Tasteless Art vs. The First Ammendment

Great Debates
21

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

22

Christopher Marlowe. Ben Jonson.

Do I get a prize? :slight_smile:

23

That’s what I was going to say, E-Sabbath. Two is easy; can anybody name four? :wink:

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.

24

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!

25

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?

26

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?

27

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.

28

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” -

29

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

30

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

31

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?

32

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?

33

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

34

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.

35

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?

36

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.

37

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.

38

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.

39

**

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?

**
Wake up, where is this in the constitution again? Oh, right.

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.

40

Yes.

No, he was littering.

No permit, no boxes, you want to put your crap in a public place, you get a permit.

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.

: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’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.”