ZFGC
General => Other Discussion => Boards => Archive => Debates => Topic started by: Hoffy on July 07, 2008, 02:04:21 am
-
Are you for or against censorship in artworks?
It's become quite an issue in Australia recently, with one of our most respected photography artists, Bill Henson, exhibiting photos of a naked 13-year-old girl. The media deemed the artworks as unnecessarily pornographic with themes of pedophilia, even though Bill Henson's intention was to capture the "crossroads" of childhood and adulthood, with nudity used as a means of portraying the "sincere truth".
So these events got me thinking about censorship in art, and I've decided that the perceptions are far too narrow-minded as far as porn in art is concerned. I think it all comes down to the intention of the artist... whether or not they wish to provoke eroticism or some other emotion.
-
All throughout time there have been people who've created things that were seen as pornographic in their times that we now even study as classical art and literature.
-
Are you for or against censorship in artworks?
It's become quite an issue in Australia recently, with one of our most respected photography artists, Bill Henson, exhibiting photos of a naked 13-year-old girl. The media deemed the artworks as unnecessarily pornographic with themes of pedophilia, even though Bill Henson's intention was to capture the "crossroads" of childhood and adulthood, with nudity used as a means of portraying the "sincere truth".
So these events got me thinking about censorship in art, and I've decided that the perceptions are far too narrow-minded as far as porn in art is concerned. I think it all comes down to the intention of the artist... whether or not they wish to provoke eroticism or some other emotion.
Well, I've never considered photos as works of art.
That's just me though. Regardless of what it is, if it is a photo, then it's not a work of art. Anyone can take a photo. If it's a painting, then I consider it a work of art. A picture really only takes a second to do. Yeah you can set up the whatever in a certain way but it is still *snap*...
Lol I didn't answer your question directly >.>
-
Are you for or against censorship in artworks?
I'm against censorship. Period. Especially in art.
-
Are you for or against censorship in artworks?
I'm against censorship. Period. Especially in art.
LOL.
Really? Then that means that you would be alright with people saying every cuss word there is on the tv.
Also, people could be blatantly racist on the tv and everywhere else.
-
Are you for or against censorship in artworks?
I'm against censorship. Period. Especially in art.
LOL.
Really? Then that means that you would be alright with people saying every cuss word there is on the tv.
Also, people could be blatantly racist on the tv and everywhere else.
I get the feeling you're just using racism to campaign for censorship.
First of all, it will never come down to that, but if it did- I would tolerate racism if it meant 100% freedom.
-
Are you for or against censorship in artworks?
I'm against censorship. Period. Especially in art.
LOL.
Really? Then that means that you would be alright with people saying every cuss word there is on the tv.
Also, people could be blatantly racist on the tv and everywhere else.
I get the feeling you're just using racism to campaign for censorship.
First of all, it will never come down to that, but if it did- I would tolerate racism if it meant 100% freedom.
Um, actually .takam, if you ever followed some of my serious posts, you would find that I don't like censorship...lol That would mean the government is controlling what I am saying.
I was just playing the devil's advocate against Shefali ^^.
-
Are you for or against censorship in artworks?
I'm against censorship. Period. Especially in art.
LOL.
Really? Then that means that you would be alright with people saying every cuss word there is on the tv.
Also, people could be blatantly racist on the tv and everywhere else.
(I don't really watch tv, save for stand-up comedy, which can contain a lot of swearing and racism anyway.)
"Cuss words" don't bother me. It annoys me when people complain about "bad language" ('specially my mom, because she's a hypocrite).
-
There is a difference between art and pornography. Why do officials not realize this? Hell, censorship in general is !@#$% hypocritical. It only draws more attention to what is being censored. Blurring out a penis or beeping out a curse only sends a stronger message of "Hey, a penis!" or "Someone just cussed!"
-
I have nothing against censorship when used appropriately (sorry, but at 10am on a saturday theres no need for a TV show to say "!@#$% !@#$% !@#$% BALLS"; censorship is good when they know kids are watching :P); but in artwork; no.
