the same results.) Isabelle, this was exactly the kind of art that Paul disliked!

I'm a Christian as well, and I must admit I find your zeal refreshing. It's rare nowadays. But please, please, be sure that your claims are correct.

[Isabelle]

I would like to take a moment and regroup. That was some great information you relayed SUPERKARLENE Thank you for the cites and comments.

What I was trying to express was Paul meant seek after things that are good and up lifting…that inspire, enlighten etc…When the concept is applied to the question then, we get that we should seek after good things…literature and art that enlighten and inspire are such things…read Les Miserable by Victor Hugo…compare it to the scriptures…you will find that the wrting has noble purpose...

Does that sound better?

[SUPERKARLENE]

Alright, now some of that I can agree with. FTR, I actually HAVE read Les Miserables, and I loved it. And yes, I agree with you on Paul's message.

However.

Definitions of "uplifting" and "enlightening" will vary greatly from one person to another. My brother adores Nirvana, and when asked why, he'll tell you that he finds their candor "liberating and uplifting, because someone else in the world feels as I do." I like Nirvana too, but I really wouldn't characterize it as uplifting.

But something else to chew on - not all people are Christians, so mandating that their work be "enlightening" or "uplifting" is a bit much, don't you think? ;)

[John Mace]

You don't have a right to put the Mona Lisa in a subway station (public property), nor do you have to the right to put boxes there. This seems pretty cut and dry. At a minimum, the guy is guilty of littering.

The lawn torso is more along the lines of free speech. But there clearly are laws against public display of pornography, so I'll leave it up to the courts to decide where the torso lies on the art/porongraphy scale. "I knoiw it when I see it" and all that...

[Guinastasia]

Oh for crying out LOUD, Isabelle!

I will agree that the second guy in the article was a dumbass-technically, he was littering, not creating art.

But where the hell does it say in the First Amendment about an exemption for "tasteless" things?

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by rjung
Unpopular speech is that which needs protection the most. What he said. If all you're defending is the easy stuff, then you aren't defending anything at all.

And the whole "uplifting and beautiful" criterion strikes me as being dangerously meaningless, because what makes us feel good tends to pander to our unexamined assumptions, from which we don't learn anything. Or to frame it in the terms of a modern art form with which we're all familiar: A good movie is one that asks interesting and even difficult questions. A popular movie is one that pretends our collectively agreed-upon answers to those questions are right.

It seems to me that annoying or infuriating art is some of the most interesting, because that response illuminates important aspects of human existence. That doesn't mean it's always good art, but at least it's interesting, whereas a Kinkade canvas, for a contrasting example, contains (IMO) zero interest and zero artistic value.

The thing about the frightening boxes in the subway station, I will admit, is extremely problematic. I would say that if the artist is satisfied with the reaction he evinced, then he made bad art. Indeed, he may as well have simply pulled the fire alarm. Conceptually, it's interesting, and may have had merit with better execution; he might have stylized the boxes more, to make it somewhat clearer they were intended as an installation, while keeping enough of the iconography to bring out the disquiet that was ultimately intended. He might also have worked with the authorities to place the work in a more formal fashion, so as to avoid the overreaction that took place. He would thus have been able to make his statement in a valid and artistic manner, and avoid the repercussions that his clumsy attempt actually provoked.

If the sole criterion for judging the value of an artwork is that it be "beautiful and uplifting," then we might as well toss out the majority of the 20th century's masterworks and fill our museums with ceramic kittens whose pedestals are embossed "#1 Grandma."

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I guess I look on the subway art like this: art is legal, as long as you're not breaking some unrelated law.

I can't throw a baseball at your head, giving you a concussion, and defend myself by saying that the bruise on your forehead is art. Art or no, I'll still get arrested for aggravated assault, and rightly so.

Similarly, I can't plant something that looks like a terrorist threat in the subways, intending for people to think it's a terrorist threat, and defend myself by claiming that your reaction constitutes art. Art or no, I'll still get arrested for making a threat of terrorism, and rightly so.

However, having a nude in my yard does nothing BEYOND express myself. Art or no, I shouldn't get arrested. The question isn't whether it's good art or bad art; the question is whether it has an effect that falls outside of protected free speech.

Daniel

[Guinastasia]

If we go by the "uplifting" criteria, well, that lets out Schindler's List.



:rolleyes:

[theR]

Originally posted by Isabelle
IMO this type of "art" is no different from someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is meant to cause fear and confusion, and give jollies to the perpetrator.

I'm not going to comment on whether or not he should have been charged because I don't know enough about the case, but I think you're wrong about what the art was meant to do. Judging by your description, it was meant to highlight irrational fear and confusion, which is not quite the same as meaning to cause fear and confusion just for the sake of causing them. Yelling "fire" usually would have no other reasons behind it, while this display clearly did even if we don't approve or don't agree.

[El_Kabong]

I realize that not all statements can be made in a feel good eye pleasing way, and just because something doesn't have pleasant eye appeal doesn't mean that it isn't without merit. But please this artwork stinks to high heaven!

In your opinion. I submit that your opinion is not to be trusted. The entire point of the first amendment is to protect speech that may be unpopular at a certain time and place. And rightly so, IMO.


In reference to this:

IMO this type of "art" is no different from someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is meant to cause fear and confusion, and give jollies to the perpetrator.

Seeing the Word "fear" written in a puiblic place is adequate reason to panic? What sort of trembling wrecks have we become? What rational person would think that a collection of cardboard boxes, with the word "Fear" spray-painted on them, is some sort of terrorist weapon?

OK, so Boisvert was arrested. From the limited description by the OP, it appears that charges were reduced or dropped ("he got out of the jam he was in") and again rightly so, IMO.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by El_Kabong

Seeing the Word "fear" written in a puiblic place is adequate reason to panic? What sort of trembling wrecks have we become? What rational person would think that a collection of cardboard boxes, with the word "Fear" spray-painted on them, is some sort of terrorist weapon?

Terrorists generally try to make their bombs as inconspicuous as possible. Those boxes screamed for attention.

[El_Kabong]

Uh, BTW, I should qualify my earleir statement. I realize that no one should be expected to automatically 'get' conceptual art pieces; I was responding to the suggestion that the artist was somehow trying to 'get his jollies' from frightening people, which I cannot believe was the artist's intention, at least from the description provided here.

If anything, he's guilty of littering, which has a penalty, and perhaps of making bad art, which, thankfully has none (otherwise the jails would be overflowing even worse than they are now).

[Tigers2B1]

Originally posted by Cervaise
And the whole "uplifting and beautiful" criterion strikes me as being dangerously meaningless, because what makes us feel good tends to pander to our unexamined assumptions, from which we don't learn anything...

It seems to me that annoying or infuriating art is some of the most interesting, because that response illuminates important aspects of human existence. That doesn't mean it's always good art, but at least it's interesting, whereas a Kinkade canvas, for a contrasting example, contains (IMO) zero interest and zero artistic value.

The thing about the frightening boxes in the subway station, I will admit, is extremely problematic. I would say that if the artist is satisfied with the reaction he evinced, then he made bad art. Indeed, he may as well have simply pulled the fire alarm. Conceptually, it's interesting, and may have had merit with better execution; he might have stylized the boxes more, to make it somewhat clearer they were intended as an installation, while keeping enough of the iconography to bring out the disquiet that was ultimately intended. He might also have worked with the authorities to place the work in a more formal fashion, so as to avoid the overreaction that took place. He would thus have been able to make his statement in a valid and artistic manner, and avoid the repercussions that his clumsy attempt actually provoked.

So if I pull my penis out in front of my grandma in a 'stylized fashion' --- a fashion that shows the exposure is intended as "art" - and if I choose to do that at the next gramdma inspired family reunion ---- it’s “art," because I framed it that way --- “bad art” I admit, but it creates a response we all need to consider. No? The point is this ----- I have to wonder if the word “art” hasn’t become so inclusive as to become meaningless -- I also have to wonder if some "artists" aren't merely in a race to become the most uncivil in the rush to make their artistic statement. The "civility" that may in fact genetically bond us as social animals -- The civility that really keeps us from eating each others souls - I mean, shouldn't "art" be doing that instead?

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally posted by Isabelle
I would like to draw your attention to a controversial artist in NY named Clinton Boisvert.

Boisvert placed a bunch of Fed Express boxes in the Union Square subway station. The boxes were spray-painted black; each bore the single word "Fear."

