Art and censorship

The discussion of the denver airport murals in another thread has raised the question of what is an apropriate theme for public art. When should art be censored?

Based on the remarks of some of the posters to that thread, it would seem that some people would censor art they deem inapropriate for political reasons.

They ignore the fact that cicano art and murals are often emotionally charged.

Should Hariet Tubman be considered armed and dangerous?

The case of the Katherine Anne Porter school is another interesting example.

Or how about the KKK mural?

Picasso's guernica is a classic of the genre.

What do you think?

Should we censor art we do not happen to agree with?




[Edited on 17-5-2004 by HowardRoark]

[Edited on 17-5-2004 by HowardRoark]

I would sincerely hope that most people would not attempt to censor art that they do not agree with, but simply choose not to view it.

With that said, you have to ask what were the "powers that be" thinking when they commishioned these works? If I asked someone to paint or create a work of art for me, I would want it done to my specifications or according to a theme. Would you ever allow someone such carte blanche in your personal dealings.

I find it funny when someone does a controversial piece that the people who commishioned the project are always shocked at either the public's outrage or the artists final result. What did they expect?

There's a couple of interesting issues here. The first is the idea of censorship. Censorship can only be carried out by the government. There is no such thing as censorship by a corporation or individual. When a corporation or individual decides not to show or air an event, they are merely acting within their rights as the owner of the venue. This is not censorship!

On the otherhand, if the government elects to block the airing of an event for political reasons, that is censorship. In the event the material in question is offensive to the community at large, that would not constitute censorship.

A gray area is a semi-public facility such as an airport. While supported to a certain degree by public funds, the ultimate responsibility falls to a private enterprise. In this case, the airport. Given the traffic in an airport, and the fact that children and others who may be offended by certain "art works", cannot avoid seeing them in a publicly funded environment where the purpose is not an art exhibit, then both the government and a private organization charged with management of the facility may restrict what is exhibited.

In short, avoid problems, use good taste in what you're doing. Don't try and use an airport to make your point -- you'll lose!!!!
Yes! This is meant to represent a wide cross-section of opinions in graphical format! Whatever!?!?!??!

[Edited on 5/17/2004 by CommonSense]

How about other venues besides airports, like the side of a building?



It looks like that flying guy is trying to shove a Mexican flag up the astronaut's but.

Hrm, the school incident seems particularly sticky. I dont knwo about that school, but at my college I was informed up front that any code I wrote there was MINE, even if written on school computers. I wonder if the same would be true for art done by a student at a school? Of course a mural painted directly onto a wall isint something you can just take home, but the plywood used in the gym should have at least been made available for the student to purchase or take home if the school deemed it unfit for use in public view.

FWIW:

excelent site with links to Chicano murals in L.A.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How about other venues besides airports, like the side of a building?

I think that would probably fall in with airports. If people in general have to use the route, you're swimmin' upstream! If the side of the building is an elementary school, well, need I say anything? The fact is, if people want exposure for publicly displayed art, they can usually get it, if they use a little CommonSense.

I don't doubt that differences of opinions between patrons and atrists have existed since the first neanderthal slapped a muddy hadprint on a cave wall, and that is what many of these issues boil down to.

However: The situation with the elementary school mural in the above post was poorly handled by the school board. That was a clear case of censorship based on ideological grounds.

Some of the greatest works of art are controversial. Does that mean that you should have an image of the KKK in a public mural? probably not.

On the other hand, as it is clearly evident in the links to various Chicano murals, the particular art style and subject matter in the Denver airport murals are well within the stylistic parameters of that genre. Therefore, any objections to the work based on an ideological objection to its style and substance are wrong.

Newcastle student's sex show passed off as art
www.sundaysun.co.uk...
The filming took place at Newcastle University, UK.

This is the forum link given at end of article
forums.sundaysun.co.uk...

Do you consider the sex film mentioned in the article to be art? I don't.

Here are some comments from the forum

steveuk wrote:
I have to say i think this is art. The best sort of art at that it provokes a reaction. If anyone doesn't think it is art i suggest they get a good dictionary and look at the meaning of that word.

BetweenMyths wrote:
9/11 caused a reaction, do you believe that was art?

I suppose you believe paedophiles are artists too?

www.sundaysun.co.uk...
“I really wanted to shock people by making the film and after the show, people said it did just that...It was based on the idea that with things like the internet and TV, the only way you feel anything now is through sex and violence.”

[quote="steveuk]So you saying because you don't want it it is not art?

No one individual can say something is not art.