Porn however is not art <_< I know pornographers would say "OH IT IS SO" but !@#$% that !@#$% lol they get paid to get people off, not to intrigue people with talent
-
People get offended far too easily these days, plus people do things for money like "I know the guy who killed Timmy, I hired him" just for attention. !@#$%, it's considered offensive to touch people these days and people purposely let the 'wrong' thoughts of an act inside their head "omfg that kid is topless and an adult is touching him, omfg gay pedophile!" when really he's just treating a wound of an infant.
Anyways, that's not the point, but seriously...it was intended to be art, if it wasn't then that would raise questions but people want to raise questions for attention and money.
But yes, I'm sick of the bloody media going on about nudity in minors for art as being pornography. Let them be, nothing's hidden, it's an expression, seriously it's not like the 13 year old was posing like a pornstar or anything -_-. If it was a minor 'posing for the intention of sexual arousal' then perhaps yes, censor that. Only people with sick/twisted minds would think anything dirty about that picture, let it be their problem only *sigh*.
-
If the work was put in a porn magazine or porn site, it would've been considered pornographic and against the law, but when it's hung in an art gallery, it's considered as art? That means pornographers should be allowed to put their work in galleries too.
Censorship is fine as it is, although the age may be lowered, as right now it says 'those under 18 cannot be responsible' while itcould be lowered in some cases, censorship is implemented to hide the truth from kids who cannot comprehend what their mind is showing them. Which is in my opinion just.
-
If the work was put in a porn magazine or porn site, it would've been considered pornographic and against the law, but when it's hung in an art gallery, it's considered as art? That means pornographers should be allowed to put their work in galleries too.
Censorship is fine as it is, although the age may be lowered, as right now it says 'those under 18 cannot be responsible' while itcould be lowered in some cases, censorship is implemented to hide the truth from kids who cannot comprehend what their mind is showing them. Which is in my opinion just.
no...
People get off to animals having sex, should all those documentaries be r18?
No I'm not saying something with the potential to arouse a pervert is educational, I'm saying that since you can put a horrible skew on anything by changing the context- the context simply should not matter.
It's like if someone likes to go hunting, and I call them a criminal because hey- put them in a bank and I'm right.
-
If the work was put in a porn magazine or porn site, it would've been considered pornographic and against the law, but when it's hung in an art gallery, it's considered as art? That means pornographers should be allowed to put their work in galleries too.
Censorship is fine as it is, although the age may be lowered, as right now it says 'those under 18 cannot be responsible' while itcould be lowered in some cases, censorship is implemented to hide the truth from kids who cannot comprehend what their mind is showing them. Which is in my opinion just.
no...
People get off to animals having sex, should all those documentaries be r18?
No I'm not saying something with the potential to arouse a pervert is educational, I'm saying that since you can put a horrible skew on anything by changing the context- the context simply should not matter.
It's like if someone likes to go hunting, and I call them a criminal because hey- put them in a bank and I'm right.
Well, That is different because that is an action, not an image, actions must have choices to be performed, and it affects different people, and the person cannot just change from hunting as a sport and hunting for revenge or money, while an image can be put elsewhere and still retain everything that it was.
And as for the documentries, animals making love happens everywhere, you may see it when walking down the street, it's natural, now I know the human body is natural as well, but the way humans have changed it has now become very secret or private, and the people who display themselves have feelings and care for doing this, that !@#$% who posed for the photos may not think so now, but when she's older she will (hopefully) realise that it was wrong to let herself be so open with herself, imagine her going to school and having a trip to the gallery, and every body seeing the exhibit would see her naked. think about how that would feel.
-
I would just have an issue with the girl being 13 years old. She's still quite young tight butthole, and is it OK for her body to be shown naked for photography?
I wouldnt consider this porn, and if it's all ethical and stuff with the girl being 13 and whatever, then I think it's fine as being an accepted piece of artwork which doesn't need to be censored.
-
Well, That is different because that is an action, not an image, actions must have choices to be performed, and it affects different people, and the person cannot just change from hunting as a sport and hunting for revenge or money, while an image can be put elsewhere and still retain everything that it was.