The police and bomb squad arrived; and the subway trains were stopped, leaving commuters worried, inconvenienced, and annoyed.

Apparently, the police feared that the boxes were part of an act of terrorism, and might contain weapons.

Boisvert was criminally charged for putting the boxes in the station. Should he have been? Can art that mimics, or comments on terrorism be a kind of criminal conduct?

Should the First Amendment have provided a defense for Boisvert's actions? After all, his art event took place in a public place, and it involved both actual speech (the word "Fear") and symbolic speech, in the form of the black boxes.

IMO this type of "art" is no different from someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is meant to cause fear and confusion, and give jollies to the perpetrator.


And his reason for not applying for a city permit (and thereby informing police to the artist's TRUE intentions) to display his "art" on public property is?

I'll answer that question......because he feels that his "artistic rights to free speech" should encompass playing on the fears of a jittery public and the fear/shock value he creates in public is his art. I agree with the OP, this virtually yelling "Fire" in a public forum, a far cry from art. He is not an artist in this regard, merely a pandering prankster. He should foot the bill for the police and bomb squad call.

[Cervaise]

Originally posted by Tigers2B1
I have to wonder if the word “art” hasn’t become so inclusive as to become meaninglessIt always has been. It's only recently that we've figured this out.

[Siege]

You know, normally I'm not big on "conceptual art" simply because the longer it takes to explain the concept behind it, the more I wonder if it's missing the point. In the infamous elephant dung Madonna case in New York a few years ago, I did come across the artist's explanation for the elephant dung, and it made sense and, once the context was explained, it did not strike me as disrespectful, but I dislike having to reading and research to appreciate a piece of art. That said, the FedEx boxes around the subway are one piece of art I go get right off the bat.

Who defines tasteful and uplifting? Michaelangelo's David shows a fully naked human male. Rodin's The Kiss is a sculpture of a naked man and woman embracing and kissing. It's sensual enough that a direct link would violate SDMB policy. A picture of either sculpture would be right at home in Playgirl. I find adultery wrong and strongly morally objectionable. Should Frasier be taken off the air? How about horror movies? Detective novels feature violence and murder galore. Should they be pulled, or should only ones where the good guys don't catch the bad guys? Do we keep rap and ban opera? If your answer's "Yes", have you looked at the plot of most operas? Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet features teenagers defying their parents and murders by dozen. Most of his plays contain foul language, double entendres, and, in the case of all but some of the comedies, violence. Do we ban him? By the way, in his day, Shakespeare wasn't "art". Art was morally uplifting plays depicting Biblical themes. Theater was rude, crude, and immoral to the point where the religious authorities of the day got it banned from the city of London. Shakespeare did not rise above the "rude and crude"; he played to it, and successfully so.

Who's going to define uplifting, and who's going to define art? Quite frankly, Isabelle, from what I've seen of you and your life here, I don't want it to be you. The movie Dogma to me is very uplifting and faith affirming (not to mention funny!), yet there are people out there who protested it because they saw it as damaging to faith. Also, I've noticed that when people are trying to be "morally uplifting" while creating art, they all too often wind up creating something that's boring and narrow.

The art world is also rather harsh, at least in the long run. There were other playwrights active in Shakespeare's day. Anyone care to name two? How many novelists have most people heard of from the turn of the last century? They weren't the only ones in town. Which of today's artists will be remembered in 100 years?

One last point. People have been railing about how that which is popular is degrading morality for centuries. I don't buy that. In fact, as I think about that, I'm starting to realize that a case good be made that as public religious influence has increased in American society, morality has declined, but it relies on just that argument.

If I don't like art, I'll ignore it.
CJ

[E-Sabbath]

Christopher Marlowe. Ben Jonson.

Do I get a prize? :)

[Cervaise]

That's what I was going to say, E-Sabbath. Two is easy; can anybody name four? ;)Who's going to define uplifting, and who's going to define art? ... from what I've seen of you and your life here, I don't want it to be you.That's the thing. I don't want it to be anybody. I think I have a pretty balanced, informed, and inclusive perspective on what art can be, and I don't want the job. While I have a fairly extensive background in the arts, and I think I know what I'm talking about, at the same time I recognize I have my own perspective and my own biases, and my own cognitive and perceptual filters that will make my definitions inappropriate for other people. So if I don't think I can do it, why would I want to nominate anybody else?

That's why First Amendment protections are so important; they're effectively content-neutral. If somebody wants to paint pictures of baby penguins impaled on spikes, more power to 'em. The likelihood of my going to such an exhibition, or buying one of those paintings, is almost nil (I leave myself an out in case they're the most groundbreaking images of baby penguins on spikes ever created ;)), but just because they're disturbing and tasteless and probably stupidly awful doesn't mean they aren't "art" and shouldn't be made.

[E-Sabbath]

Sir Thomas Mo(o)re. That's three... Four... not off the _top_ of my head. As far as turn of the last century... 1990 or 1890? I certainly can go for a while in 1890, starting with Arthur Conan Doyle and ending with H. G. Wells... 1990 presents even more options!

[Interrobang!?]

A neighbor called 911 to complain that the statue was obscene, and he was charged. Well, that neighbor should be charged -- why on earth would you call an emergency line to file an art review, no matter how negative?

Seriously, what kind of nitwit dials 911 to complain about a statue?

[Isabelle]

Seriously, what kind of nitwit dials 911 to complain about a statue? I agree. And in our area when you call the police they generally send an ambulance too.

Personally I would not have called the police to handle the situation anyways. Isn't that what Code Enforcement is for?

[lissener]

I was walking to the place I do volunteer work a few months ago. As I got nearer my destination, I could see there was a ruckus up ahead: police cars, caution tape, huddled crowds, etc. I continued on my way and eventually came upon the periphery of the disturbance, and was stopped by the tape and a cop. I told him I needed to cross the tape line to get where I was going. He said that I would have to wait a while; there was a problem ahead. By now there was a helicoper and a black van that suggested a SWAT team. Turns out it's a bomb squad; turns out there's a bomb scare. The crowd hubbub finally coalesces to a degree of intellibility, and I glean that somebody had spotted a child's backpack on a bus bench and had called the police, fearing that it might be a bomb. Turns out it was a child's backpack, but I didn't find that out for almost an hour, when the police finally took down the barriers and allowed me on my way.

Now, in the context of this thread, please discuss amongst yourselves.

[Tigers2B1]

Originally posted by lissener
Now, in the context of this thread, please discuss amongst yourselves.

Well if it was forgotten by a child without artistic intent - it's a child's backpack. If it was left by an "artist" for the purpose of scaring the poo poo out of folks - it's bad "art." If it was left by anyone else with the intent of scaring the poo poo out of folks it isn't "art" -

[lissener]

Not what I meant, Tigers; meant to suggest that the situation Boisvert was commenting on is a very real situation and worthy of comment.

[lissener]

sorry: "meant to suggest that perhaps the situation . . .

[Conflict of Interest]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
I guess I look on the subway art like this: art is legal, as long as you're not breaking some unrelated law.

I can't throw a baseball at your head, giving you a concussion, and defend myself by saying that the bruise on your forehead is art. Art or no, I'll still get arrested for aggravated assault, and rightly so.

Similarly, I can't plant something that looks like a terrorist threat in the subways, intending for people to think it's a terrorist threat, and defend myself by claiming that your reaction constitutes art. Art or no, I'll still get arrested for making a threat of terrorism, and rightly so.

However, having a nude in my yard does nothing BEYOND express myself. Art or no, I shouldn't get arrested. The question isn't whether it's good art or bad art; the question is whether it has an effect that falls outside of protected free speech.

Daniel

I agree to a certain extent. But where is the line drawn? I see nothing wrong with a nude statue. But by displaying it where all can see you are taking away a parents rights to not expose their children to this. Or do you advocate allowing children access to pictures of nudity?

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Conflict of Interest
Or do you advocate allowing children access to pictures of nudity?

I sure do. If not, they'll be missing out on some fabulous classical art.

Is there something wrong with the naked human body? Should we teach children that it's shameful?

[mswas]

Generally, I find that art tastes like the medium. Oil paints tastes like oil paint. Ink tastes like ink. Music tastes like plastic or vinyl. Tempera tastes like Talcom powder. Pencil's taste like lead poisoning.

Why don't we just be honest and admit that most of us REVILE the idea of freedom of speech?

Then we can go from there and have a more honest discussion.

