Censorship and Art

[Pluto]

Recently there's been an exhibition closed at the Barbican in London because of protest. It made me think again about art and ethics or art and morality. What happens when they are sharing the same space. I believe the society we currently inhabit to be sick on many levels, to put it simply and mildly. Therefore the art is sick, or rather, the art which comes out of this society and is judged as good, is actually bad, bad, in a moral sense. This then makes me wonder: what ethical or moral art might look like in relation to the status quo?

If you're interested look at the links below.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... t-b-racist

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/the-art ... twins-2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=win_Cwj-gSw

[artisticsolution]

For art to be note worthy there has to be something unique about it. There is so much competition that I think art can only be considered 'great' in hindsight. It is so much harder for human beings to judge things while they are comparing them to the present day ideals and trends.

Have you noticed alot of the time in art contests what will win is art that has been done before or depicts current trends. For example, art that looks like similar to Picasso or say art that has an owl with a trendy pattern or color combination. Even though it appeals to us, I don't think it will go down in time as noteworthy unless it is done by someone with an element of fame or fortune. And even time will judge them...and time doesn't usually care who had fame or fortune, time is more honest because everyone it might be tempted to want to impress is dead. What is left is the true few who created something unique...who will be considered noteworthy for the sake of art alone.

I think that is what the artist who like to shock are trying to do. I don't think they are necessarily immoral, but rather they want to make noteworthy art. The problem is, is that when everyone is doing it, it just becomes part of the crowd. Although, there is something to be said for clumping artist into a category such as impressionists, realists, expressionists, etc.

It is hard for artists now to stand out in the crowd. Can't really blame them for trying. I think we have to give them credit for at least trying to make to make us think outside of what is trendy and popular.

[Pluto]

Hmm, interesting AS, thanks.

[WanderingLands]

I watched the first few minutes of that YouTube video, and I definitely see that art now days has been degraded into this 'shock' fest. I recall watching this video 'The What is Art Show', which talked about how artists like Marcel Duncamp and other avant-garde artists were promoted by the CIA (as I remember watching the video).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKWwXy0YiIM

As far as the first link goes, though, the whole closing of the exhibition was a bit too unnecessary, which is the result of too much political correctness and racial charge among the black people.

[WanderingLands]

I watched the first few minutes of that YouTube video, and I definitely see that art now days has been degraded into this 'shock' fest. I recall watching this video 'The What is Art Show', which talked about how artists like Marcel Duncamp and other avant-garde artists were promoted by the CIA (as I remember watching the video).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKWwXy0YiIM

[Pluto]

Yes, thanks WL, I have also heard about the CIA being involved with art. Promoting the Abstract Expressionists, helping to make the US cultural nation supreme, taking the title away from Paris.

[Pluto]

Just to put this above those three about beauty

[Pluto]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/o ... vandalised

[A_Seagull]

Art is so subjective it is absurd to try to define what is 'art' and what is not. One person's art is another persons porn and another person's graffiti and another person's garbage. There will always be people who don't like other people's art, and others who will be offended by it and others who will simply be bored by it.

[Pluto]

Yes, we know all can be art since Duchamp. But here we talk about an artworks ethicality. Because religion has broke down or is being surpassed (and art has properties of religion), enlightenment values have ran their course and do not work so well in the construction of a globalised world, then art can step in as holding some kind of light, or torch in the dark. It can hold onto, incorporate into itself certain values which will be carried through the storm. So what would be an ethical art going forward today? Can art house values other than those we currently live under? What is the art of anarchists? Is there such a thing, etc.

[Impenitent]

spray painted graffiti on crucifixes...

buy buy buy from circle A...

-Imp

[Lev Muishkin]

Recently there's been an exhibition closed at the Barbican in London because of protest. It made me think again about art and ethics or art and morality. What happens when they are sharing the same space. I believe the society we currently inhabit to be sick on many levels, to put it simply and mildly. Therefore the art is sick, or rather, the art which comes out of this society and is judged as good, is actually bad, bad, in a moral sense. This then makes me wonder: what ethical or moral art might look like in relation to the status quo?

If you're interested look at the links below.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... t-b-racist

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/the-art ... twins-2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=win_Cwj-gSw

I was immediately attracted to this thread as I am currently reading Jacob Epstein's autobiography.
He was commissioned for a series architectural sculptures for the building of the British Medical Association BMA building in 1908. As the scupltures were erected (so far off the ground it was no possible to see them easily), he received a hail of abuse, and demands to take them down due to nudity. They were described as no image a man would want his fiance to see!
The art establishment rallied and the statues got a 20 year reprieve until the building was sold the Rhodesian Embassy, who immediately began to take step to remove them, despite them being integral with the architecture. Once again, the art establishment got a stay of execution, but mysteriously 2 years later they were mutilated, and remain in that state to this day.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5148/5699 ... 506f_z.jpg

In the first instance the objection was about nudity, in the Victorian 'fig-leafing" attitude of the day.
But in the 1930s? It is more difficult to understand why. Perhaps nothing more than anti-semitism.
The Rhodesians claimed that having bought the building they could do what they wanted with it.
They said the art was "topical" and not appropriate with the building's new function.

[Pluto]

spray painted graffiti on crucifixes...

buy buy buy from circle A...

-Imp

Yeah, A crucifix submerged in the artist's piss. Too easy. like flogging a dead horse. A photo-realist painting of T. Blair in bed reading a copy of The Project For A New American Century would be good to see. His wife by his side, asleep.

[Lev Muishkin]

Recently there's been an exhibition closed at the Barbican in London because of protest. It made me think again about art and ethics or art and morality. What happens when they are sharing the same space. I believe the society we currently inhabit to be sick on many levels, to put it simply and mildly. Therefore the art is sick, or rather, the art which comes out of this society and is judged as good, is actually bad, bad, in a moral sense. This then makes me wonder: what ethical or moral art might look like in relation to the status quo?

If you're interested look at the links below.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... t-b-racist

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/the-art ... twins-2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=win_Cwj-gSw

In Bad art for bad people I thought the use of Myra Hindley but the "artist" (who did noting more than get someone to print the image) was a poorly conceived and empty statement of art, devoid of personal engagement, and printed in the hope of shock and notoriety
But this did stimulate a real act of artistry. The person who in anger dashed the image with red ink was a true artist, full of emotion and engagement. His passionate act was a true and honest expression of his feelings.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Everyone thinks they are an 'artist' these days. You used to have to earn the title after years of hard work and study (unless you were a natural genius, but you will find they work at it too). Now you can put a splodge on a piece of paper and call yourself one. Imagine someone getting away with calling themselves a concert pianist, then giving a concert and playing chopsticks over and over. That's the same thing as far as I'm concerned.