I just wanted to take one more shot at this. There is a 20th century composer namedSchnittke. 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?
Do you like Robert Frost, 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:
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.
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 -
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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 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.
**
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.
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.
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?
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.