Erek

[NoCoolUserName]

Someone left white power literature, specifically something about there being no future for white children in the "3rd world" America, on my driveway. Since I have 2 Chinese daughters (along with 4 other kids), I took it as a personal threat against my family. When I reported it to the police, it turns out they left the same stuff on hundreds of other driveways. Freedom of speech? Art? Terrorist activity?

I was glad to know it wasn't just me.

[NoCoolUserName]

Someone left white power literature, specifically something about there being no future for white children in the "3rd world" America, on my driveway. Since I have 2 Chinese daughters (along with 4 other kids), I took it as a personal threat against my family. When I reported it to the police, it turns out they left the same stuff on hundreds of other driveways. Freedom of speech? Art? Terrorist activity?

I was glad to know it wasn't just me.

Boxes in public? Might be art but not legal, and reasonably so.
Sculpture in your own front yard? Art. Get out of the guy's face. $300K??? Preposterous. I'm guessing this is a bogus story. Is there a cite for this?

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Conflict of Interest
I agree to a certain extent. But where is the line drawn? I see nothing wrong with a nude statue. But by displaying it where all can see you are taking away a parents rights to not expose their children to this. Or do you advocate allowing children access to pictures of nudity?
Sorry, Maude Flanders, but a parent's "right to not expose their children" to nudity doesn't extend to making the entire public world childproof. It didn't fly for the internet and it won't fly for people's front lawns. If you don't want your kid to see a particular sculpture, cover his eyes.

And I don't see any problem with letting children look at nude sculptures. They're gonna find out someday that boys have a penis - in fact, 50% of them already know.

[Conflict of Interest]

Originally posted by Mr2001
Sorry, Maude Flanders, but a parent's "right to not expose their children" to nudity doesn't extend to making the entire public world childproof. It didn't fly for the internet and it won't fly for people's front lawns. If you don't want your kid to see a particular sculpture, cover his eyes.

And I don't see any problem with letting children look at nude sculptures. They're gonna find out someday that boys have a penis - in fact, 50% of them already know.

I thought name calling was frowned upon in GD. Obviously MR2001 thinks he is above the rules.

But nto answer your question, in many cases it does. Do you see men's magazines showing nudity sitting out where children can see it? How about letting your 12 year old, if you have one, buy it? Are you ok with that too? Why stop there. Hustler is "art" So are Pornographic movies. Why not make them available to children?

Probably because parents do have a right on what they want their child exposed to. And most do not want their children exposed to it.

Lissa, I agree with you. I also see nothing wrong with the human form. But I do have some reservations on allowing children to see some of the things that are passing as Art today. And if I am only limiting my children I see nothing wrong with that. I have the right to raise my children as I see fit.

[Tigers2B1]

The ‘speech’ called “art” seems to be pretty over-inclusive – in fact, it doesn’t have any limits. None – Nada. Combine that idea of “art” with the OP’s concerns - which seem to imply that one shouldn’t be given absolute license to do or say whatever he or she wants by simply calling what he or she says or does --- “art.” And that “artists” should be subject to the same speech restricts that apply to the rest of us commoners. So I’m forced by ‘nature and nurture’ to say this – [well actually by the consensus of the posts to this point] ------ the concept called “art” seems to be defined - or ‘controlled’ - by ones ‘intent’. In other words, if you intend a product to be “art” – zhazam! it’s “art.” So – being a guy who wants to 'get things in order' - I propose this - “art” results from any action or non-action intending to produce art. Tautology? Yep. Meaningless? Sure. Will I be pulling my penis out in front of grandma in the name of “art” – not in my lifetime or the next! – no bad “artist” here.

[Ryle Dup]

Originally posted by Conflict of Interest
I thought name calling was frowned upon in GD. Obviously MR2001 thinks he is above the rules.

But nto answer your question, in many cases it does. Do you see men's magazines showing nudity sitting out where children can see it? How about letting your 12 year old, if you have one, buy it? Are you ok with that too? Why stop there. Hustler is "art" So are Pornographic movies. Why not make them available to children?

FYI, adults can buy porn for their kids. I see no problem with adults getting a normal, healthy 12 year old kid some porn, except maybe it's embarrassing.

See, the problem is, even though you don't want to 'expose' kids to nudity in art, it really doesn't matter, do you really think they're all that interested in pornography at age 8? When they're interested, you really to stop them?


Probably because parents do have a right on what they want their child exposed to. And most do not want their children exposed to it.
Wake up, where is this in the constitution again? Oh, right.

Lissa, I agree with you. I also see nothing wrong with the human form. But I do have some reservations on allowing children to see some of the things that are passing as Art today. And if I am only limiting my children I see nothing wrong with that. I have the right to raise my children as I see fit.
You have the right to raise your children as you see fit, and I have the right display my own art on my own damn property. In this case there apparently was no HA restriction against it, if there was, then he should have known otherwise.

[Ryle Dup]

Originally posted by Isabelle
Boisvert was criminally charged for putting the boxes in the station. Should he have been?
Yes.

Can art that mimics, or comments on terrorism be a kind of criminal conduct?
No, he was littering.

Should the First Amendment have provided a defense for Boisvert's actions? After all, his art event took place in a public place, and it involved both actual speech (the word "Fear") and symbolic speech, in the form of the black boxes.
No permit, no boxes, you want to put your crap in a public place, you get a permit.

IMO this type of "art" is no different from someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is meant to cause fear and confusion, and give jollies to the perpetrator.

IMO your opinion is completely ridiculous. You're assuming they get "jollies" by causing "fear and confusion". For one, you have no idea what goes on in their minds, for another, you're assuming people are "scared and confused" by this art.

From a Christian perspective if you look up some of the writings of the Apostle Paul... We are to seek after things which are praise worthy and of good report... By what Paul talks about, classical paintings, books, etc...are indeed art... (IMO) The work of Boisvert is not nor the guy in my town for that matter.
:rolleyes: If you want to spout opinions maybe this thread should be in IMO, just because you think this isn't art, doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken as so.

I realize that not all statements can be made in a feel good eye pleasing way, and just because something doesn't have pleasant eye appeal doesn't mean that it isn't without merit. But please this artwork stinks to high heaven!
I'm very sorry this art has hurt :rolleyes: you so much, but that last statement reaks with hypocrisy, "just because something doesn't have a pleasant eye appeal (to you) doesn't mean it isnt without merit."

[Siege]

I realize that not all statements can be made in a feel good eye pleasing way, and just because something doesn't have pleasant eye appeal doesn't mean that it isn't without merit. But please this artwork stinks to high heaven!
I just wanted to take one more shot at this. There is a 20th century composer namedSchnittke (http://www.naxos.com/composer/schnittk.htm). His music's considered good enough that it was played by the local symphony orchestra, and he's apparently considered quite good. I was exposed to his music at a concert I'd invited to my best friend to. As Isabelle said, in my opinion, "this artwork stinks to high heaven!" (My apologies to anyone out there who likes Schittke.) I found the piece they played with him atonal and obnoxious. When my friend and I read in the program that he intended his music to dramatize the depression and despair of World War I, we agreed that he'd succeeded at that very well indeed. By the standards proposed in the OP, since I don't find him uplifting, pleasant, or anything more than tedious at best, should his music be banned? If so, where do we stop? There are people who don't like Bach. There are even people who've never heard of Bach (not many, I hope!). I know I'm pulling up the hoary old slippery slope argument, but seriously, where do we draw the line?

CJ

[Isabelle]

Follow this link.
<http://treets.local6.com/svc/lnk.cfm?l=26329463&t=1>

Is this free speech?

[sugaree]

Originally posted by Isabelle
What I was trying to express was Paul meant seek after things that are good and up lifting…that inspire, enlighten etc…When the concept is applied to the question then, we get that we should seek after good things…literature and art that enlighten and inspire are such things…read Les Miserable by Victor Hugo…compare it to the scriptures…you will find that the wrting has noble purpose...

Do you like Robert Frost (http://www.poets.org/poets/poets.cfm?45442B7C000C070C0F), Isabelle? I do. A certain John L. Peckham of Pennsylvania State College did not, and this is what he had to say about his work:

From the Feb. 1917 issue of Education: Devoted to the Science, Art, Philosophy, and Literature of Education:
The poetry that is of today seems to the ininitiated...to have neither music nor meaning...It has no rhyme, or at most but little; and only an apology for rhythm. It seeks its themes in the most trivial things, and in very prose, suggests particulars that seem to be common and sometimes unclean...