And as for the documentries, animals making love happens everywhere, you may see it when walking down the street, it's natural, now I know the human body is natural as well, but the way humans have changed it has now become very secret or private, and the people who display themselves have feelings and care for doing this, that !@#$% who posed for the photos may not think so now, but when she's older she will (hopefully) realise that it was wrong to let herself be so open with herself, imagine her going to school and having a trip to the gallery, and every body seeing the exhibit would see her naked. think about how that would feel.
Humans haven't really changed, perceptions have changed.
And holy crap, she wasn't intending anything sexual, how the hell can you call her a !@#$%?
Obviously you're seeing this as you've been trained to see it, but man "hopefully she will realize that it was wrong to let her be so open with herself"- that was painful to read.
-
Humans haven't really changed, perceptions have changed.
And holy crap, she wasn't intending anything sexual, how the hell can you call her a !@#$%?
Obviously you're seeing this as you've been trained to see it, but man "hopefully she will realize that it was wrong to let her be so open with herself"- that was painful to read.
I'll agree with the fact perceptions have changed, but those perceptions is are now what we have.
She let her body be photographed naked to be put up in gallaries around the world, she's 13! Thousands of people who she doesn't even know hve just seen everything about her. Imagine being at school like she is, everyone around her could see her naked. It's just wrong.
-
Humans haven't really changed, perceptions have changed.
And holy crap, she wasn't intending anything sexual, how the hell can you call her a !@#$%?
Obviously you're seeing this as you've been trained to see it, but man "hopefully she will realize that it was wrong to let her be so open with herself"- that was painful to read.
I'll agree with the fact perceptions have changed, but those perceptions is are now what we have.
She let her body be photographed naked to be put up in gallaries around the world, she's 13! Thousands of people who she doesn't even know hve just seen everything about her. Imagine being at school like she is, everyone around her could see her naked. It's just wrong.
And what if she doesn't mind?
Obviously she was photographed voluntarily. She wasn't drugged and then photographed, she raised her hand and volunteered. She should know perfectly well the consequences you've discussed, and if she doesn't, that's her mistake, not the photographer's. The photographer/artist needed her body to express his feelings towards the subject. That's what art is.
If people were more open-minded they'd look at the artwork and they wouldn't see an exposed girl with such-and-such's name, but rather they'd see emotion. When people can become more accepting of these harmless images... it's something artists are working towards, but they keep getting held back. How is the world supposed to move on into a new age of new art and changed perceptions when little things like censorship keeping holding them back? How do you think the transition from the boring Neoclassicist era to the awe-inspiring Romanticist era came about? New ideas in art and literature was one thing, but the acceptance from society was also vital. Do you see my point? People complain that the world sucks and they want people to change, but they're not really helping with that progression. Things as simple as open-mindedness and acceptance can move society forward to better things, and better lives.
Not referring to you specifically, Vandavil :P.
-
Humans haven't really changed, perceptions have changed.
And holy crap, she wasn't intending anything sexual, how the hell can you call her a !@#$%?
Obviously you're seeing this as you've been trained to see it, but man "hopefully she will realize that it was wrong to let her be so open with herself"- that was painful to read.
I'll agree with the fact perceptions have changed, but those perceptions is are now what we have.
She let her body be photographed naked to be put up in gallaries around the world, she's 13! Thousands of people who she doesn't even know hve just seen everything about her. Imagine being at school like she is, everyone around her could see her naked. It's just wrong.
because a nude human body shows everything about the person... wow
-
Reminds me of back in highschool, a girl in the class above mine did some porn.
Of course every one saw it, even some teachers admitted to seeing it, but she didn't really mind.
everyone had their own little opinion about her or what she did, but I don't recall anyone ever trying to do anything
and this is also like that old episode of south park where they debate changing the flag
If you need reminding, the flag showed a black stick figure being hung with white stick figures dancing around it.
The 4 main boys thought the problem people had with the flag was due to the hanging, they didn't even notice anything racial about it.
A huge racist would want to leave the flag as is, and someone who doesn't even register race would want to leave it as is.
Basically, it's important to keep in mind that two completely different motives can be behind the same action.