I couldn’t figure out which forum to post this, but this one seems to be the best fit for the subject. In another
, I posted a picture of the album cover "houses of the Holy" to
illustrate a geologic formation as pertinent to the discussion. I used this particular image for two reasons. One, I couldn’t remember the actual
name of the formation and get another image of it, and two, I figured that most people would be familiar enough with that particular image.
At first I was somewhat surprised that someone asked if I was into child pornography based on that image. Either this was a deliberate insult, or my
assumptions of how familiar people were with the image was wrong. (I choose to believe the latter).
I was less surprised therefore when the moderators deleted the image and several other relevant posts.
This is not a complaint. In fact, If someone was offended by the image, then I apologize. It is just that I have seen that album cover so many
times, that I no longer give much thought as to how someone might view it for the first time.
Which brings me to the gist of this post.
Throughout the ages there has been art that has bordered on the acceptable, some times this has been for aesthetic reasons (tastes, if you will),
sometimes for political/ religious reasons (Some of Bosch’s paintings come to mind). In other cases, artist have challenged our perceptions of
reality and morality. Robert Maplethorpe, the DIA Murals, and various other works fall easily into this classification.
At what point do you think that Art, can be distinguished from lesser forms of self expression?
Is it the purpose of Art to challenge our perceptions and beliefs? Or should artists stick to more representational subjects?
How does society mold those perceptions, and by challenging them, to artists help shape the fabric of society?