:::snipped quotes from Frost's "An Old Man's Winter Night" and Edgar Lee Master's "Slip Shoe Lovey":::

Imagine the youth of tomorrow substituting this for some of the classics upon which we were brought up,-- the Iliad for instance, and Hanlet or The Princess or Browning's Poem!

He was backed up by a letter to the editor the following year from a Helen Cary Chadwick, informing the readers how she and her husband had "made merry over this "poem," fully sharing your wonder about its advent into accepted verse." She goes on to dismiss Carl Sandburg's work, and to compare Pound unfavorably to Kipling.

If those two had their way with what they saw as uninspiring and unenlightening, Frost would never had made it into the canon, and you and I would never had learned "The Road Not Taken" in middle school. My life would be a little poorer.

[Isabelle]

Yes I do like Frost's work.

I look back at what I earlier posted and cringe. I think I gave off the wrong impression.

Although I am a Christian I read a lot and I'm sure the church woulnd't deem what I read all "uplifting" I also enjoy art of all types.

[Tigers2B1]

There is an “artist” in the Memphis community called “Prince Mongo.” Mongo’s artistic tastes have gotten him put in jail and fined more times than most of us have fingers and toes. Lately Prince Mongo has been battling his new neighbors and the city over the mannequin heads, stuffed crows, 40 to 50 lawn chairs, various homemade signs, bales of hay, and other assorted hardware in his front yard – along with his decision to paint his house and fence using 5 to 10 different colors and using the ‘done in 15 minutes’ splash-on method. Of course Mongo had to make an appearance in court and in the effort to defend his right to ‘speak’ as he wants on his own property. At trial he appeared in …. Well just read the quote -
MEMPHIS, Tenn. - A judge has ruled that a defendant can't show up for trial wearing fur, bones, goggles and pale green body paint, even if he is from the planet Zambodia.

But an attorney for the man who calls himself Prince Mongo wants to make a federal case out of his client's 10-day jail sentence for contempt of court. Slug PM-Prince Mongo. New, may stand. Federal court hearing starts at 1 p.m. EDT.

http://www.ahajokes.com/law061.html

AND … finally, after many real trials and a few tribulations - Mongo makes an art sell ---
Robert 'Prince Mongo' Hodges is selling his caution light yellow house at 925 Park with its aqua trim and its Jackson Pollack paint tossing multi-colored fence.
Hodges is a well known character who often wears a blond wig, a loincloth and claims he is from the planet Zambodia.
His antics have been the bane of the neighborhood. Last December a judge held Hodges in contempt for his unkept yard, sentenced him to five days in jail and fined him $13,875.
Hodges, who is 56 in Earth-years…

http://mas.scripps.com/MCA/2003/08/05/0806e6mongo-2_e.jpg


Prince Mongo is currently running for mayor of Memphis …

[Conflict of Interest]

Ryle Dup, adults can buy beer for kids too but that doesn't make it right or legal. I don't know what the laws are in the place the individual lived concerning displays of public nudity. If he was arrested obviously they had a law that prohibited it.

As the parent I should be able to pick the time, based on my childs maturity, to start discussing some of the questions they may have about the nude body.

And what do you mean by "Wake up, where is this in the constitution again? Oh, right." Do you think as long as something is not in the constitution thats its legal to do? Have you ever heard of State laws?

[fessie]

I agree with Tigers2B1 that the meaning of art has become fairly meaningless (the definition you give is exactly the same one my aesthetics prof gave us 20 years ago). I don't see that as a failing of art, however. The truth is that meaning isn't a quality inherent in an object or act; meaning is assigned (or not). Whether it's artwork, sports teams, or the workplace.

Among artists I've known it seems like if a threshold of excellence has been met, then there's a lot more tolerance of various aesthetics. But art critics & philosophers (and local zoning boards) don't see things the same way artists do.

[Stomp]

I myself am a fan of 'Poetic Terrorism". I do not believe in violence. I think art crimes are they way to go. It is a shame that freedom of expression is not more accepted. Art is used for self- realization, beauty, adventure or even to make a piont and wake up the masses. What is so crude about that?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Conflict of Interest
As the parent I should be able to pick the time, based on my childs maturity, to start discussing some of the questions they may have about the nude body.


This doesn't make any sense to me.

What gives you that right? To what does it apply? Does this mean that, for example, I can't walk down the street without a top on, for fear that your child may ask you why boys have nipples? Do you have the right to pick the time to start discussing questions they may have about facial hair, and I therefore may not grow a beard? Does this mean that no public art may feature any nudity at all, no matter how tasteful? I simply don't get why you are able to limit other people's behaviors in order to avoid your child asking a specific question.

I think maybe you WANT to be able to pick the time for particular conversations, but you cannot control your child's curiosity or experiences. If a child can formulate a question, he or she is ready to hear your honest answer to the question.

Daniel

[Conflict of Interest]

What I mean by that statement is I may think 6 is too young to be trying to answer questions about what the child sees.

And what gives me the right is that it is my child. And I'm not limiting other peoples behaviors concerning nudity. Society is. That's why there are state laws pertaining to it.

AS far as your last statement, that's what I meant by the childs maturity. If my child asks a question I'll try to answe it.

[Yeticus Rex]

Daniel, how many kids do you have?

Parents have the RIGHT & RESPONSIBILITY for picking the appropriate time to address a child's concerns/questions.

Boys with nipples is a weak question. How about trying to explain to my 7 year old why there's a bloody statue of Christ in a coital position with her mother Mary at the entrance to the subway?

A: Well son, some people actually think that shocking people (doesn't matter if you're an adult or child) in a public display starts to make us think......and they'll tell you it's their right to make us shocked. But please, don't start having nightmares about it, I can't afford a shrink to straighten you out so soon in life. Oh, and son, stop playing on that FedEx box, you might degrade the value of that fine piece of art and the bomb squad is not sure of it's contents since some a-hole decided that he felt it necessary to display it without informing anybody of it's contents. But hey, this fine piece of art probably took all of 2 hours to make, probably the work of a procrastinating art student (looking to save himself at the last moment from an F) who just didn't have enough brains to think for himself let alone trying to make other people think about "poetic terrorism".....

My 15, 7, and 2 year olds will get different answers from me when subjected to material displayed in public that is unsuited for children. Obviously, all three kids have different levels of comprehension for what they are looking at. When they ask me questions about it, they will get my answer to it - based on my opinion/evaluation of it.....an answer that you might not like. The 15 year old already tells me his opinions now, so I don't over-control the situation there, but I do give a moral steering guideline for his acceptance or possibly, refusal.


Stomp......As for "poetic terrorism"......does that include the public expressing their right to free speech by destroying this "terroristic art" put on public display? Maybe their act of destroying it is an act of "poetic terrorism". Would the outstanding art student be happy with the effect it caused? Kind of like throwing an animal carcass in a lion's cage and see what happens; it might be pretty, it might be ugly....

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Conflict of Interest
I thought name calling was frowned upon in GD. Obviously MR2001 thinks he is above the rules.
No offense intended - I was alluding to the Simpsons character who screams "Won't somebody please think of the children!" I apologize if it came across the wrong way.

But nto answer your question, in many cases it does. Do you see men's magazines showing nudity sitting out where children can see it? How about letting your 12 year old, if you have one, buy it? Are you ok with that too? Why stop there. Hustler is "art" So are Pornographic movies. Why not make them available to children?
Yes, I'm OK with all of that. If the kids are old enough to be interested in such material, they're old enough to have access to it. If you as a parent feel that your child isn't actually capable of "handling" such material, then it's your duty to keep it out of his hands - not everyone else's duty to hide any material that any parent might consider questionable.

Probably because parents do have a right on what they want their child exposed to. And most do not want their children exposed to it.
That's fine, but parents don't have a right to restrict others' speech just because their child might come across it.

[Tigers2B1]

That's fine, but parents don't have a right to restrict others' speech just because their child might come across it.

Really Mr 2001? Do you REALLY mean what you just “seemed” to say? If so --- that’s you imposing your structure of the world on my little cousin -- and on the children of others here ---- Is that right? Isn’t it always a 'two way street'?? Don't we "all have to get along." Doesn’t the “stuff” - you're talking about - flow in both directions?

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Tigers2B1
Really Mr 2001? Do you REALLY mean what you just “seemed” to say? If so --- that’s you imposing your structure of the world on my little cousin -- and on the children of others here ---- Is that right? Isn’t it always a 'two way street'?? Don't we "all have to get along." Doesn’t the “stuff” - you're talking about - flow in both directions?
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to ask here.

