Censorship and Art

[Pluto]

For me it is one of the most powerful aspects of art, that you do not have to be skillful at something or spend half your life learning. Those restrictions art is beyond. A splodge is a splodge, can we see the artwork you speak of?

[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

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.

Yes I know what you mean, the Hindley painting is in bad taste, and fired up a lot of people, especially those directly involved with her crimes. Yet it was probably made (not sure) for the exhibition called SENSATION by Saatchi. So it would certainly cause one. The person who destroys the work of art is not necassarily an artist let alone the true artist. He or she may consider themselves not artists and are just very angry at the bitch in the painting and the artist who made it, I don't think that because the artwork inspired someone to destroy said artwork it means that they are artists. Artists aren't people who just express themselves and their feelings, they might be concerned with how images are used and thought about in our society and how those ideas might be articulated in their work. Thinking is a major part of painting and art.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

For me it is one of the most powerful aspects of art, that you do not have to be skillful at something or spend half your life learning. Those restrictions art is beyond. A splodge is a splodge, can we see the artwork you speak of?

If you want to paint something worth looking at then you do. So what you are saying is that Da Vinci and Vermeer are the same as that clown who preserves cows in formaldehyde? A poorly-constructed shack is the same as a cathedral? Why is it that visual art should be different from all the other arts? Culture is supposed to be about striving for the very best. Does EVERYTHING have to be dumbed down?

[Pluto]

For me it is one of the most powerful aspects of art, that you do not have to be skillful at something or spend half your life learning. Those restrictions art is beyond. A splodge is a splodge, can we see the artwork you speak of?

If you want to paint something worth looking at then you do. So what you are saying is that Da Vinci and Vermeer are the same as that clown who preserves cows in formaldehyde? A poorly-constructed shack is the same as a cathedral? Why is it that visual art should be different from all the other arts? Culture is supposed to be about striving for the very best. Does EVERYTHING have to be dumbed down?

No I'm not saying they're the same, they're different, and importantly, as are the times each artist found or finds himself herself in. There are painters who paint like Vermeer today but it is alien to the time in which it finds itself. It cannot speak of the contemporary world so easily with the approach taken. Everything now is PR and advertising as D. Hirst appears to understand. A cow cut in half in formaldehyde if you want, enables you to see the internal workings of the animal, the way it's all constructed and the colours, of course we are also built in a similar way inside, so perhaps this is more interesting that looking at a Da Vinci, of course it is. Da Vinci is great art, we are told, I agree though, his drawings of water are amazing, but it is the past, we need an art that can show us where we are at in the present, or where we might be heading, what is the time we live in, Da Vinci cannot do that. I'll come back to the cathedral and other questions when I have more time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

For me it is one of the most powerful aspects of art, that you do not have to be skillful at something or spend half your life learning. Those restrictions art is beyond. A splodge is a splodge, can we see the artwork you speak of?

If you want to paint something worth looking at then you do. So what you are saying is that Da Vinci and Vermeer are the same as that clown who preserves cows in formaldehyde? A poorly-constructed shack is the same as a cathedral? Why is it that visual art should be different from all the other arts? Culture is supposed to be about striving for the very best. Does EVERYTHING have to be dumbed down?

No I'm not saying they're the same, they're different, and importantly, as are the times each artist found or finds himself herself in. There are painters who paint like Vermeer today but it is alien to the time in which it finds itself. It cannot speak of the contemporary world so easily with the approach taken. Everything now is PR and advertising as D. Hirst appears to understand. A cow cut in half in formaldehyde if you want, enables you to see the internal workings of the animal, the way it's all constructed and the colours, of course we are also built in a similar way inside, so perhaps this is more interesting that looking at a Da Vinci, of course it is. Da Vinci is great art, we are told, I agree though, his drawings of water are amazing, but it is the past, we need an art that can show us where we are at in the present, or where we might be heading, what is the time we live in, Da Vinci cannot do that. I'll come back to the cathedral and other questions when I have more time.

Whatever. All very comforting to those without talent.

[Pluto]

Talent is over-rated and ultimately serves capital. Artists are political.