I think the answer is yes, I mean just what I said. If you don't want your kid to see something, that's between you and your kid. Don't take him to see an R-rated movie. Don't buy him Playboy. If you think he'll buy a Playboy when he gets the chance, then don't let him go to the store alone.

Don't force the guy down the street to restrain himself just because you don't think your kid can handle what he has to say.

[Conflict of Interest]

You know Mr2001 I don't think we disagree all that much. As a parent I have no problems keeping my children away from those things you spoke of. But I was specifically talking about "in your face, this is my right to expression and if I want to do it by putting nudes on my lawn i will" type of art. He or she can do whatever art they want to. I have no problem with that but they do not have the right to force others to view it if is not appropriate by societal standards. And as far as I know most places do have some restrictiions on the display of nudity.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Conflict of Interest
But I was specifically talking about "in your face, this is my right to expression and if I want to do it by putting nudes on my lawn i will" type of art. He or she can do whatever art they want to. I have no problem with that but they do not have the right to force others to view it if is not appropriate by societal standards.
Well, "societal standards" depend on where you are. In a heavily Muslim neighborhood, would you say someone has the right to "force others to view" a cross on his front lawn? What about a Howard Dean sign in a Republican neighborhood, or a Confederate flag in a neighborhood where people are offended by it?

I just don't think people have the right not to be offended.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Yeticus Rex
Daniel, how many kids do you have?


None. And as long as you have kids, you're unable to understand the issues those of us who are childless face :rolleyes:

Enough with the ad hominems, m'kay?

Parents have the RIGHT & RESPONSIBILITY for picking the appropriate time to address a child's concerns/questions.

Boys with nipples is a weak question. How about trying to explain to my 7 year old why there's a bloody statue of Christ in a coital position with her mother Mary at the entrance to the subway?

How about not? That's your job, just like it's your job to explain to your seven-year-old why people die, why there are wars, why Fluffy had to be put to sleep, why people do drugs, and all the other difficult, unpleasant things in the world. Surely explaining war is more difficult than explaining shocking art, isn't it? Should we therefore restrict Newsweek's ability to put war stories on their front cover?

My point is this: you have the right to answer or not answer your child's questions about the world. Having a child gives you no special right to restrict anyone else's freedom of speech in the interests of not having your child be exposed to speech you find difficult to explain.

Daniel'
(incidentally, I use the term "ad hominem" correctly above, even if it's a less-known application of the term)

[Lissa]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
Surely explaining war is more difficult than explaining shocking art, isn't it? Should we therefore restrict Newsweek's ability to put war stories on their front cover?

Excellent point. It's always perplexed me that as a society, we feel that portrayals of nudity and sex are somehow "dirtier" than scenes of graphic violence. Personally, I'd rather a child see a picture of the beautiful naked human form than a bloody corpse.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
None. And as long as you have kids, you're unable to understand the issues those of us who are childless face :rolleyes:

Enough with the ad hominems, m'kay?

I was childless until the age of 25 and understood the issues quite well back then that you "face" now, but I had the same viewpoints before my children were born as I do now out of respect for the children living at that time. There are things in this world that children (mine, other peoples', your future children if you decide to have them) would never comprehend until a certain age and most parents know when the time is.


How about not? That's your job, just like it's your job to explain to your seven-year-old why people die, why there are wars, why Fluffy had to be put to sleep, why people do drugs, and all the other difficult, unpleasant things in the world. Surely explaining war is more difficult than explaining shocking art, isn't it? Should we therefore restrict Newsweek's ability to put war stories on their front cover?

And as you can see in my previous post, I did answer it.

I have explained to my 7 and 15 why people and pets die because it has happened within our household. I have explained wars to my two older sons and also about the possibility of being drafted to my eldest son. Of course, my two year old can't comprehend such things, but his time will come eventually.

There is a difference that you are missing when it comes to objectionable (to minors) material being displayed to the open public, free of charge and the admission (free or otherwise) to view same material in a place restricted to minors (unless parental consent is given). R and X Rated movies are not displayed in the open public, they require admission. The same is true with Newsweek magazines, it requires my admission to view it; it isn't forced upon freely to children (like shocking art is) although there is no parental consent needed.

Explaining war (that is far away and not on my doorstep) is far easier than explaining shocking art that is on my doorstep. On the other hand, if there was a gun battle in my neighboorhood, then yes, I would be at a loss of words compared to shocking art in another state/country. How close it is to home is what matters.
My point is this: you have the right to answer or not answer your child's questions about the world. Having a child gives you no special right to restrict anyone else's freedom of speech in the interests of not having your child be exposed to speech you find difficult to explain.
Hmmm, your viewpoint seems to have been lost on the state's legislative and judicial branches. They are trying to find a balance between your viewpoints and my viewpoints - i.e. the public. It seems that these branches have more of an interest in the state's children than you do. You're right about one thing, I (as a parent) have no special rights to restrict your freedom of speech. The rights of children on the other hand, does have some bearing on your viewpoints, state laws prevailing.

If the world was like that one in the computer commercial, where young adults were in embryo sacs that suddenly burst open and the newborns (full grown adults) were being dropped straight onto a college campus, then I would imagine your viewpoints would prevail. Pretty funny stuff.

Originally posted by Lissa
Excellent point. It's always perplexed me that as a society, we feel that portrayals of nudity and sex are somehow "dirtier" than scenes of graphic violence. Personally, I'd rather a child see a picture of the beautiful naked human form than a bloody corpse.

And where would you place the "bloody statue of Christ in a coital position with her mother Mary" in your viewpoint of societal acceptance? Violent, incestuous and anti-religious: good for children of all ages to view in the open public?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Yeticus Rex
Hmmm, your viewpoint seems to have been lost on the state's legislative and judicial branches. They are trying to find a balance between your viewpoints and my viewpoints - i.e. the public. It seems that these branches have more of an interest in the state's children than you do. You're right about one thing, I (as a parent) have no special rights to restrict your freedom of speech. The rights of children on the other hand, does have some bearing on your viewpoints, state laws prevailing.
[/B]

You're wrong. The rights of children don't have any bearing on my viewpoint -- specifically, their right not to view disturbing material does not restrict my freedom of speech.

Sure, there are laws against obscenity -- but they are obviously not based on the principle you vaguely suggest (e.g., that children have a "right" not to be exposed to sexually explicit material or something). Otherwise, it could be illegal for me to discuss sexual matters explicitly in a public area.

You don't have a right to prevent Newsweek from mentioning war on its covers. Neither do your children. You don't have a right to prevent an artist from putting a nude statue in public view. Neither do your children.

If you'd argue otherwise, let's see some cites.

Daniel

[UrbanChic]

Originally posted by Lissa
Excellent point. It's always perplexed me that as a society, we feel that portrayals of nudity and sex are somehow "dirtier" than scenes of graphic violence. Personally, I'd rather a child see a picture of the beautiful naked human form than a bloody corpse. I have no problem taking my sons to a museum that features nudes. If they have questions, they know they can ask me anything (and, boy, have they). If we're out and we see a nude or semi-nude body, we don't cover their eyes or cluck our tongues. It's the human body and it's a thing of beauty, not shame.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Yeticus Rex
There are things in this world that children (mine, other peoples', your future children if you decide to have them) would never comprehend until a certain age and most parents know when the time is.

And where would you place the "bloody statue of Christ in a coital position with her mother Mary" in your viewpoint of societal acceptance? Violent, incestuous and anti-religious: good for children of all ages to view in the open public?



Interesting. You do realize, don't you, that our society's exaggerated sheltering of children is a fairly recent development?

In the past, children learned very quickly about sex. Most of the time, they slept in the same room as their parents, and married siblings. They saw farm animals mating, and girls often helped their mothers give birth. The concept of shielding even a very young child from knowledge of sex would have been laughable.

Young children also were not sheilded from sexual art. Providing a link to what I found with a quick Yahoo search of "cathedral sexual images " would violate SDMB policy. I suggest you do the search just for pure entertainment value.) Some of the images on cathedrals include sex with animals (involving enormous male genitalia,) self-fellatio, and varied and creative sexual positions between humans worthy of Hustler. I've seen one image, which, to put it as clinically as possible, involving a snake crawling between the legs of a woman.

Mind you, these images are on the outside of cathedrals, carved into the stone, visable to all passersby. The purpose was that the faithful would know what sexual acts were forbidden by Church law. ("If you're doing this, you're doing it wrong.") The titilating images also had the added benefit of making pedestrians stop in their tracks, and possibly be persuaded by a friendly priest out front to go inside.

Even earlier than Christian cathedral art, public mosaics, statues, and carvings celebrated sex in many cultures. Phallic art is almost ubiquitous in ancient times. In the ruins of Pompeii, for example, is an image of Zeus weighing his enormous penis on a scale.

Isn't this "vulgar" and "indecent?" Shouldn't we finish the work of some earlier purists and deface these images entirely before some poor child sees them? (Some of these images are clumisily rendered, so they can't even "hide" behind artistic merit.)

And how did the children in these cities react to what they saw around them? (Still see, actually, in the examples of the cathedrals.) The Catholic Church seems to have thought that viewing them would be beneficial to their characters.

So now, let me ask you: How have children so apprieciably changed to need sheltering from sexual images? Could it be that our society just has a different opinion on the mental frailty of children? Why do you think our culture demands sexual ignorance from them? Do you think there has been any benefit to it?

[Yeticus Rex]

Ok....Daniel

Googled "obscenity laws minors" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=obscenity+laws+minors)

I figured Nevada state laws would be pretty lenient and in your favor, but I was wrong, (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-201.html#NRS201Sec235) not once, but twice. (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-201.html#NRS201Sec256) Alaska, on the other hand, does not have any obscenity laws.

I never posted that children had control of "what you view", it's what they are subjected to that is variously regulated from state to state, county to county, city to city.

I never said myself or my children had the right to control the content of Newsweek. Newsweek is there for me to purchase if I want to look at it, not Newsweek looking for me to look at their magazine if they feel the need to make me or my children view it. This is what differs magazines from shock artists.

I noticed that I should have posted - "The laws protecting minors on the other hand, does have some bearing on your viewpoints, state laws prevailing."

Lissa, I realize there is much art out there depicting sexual (and vulgar) situations from past and present. I also realize that children can handle visualizing some art or situations, but it depends on their maturity and type of art/situation. I am not an over-sheltering parent, but I despise a shock artist trying to determine for me and my children when to view the example that I gave to you. I don't think you and I are that far off in viewpoint. Some people feel that society should be viewed and treated as 100% adults and not acknowledging that children are a part of the society or feel that they should be treated as adults in their eyes.

Along with the mating live births of animals (no problem with minors witnessing those), farms also had machinery that has maimed and killed minors in the past, and that happened quite a bit in the past until more farmers (parents) started paying more attention to their children's ability/maturity to handle same equipment. Is that over-protecting as well?


I get the impression that some of you think that I am against tasteless, vulgar and indecent art. I'm not. I'm just against subjecting it to minors in an open, public place that requires no admission and put there without warning in the public so parents are not allowed to take (or not take) appropriate steps to make decisions on viewing said art. Museum art, cathedral art, et al. is fine by me where it's at. I expect it to be there and I can decide if my children can go there to view it or not.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Yeticus Rex
Lissa, I realize there is much art out there depicting sexual (and vulgar) situations from past and present. I also realize that children can handle visualizing some art or situations, but it depends on their maturity and type of art/situation.

But why didn't our ancestors consider this a factor-- that their child might be harmed by what he saw on the walls of the cathedral? There was no line drawn for maturity. Children were not considered any more "fragile" than adults.

I am not an over-sheltering parent, but I despise a shock artist trying to determine for me and my children when to view the example that I gave to you.

But in the example of the cathedral carvings, isn't the Catholic Church then a "shock artist?"

This debate makes me think of the Hollywood Hayes Code. During the time the Code was in force, movies were scrubbed clean of any material which would offend a young child. Earlier on in our history, books were censored to the same level. The Comstock Act censored the US Mail of anything that the highly prudish Comstock found obscene.

The idea of reducing everyone to what's considered "safe" for a child is unfair. It's ultimately the parents' responsibility, and I don't think that anyone should expect the world to be re-ordered to protect them from the "offensive" when "offensive" is such a relative term.

Along with the mating live births of animals (no problem with minors witnessing those), farms also had machinery that has maimed and killed minors in the past, and that happened quite a bit in the past until more farmers (parents) started paying more attention to their children's ability/maturity to handle same equipment. Is that over-protecting as well?

No. There's a distinct difference between measures for a child's actual physical safety and censorship out of a dubious fear for their psychological well-being.

Besides machinery accidents, children saw incredibly violent acts during public executions. (They were well-attended events, considered "fun for the whole family.) I'd imagine that the sight of a human being being burned alive is one which would stick with you for a while. Besides burnings, there were hangings, beheadings, brandings, whippings, and the greusome spectacle of drawing-and-quartering. (Accompanied, usually, by castration.)

I get the impression that some of you think that I am against tasteless, vulgar and indecent art. I'm not. I'm just against subjecting it to minors in an open, public place that requires no admission and put there without warning in the public so parents are not allowed to take (or not take) appropriate steps to make decisions on viewing said art. Museum art, cathedral art, et al. is fine by me where it's at. I expect it to be there and I can decide if my children can go there to view it or not.

What children see more than the art is their parents' reaction to it. If, when confronted by an obscene piece of art, the parent is nonchalant, the child is likely to think no more of it. However, if the parent recacts strongly or tries to sheild them from it, the child's curiosity is aroused. What forbidden fruit is the parent trying to hide from them?

The price of taking a child out into the world is that the child may see things you'd rather they didn't. At any time, someone may swear in front of them, tell a racist joke, fart, blaspheme, fondle their significant other, wear "indecent" clothing, or act like a Jerry Springer guest. It's the parents' responsibility to see to it that the child is prepared to meet the world, and to openly discuss what they see.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally posted by Lissa
But why didn't our ancestors consider this a factor-- that their child might be harmed by what he saw on the walls of the cathedral? There was no line drawn for maturity. Children were not considered any more "fragile" than adults.
Depending on how many years you go back when you are discussing ancestry, the line was probably drawn for reasons that most adults were illiterate as well as children, hence the cathedral art.....I think you pointed this out in an earlier post. If you go much further back in time, infanticide and sacrifices of children were also practiced in some civilizations.....I don't think that was in the children's favor....it's debatable if they were considered fragile (not resistive - easy to sacrifice) or not (take your sacrifice like an adult).

But in the example of the cathedral carvings, isn't the Catholic Church then a "shock artist?"
No....again, it was probably the second most effective way (speech being 1st) to communicate to it's congregation (different compared to the open public that shock artists subject themselves to) who were probably illiterate.

This debate makes me think of the Hollywood Hayes Code. During the time the Code was in force, movies were scrubbed clean of any material which would offend a young child. Earlier on in our history, books were censored to the same level. The Comstock Act censored the US Mail of anything that the highly prudish Comstock found obscene.

The idea of reducing everyone to what's considered "safe" for a child is unfair. It's ultimately the parents' responsibility, and I don't think that anyone should expect the world to be re-ordered to protect them from the "offensive" when "offensive" is such a relative term.
I too object reducing everyone as being treated like children.

It is still the parent's responsibility, when choosing items that can be offensive to children and control it within the household. I'm not asking for any objectionable material to be banned, I'm just asking that the material not be displayed in the open public, free of charge, viewable from the street. Things were more controlled back then, and I also disagree with the practice of "scrubbing" film or other material as well to suit the children; just have that material away from open public instead.

No. There's a distinct difference between measures for a child's actual physical safety and censorship out of a dubious fear for their psychological well-being.

Besides machinery accidents, children saw incredibly violent acts during public executions. (They were well-attended events, considered "fun for the whole family.) I'd imagine that the sight of a human being being burned alive is one which would stick with you for a while. Besides burnings, there were hangings, beheadings, brandings, whippings, and the greusome spectacle of drawing-and-quartering. (Accompanied, usually, by castration.)
Actually, I think they are intertwined......governing bodies in many countries eventually ruled out open public executions for children and adults alike. Was there an outcry from the public back then to leave executions as is, or did they begin to feel that public executions were becoming unacceptable "civilized behavior" (i.e. - psychologically damaging)? Of course, there are still some countries that still support public executions, but are the children from these countries better off psychologically? I doubt it.

What children see more than the art is their parents' reaction to it. If, when confronted by an obscene piece of art, the parent is nonchalant, the child is likely to think no more of it. However, if the parent recacts strongly or tries to sheild them from it, the child's curiosity is aroused. What forbidden fruit is the parent trying to hide from them?

The price of taking a child out into the world is that the child may see things you'd rather they didn't. At any time, someone may swear in front of them, tell a racist joke, fart, blaspheme, fondle their significant other, wear "indecent" clothing, or act like a Jerry Springer guest. It's the parents' responsibility to see to it that the child is prepared to meet the world, and to openly discuss what they see.

I can't convincingly fake my emotion to my kids on the spot when confronted.....that's not right. I will tell them how I feel. You are right though that they would be more curious if I try to hide something from their sight, but then I would not be a good parent if I just act like things should be normal when they aren't. I had called out another parent for his objectionable statement that he told to my oldest son at a hockey rink on this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=189156) My son learned from me how to confront without gettting violent or slinking away. In a way, that parent was the shock artist who practiced his objectionable "art" once. There is a parallel I've noticed between him and Boisvert since I reread my OP in that thread.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Yeticus Rex
No....again, it was probably the second most effective way (speech being 1st) to communicate to it's congregation (different compared to the open public that shock artists subject themselves to) who were probably illiterate.

Perhaps I didn't convey my point clearly. What I meant was that sexual display was not considered harmful to children, whatever the purpose.

However, if there was a statue on a modern street corner of a man having sex with a donkey, you'd object to your child seeing it. In this case, the purpose of the image could be the same as when it was was used on the outside walls of the cathedral: an artist may be using it as an example of sin. In our modern time, it wouldn't matter. The sexual content would negate the message, rendering it unsuitable for young eyes.

How is the modern child really harmed? He may not even understand the significance of what he's seeing. All I'm saying is that children are not necessarily as psychologically fragile as we treat them. It seems unreasonable to me to ask that art be hidden away, when it hasn't been demonstrated to me that the child will be in any way harmed if it is not.

When it comes to executions and the public, IIRC, the reason that executions were moved indoors was because that the apparati of execution was changed from "outdoor" style to "indoor" types. For example, hanging needs a bit more room than the average building can supply, and beheading leaves unsightly stains on the rug, so it was necessary, most of the time, to do these things outdoors. When the states changed from these methods to those like the gas chamber and electric chairs, the move was natural. (Of course, there's more to it than that, but that's another thread.)

I'm relatively sure, however, that concerns for the mental well-being of young witnesses wasn't the reason. There was, and still is, a large contingent of folks who believe(d) that public execution is beneficial as an object lesson to the populace.

[Isabelle]

I will never forget this. I was in about the 4th grade when the entire family went to dinner at a friends house. (THey ran the SPCA) I went into their bathroom and they had a painting of a man and a boy naked in the painting. The scene was in a bathroom and the man was shaving and the kid was trying to do the same. It was then I learned that men had pubic hair. Had I not seen that art.....who knows when I would have known???? My parents didn't tell me squat!

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Yeticus Rex
Ok....Daniel

Googled "obscenity laws minors" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=obscenity+laws+minors)

I figured Nevada state laws would be pretty lenient and in your favor, but I was wrong, (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-201.html#NRS201Sec235) not once, but twice. (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-201.html#NRS201Sec256) Alaska, on the other hand, does not have any

Yeticus, I lost track of this debate a few days ago. My apologies for not pointing out earlier that, while you were wrong twice: first when you thought you were wrong, and second when you decided you were wrong in the wrong direction. Let's look at what the Nevada state law says about the intersection of obscenity laws and minors:

Appeal shall be judged with reference to ordinary adults, unless it appears, from the character of the material or the circumstances of its dissemination, to be designed for children or a clearly defined deviant group.

Ordinary adults, got it? Unless I'm building my nude statue deliberately across the street from a kindergarten and putting a sign in the nude sculpture's hand saying, "Hey kiddies, want to go for a ride?", we don't judge obscenity by whether it harms children.

An entirely different matter is whether something is harmful to minors. Let's look at Nevada's definition:

NRS 201.257 “Harmful to minors” defined. “Harmful to minors” means that quality of any description or representation, whether constituting all or a part of the material considered, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sado-masochistic abuse which predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, and is without serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.


It'd be very difficult to show that a nude is predominantly appealing to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors. Even if you did, you'd also have to prove that it's without serious artistic value, also very difficult to prove.

The ONLY consideration the law has for restricting adult freedom of expression in order to protect kids is that IF it's prurient (shameful, etc.) AND it's without serious artistic etc. value, AND if most adults around think kids should be protected from it, you can get in trouble.

But wait -- what can you get in trouble for? Here are the only relevant sections of that ordinance you posted:

NRS 201.265 Unlawful acts; penalty. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 200.720 and 201.2655, a person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person knowingly:
1. Distributes or causes to be distributed to a minor material that is harmful to minors, unless the person is the parent, guardian or spouse of the minor.

2. Exhibits for distribution to an adult in such a manner or location as to allow a minor to view or to have access to examine material that is harmful to minors, unless the person is the parent, guardian or spouse of the minor.

So it's only when you're distributing harmful material that you can get in trouble -- either when you distribute it to a minor, or when you exhibit it for distribution to an adult.

What does distribution mean?
NRS 201.2565 “Distribute” defined. “Distribute” means to transfer possession with or without consideration.

Please, please, please explain now how a nude statue in someone's yard can be restricted under Nevada law. It's not being distributed, so the "harmful to minors" business is totally irrelevant. And the obscenity laws only take children into consideration if it's clearly designed for the kiddies.

You were wrong, all right. Just not in the way you thought you were wrong.
Daniel

[Yeticus Rex]

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel....

I have no problem with nude statues.....where did you get that idea? That's not "shock art". A bloody statue of Christ in a coital position with mother Mary is. What would "ordinary adults" think about that?


Lissa,
You make great points. Times have changed were the unacceptable becomes acceptable, and vice versa. The cathedral art should stay right where it is because of it's history. But if you make a replica of it (sex with a donkey) on a street corner, then it becomes an issue with authorities as well as the general public. The cathedral art was meant to convey what sin was in their day. If someone made a replica of that on a street corner today and explained to the general public that "This is a sin.", would that be acceptable art, or shock? In this day and age where a current church wouldn't advocate making a replica of this art for it's congregation because they can convey more effectively through lectures and literature, I doubt that the artist of this day would have an easy time explaining that this is the best way to convey what sin is, citing that he was inspired by some antiquated cathedral art. He's better off making the replica in his private studio.

Otherwise, if we claim that since things were acceptable in past, then what's stopping us from starting up public executions, infanticide, and human sacrifices again, citing that "We've done it before, why can't we allow it again"? I know, it seems to be a double standard, but that's the current track that a majority of our civilization (country) is taking.

Who knows how this art will be viewed 100 years from now? More acceptable or less acceptable? For all we know, there maybe "Sex with a donkey" lightposts lining main streets across the country. Depends on the ever changing viewpoints of our civilization over time as a whole.

[Isabelle]

Who knows how this art will be viewed 100 years from now? More acceptable or less acceptable? For all we know, there maybe "Sex with a donkey" lightposts lining main streets across the country. Depends on the ever changing viewpoints of our civilization over time as a whole.

How is this art for ya? Gunther von Hagens makes educational models for anatomy programs. He is best known for his controversial plastinated whole-body art exhibit "Korperwelten"
The skinless bodies are real humans and are posed as living people in action. The humans he uses for his exhibit "donated" their bodies to science. One figure's skin flies out behind it like a cape.

Is this art? Is this violated dignity? Should children see this?
I think it would be controversial in 2003 and in 3003

Just in case you are not aware of the process.....

Plastination (polymer preserved) The body is washed and soaked in chemicals such as acetone. The acetone drives water from the body tissue, readying it for impregnantion with the silicone polymer. A catalyst is then rubbed into the skin and a 2 day hardening process begins, working its way through the tissue preserving it for eternity. It takes about 1 year to make a human into this gumby-like state.

[Guinastasia]

Maybe it's art, maybe it's not.

It's not for YOU, Isabelle, to decide what I would expose my hypothetical offspring to.

[Isabelle]

You are right. To each his own when it comes to choosing "what is art and what is not"

I really want to see the cathedral that is made entirely of human bones but I guess that might repulse some.

[TVAA]

Young children are rarely offended by anything.

The only things I'd say very young people are almost universally upset by are suffering and pain. When they realize that another creature is in pain, children are often quite empathetic.

Sex? They don't care.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

yeticus, yeticus, yeticus. Your patronizing posts toward me began when I criticized conflict of interest's statement that s/he had the right to determine when junior asked questions about the nude body; conflict made that statement in apparent response to the nude sculpture debate THAT WAS IN THE OP. My apologies for assuming that your patronizing 'tude toward me had anything to do with the OP.

That said, my basic point doesn't change, nor does your basic wrongness about Nevada's laws. You mentioned two separate laws: obscenity, and harmful to minors statutes. In the case of the bloody fucking Jesus statue (BFJ from now on), I don't see how either statute applies in the manner you suggest (i.e., how either statute takes children's sensibilities into accout).

Under the obscenity statutes, you must judge BFJ by ADULT standards, UNLESS it's designed specifically to be shown to kids. Nothing you described about BFJ suggests it was designed for kids; therefore, whether it offends their sensibilities is entirely immaterial.

And the only things mentioned being illegal under the harmful-to-minors statutes involve the transfer of property. If BFJ is merely being displayed, without intent to transfer ownership (or sell viewing rights or anything), then there's no chance whatsoever that harmful-to-minors statutes apply. Again, we're not taking children's tender eyeballs into consideration here.

There is, of course, a debate about whether BFJ has any artistic merit, and prosecution would have the very difficult task of proving that it didn't if it wanted to convict on obscenity grounds. But that's immaterial. The debate I'm having with you, the one in which you make ad hominems like suggesting that my lack of children means I don't understand the issues, is whether we must take children's sensibilities into consideration when restricting the expressive freedom of adults.

Not in Conflict seemed to believe that when it came to nude statues, we do need to pander to the youngest common denominator. You disagree re: nude statues, but think that when it comes to BFJs, we need to pander to the youngest common denominator. You guys disagree on the specifics, but you're both equally wrong on the principle.

Daniel

[Guinastasia]

TVAA nailed it.

As a child, the only response I had at nudity and sex was to giggle uncontrollably. Annoying, perhaps, but harmless.

Violence and pain? Nightmares for a week.

That's not to say we should censor these things-common sense should prevail.

[Yeticus Rex]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
yeticus, yeticus, yeticus. Your patronizing posts toward me began when I criticized conflict of interest's statement that s/he had the right to determine when junior asked questions about the nude body; conflict made that statement in apparent response to the nude sculpture debate THAT WAS IN THE OP. My apologies for assuming that your patronizing 'tude toward me had anything to do with the OP.

That said, my basic point doesn't change, nor does your basic wrongness about Nevada's laws. You mentioned two separate laws: obscenity, and harmful to minors statutes. In the case of the bloody fucking Jesus statue (BFJ from now on), I don't see how either statute applies in the manner you suggest (i.e., how either statute takes children's sensibilities into accout).

Under the obscenity statutes, you must judge BFJ by ADULT standards, UNLESS it's designed specifically to be shown to kids. Nothing you described about BFJ suggests it was designed for kids; therefore, whether it offends their sensibilities is entirely immaterial.

And the only things mentioned being illegal under the harmful-to-minors statutes involve the transfer of property. If BFJ is merely being displayed, without intent to transfer ownership (or sell viewing rights or anything), then there's no chance whatsoever that harmful-to-minors statutes apply. Again, we're not taking children's tender eyeballs into consideration here.

There is, of course, a debate about whether BFJ has any artistic merit, and prosecution would have the very difficult task of proving that it didn't if it wanted to convict on obscenity grounds. But that's immaterial. The debate I'm having with you, the one in which you make ad hominems like suggesting that my lack of children means I don't understand the issues, is whether we must take children's sensibilities into consideration when restricting the expressive freedom of adults.

Not in Conflict seemed to believe that when it came to nude statues, we do need to pander to the youngest common denominator. You disagree re: nude statues, but think that when it comes to BFJs, we need to pander to the youngest common denominator. You guys disagree on the specifics, but you're both equally wrong on the principle.

Daniel

EXHIBITION AND SALE OF OBSCENE MATERIAL TO MINORS

NRS 201.257 “Harmful to minors” defined. “Harmful to minors” means that quality of any description or representation, whether constituting all or a part of the material considered, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sado-masochistic abuse which predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, and is without serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

This would suggest that exhibiting BFJ is subject NRS 201.257 and should be judged by the adult community with respect to minors. Sounds pretty much like parenting (pandering to the youngest common denominator) to me whether you like it or not. Also, I made the example more harsh (BFJ) than your "boys with nipples" example because the question was not that taxing, and did not require the litmus test of the law. Sorry if you weren't able to follow my posts.

The new question that comes to mind is in the title: EXHIBITION AND SALE OF OBSCENE MATERIAL TO MINORS.......Does it mean that both exhibition and sale must be achieved to break the law (your viewpoint), or that the two separate actions are grouped together to show congruency in separate criminal actions (my viewpoint)?

BTW.....it was one ad hominem; get over it already. Your condescension towards Conflict of Interest warranted that A.H. because you blasted COI's differing viewpoints in a condescending manner and interjected an unrealistic solution to the problem that many parents regularly face - "If a child can formulate a question, he or she is ready to hear your honest answer to the question." Ever explained the suicide of a relative/friend to a child when you don't have all the answers to that question yourself? Or what motivates a person to make a BFJ?, etc.

[Mr2001]

Yeticus, you're focusing on the wrong part of that quote:NRS 201.257 “Harmful to minors” defined. “Harmful to minors” means that quality of any description or representation, whether constituting all or a part of the material considered, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sado-masochistic abuse which predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, and is without serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.Can you prove that BFJ predominantly appeals to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interest of minors, and has no serious artistic value?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Yeticus Rex
This would suggest that exhibiting BFJ is subject NRS 201.257 and should be judged by the adult community with respect to minors. Sounds pretty much like parenting (pandering to the youngest common denominator) to me whether you like it or not. Also, I made the example more harsh (BFJ) than your "boys with nipples" example because the question was not that taxing, and did not require the litmus test of the law. Sorry if you weren't able to follow my posts.

Show me in your quote where anything is described as being illegal. Or show me the relevant crime from anywhere else in your cite. A definition does not a crime make; all you're doing is citing a definition.

Daniel

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Yeticus Rex
The new question that comes to mind is in the title: EXHIBITION AND SALE OF OBSCENE MATERIAL TO MINORS.......Does it mean that both exhibition and sale must be achieved to break the law (your viewpoint), or that the two separate actions are grouped together to show congruency in separate criminal actions (my viewpoint)?

Dammit, I wish I could edit posts; THIS was the part I wanted to quote from you.

I backed up my viewpoint by posting the actual real live crimes from the statute. I'll do it again, for your convenience:

NRS 201.265 Unlawful acts; penalty. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 200.720 and 201.2655, a person is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person knowingly:
1. Distributes or causes to be distributed to a minor material that is harmful to minors, unless the person is the parent, guardian or spouse of the minor.

2. Exhibits for distribution to an adult in such a manner or location as to allow a minor to view or to have access to examine material that is harmful to minors, unless the person is the parent, guardian or spouse of the minor.

YOUR viewpoint, that some relevant definition of "exhibition" appears in the ordinance, is mistaken. Given that this is exactly the point I made in my previous post, I'm surprised that you maintain that viewpoint, without providing any contradicting evidence.

When they talk about "exhibition," they're talking about #2 in the quote above.

Just so we're completely clear, here are the rest of the misdemeanors mentioned in this ordinance:

3. Sells to a minor an admission ticket or pass for or otherwise admits a minor for monetary consideration to any presentation of material that is harmful to minors, unless the minor is accompanied by his parent, guardian or spouse.

4. Misrepresents that he is the parent, guardian or spouse of a minor for the purpose of:
(a) Distributing to the minor material that is harmful to minors; or
(b) Obtaining admission of the minor to any presentation of material that is harmful to minors.

5. Misrepresentshis age as 18 or over for the purpose of obtaining:
(a) Material that is harmful to minors; or
(b) Admission to any presentation of material that is harmful to minors.

6. Sells or rents motion pictures which contain material that is harmful to minors on the premises of a business establishment open to minors, unless the person creates an area within the establishment for the placement of the motion pictures and any material that advertises the sale or rental of the motion pictures which:
(a) Prevents minors from observing the motion pictures or any material that advertises the sale or rental of the motion pictures; and
(b) Is labeled, in a prominent and conspicuous location, “Adults Only.”

Clear enough now?
Daniel