jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (26 posts)

Banned Art: Politically Correct or Awful?

  1. ptosis profile image80
    ptosisposted 4 years ago

    I don't know much about art - but I know what I like.

    Just because somebody's art is butt ugly but is trying to say something - should it be banned?

    How about this from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ma … -apartheid

    This art is already destroyed but the guy is  still being sued because

    "Zuma,a Zulu polygamist who has married six times, has four current wives and 21 children &  once stood trial for and was acquitted of rape said: "The portrait depicts me in a manner that suggests I am a philanderer, a womanizer and one with no respect."


    OK But how about offensive art that may include the homemade diorama on the front lawn with Jesus shooting Santa - is that OK?

    http://voices.yahoo.com/images-jesus-mo … 84826.html

    "Considered subversive, dangerous and designed to shock - scandalous depictions of religious icons meant to provoke a visceral reaction from viewers - should they ever be exhibited?"

    This was also destroyed:


    Ugh, Russian Art is an oxymoron, like Russian Humor......

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image90
      oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I am a lover of art, and would hate to see any banned.  There is some especially distasteful art, and I think those kinds speak to the mind and heart of the artist.  In other words, if its truly gross and nasty, then that artist made some art that is, well fill in the blank.  If that is what they want to do with their lives, I suppose there could be worse things!

      Many have heard of the art that was in a jar of urine, or something like that.  I don't think that is art, and it speaks of the person that did that.  (Part of their legacy, is that what they wanted?)  Anyway, its fine, and people can gawk and jeer, etc.  It would be wrong however, to force it to be up in front of say a Catholic Church, meant to cause ongoing harm to its members, as I think the item in the jar was a crucifix?

      So while I don't understand or like that "art", the artist and his or her fans, get what comes with that kind of thing, which seems to include trying to upset people.  Also, instead of trying to produce beautiful or respectable art, they want to do something particularly provocative.  With no redeeming value that I can see.  (I am not a Catholic, btw.)  If they disagree with Catholics for example, that "art" would not be a way to open up meaningful dialogue, or to get them to possibly rethink some erroneous views, etc.  Its intent is to shock and harm.  I think it does more harm to that person that did that.  So that was the example my mind went to.

  2. Haunty profile image84
    Hauntyposted 4 years ago

    Art that conveys the truth is certainly not awful.

    1. ptosis profile image80
      ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think the awful truth can be shown in art when nobody wants to read about it.

  3. springfox profile image60
    springfoxposted 4 years ago

    It is so funny, this thing called art.  A thousand people sees the same exhibit and they come away with a thousand different interpretations.  In the last picture.  I see a little boy dressed in a Mikey Mouse costume strolling his father one side and Jesus on the other.  Is that so bad?  If we want to find something offensive, we will find it.

    1. Disturbia profile image60
      Disturbiaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Really, I see Mickey Mouse, center stage, holding the hands of Lenin and Jesus.  This piece is loaded with symbolism. I can't imagine why anyone would want to destroy it. As for the other, well I believe the picture speaks for itself.

      1. springfox profile image60
        springfoxposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How about me seeing it as the portrayal of 'A little child shall lead them?"

        1. ptosis profile image80
          ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I made a mistake  - only paintings were destroyed and not the sculpture (which woud be a lot harder to do) ----

          One would assume that Disney would want it  destroyed it because of the rabid copyright infringement enforcement.

          Russian Artists Convicted of Inciting Religious Enmity

          "A statue of Mickey Mouse Jesus and Vladimer Lenin angered Orthodox Russians and resulted in not only censorship but a possible sentence of up to three years in prison. The two curators Yuri Samodurov and Andrei Erofeev were fined $6,500 dollars or 200,000 rubles and did not get incarcerated..... The forbidden art exhibition in 2007 at the Sakharov Museum in Russia was, "closed a few days after it opened after a group of altar boys defaced many of the contemporary paintings."  - http://voices.yahoo.com/images-jesus-mo … 84826.html


          Now - it seems that in the free world it's easy to pick on Jesus - but it I were to put up a picture of Muhammad  - well I would have a death fatwa on my head and a roar against Hubpages for allowing me to post.

          So I won't - Just give you the link
          http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_ar … _cartoons/

          I like the one that says "Stop! We have run out of virgins!"

          The virgin thing is interesting because it was based on a historical fact -  that at one time men were kidnapped, drugged and place on a paradise  estate  (thinking that they died and gone to Heaven), they were then taken back and were told to sacrifice themselves in order to return.

          Check out about the Eagle's Nest @ http://www.damninteresting.com/fortress … assassins/


  4. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    The art is making a point, IMHO a valid one.

  5. 61
    topwebdesignerposted 4 years ago

    Certainly vision is important, you are looking something from which angle, the way you are going to decide intake.

    1. Brandon Tart profile image60
      Brandon Tartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      everything visual has a narrative, and theoretically, the visual and the linguistic overlap.  On the matter of banning a work, there is an evident line between what is offensive and what is making a real, legitimate and valid point.  It is called "conceptual art," and it works!  It deals with social issues and political issues, which are really only two sides of the same coin.  But regarding what is aesthetically pleasing, there does not need to be a "beautiful" image to arouse ones senses to the degree that they have what is coined as an "Esthetic Experience."  I dropped the "a" to come to my next  point.  Some art theorists use the "a" this way ... a-esthetics ... to denote that something is "NOT" esthetically pleasing, nor does it carry any conceptual merit that handles socio-polital-economic etc. issues intellectually.

      Brandon H. Tart.  BFA in Sculpture.  <link snipped - no promotional links>

      My goals are to do both, however, if I want to make a political statement I am more inclined to write a book, paper etc. before I go to the extent that many "artists" do to deliver their message in a "shock-fashion."  I also think the way we think, speak, live, and love is a form of social esthetics, so it gives credence to the idea of beauty and esthetics, the need of it, and the benefit of it.

      Some "artists" give Artists a bad name because of how they portray the community.  In reality, I think some artists need to go back to school, or just stop it with all of their "art" making.

  6. LensMan999 profile image54
    LensMan999posted 4 years ago

    Banning a piece of art or work has an evident line between what is offensive and what is making a real, legitimate valid point.
    Art which speaks about the truth is not awful. Conceptual art is something which works and which deal with social issues and political issues, which are really only 2 sides of a coin.

  7. Shaddie profile image93
    Shaddieposted 4 years ago

    Art is art and it should be freely expressed to anyone who wants to experience it. If you find it offensive, don't recommend it to your mom. But what is this obsession with "banning" everything we disagree with?

  8. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
    BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 4 years ago

    I had a pic banned by TeamHubPages of a hot babe wearing a Steelers terrible towel like a miniskirt. The only thing showing was her belly button.

    Talk about censors gone wild.

    The only Art I know anything about is Modell, and he's dead.

    But I must say, I find what's posted on this thread extremely offensive, and everybody who posted should be banned.

    1. ptosis profile image80
      ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That would include yourself - yes?

  9. Tusitala Tom profile image89
    Tusitala Tomposted 4 years ago

    When the Nazis instructed their followers to have people burn certain books which weren't in favour, I guess you could call that being 'politically correct' as far as the Nazis were concerned.  Those words "politically correct" have certainly changed in meaning since those days.   Now we can offend just about anyone with any label.

        When I was a child, little girls often had a rag doll that was commonly called a 'Gollywog.'  Imagine how that would go over now!   And a well known Australian Bush fern was known as a 'Nigger Boy."  Crikey! wouldn't that raise the roof.   Yet neither term was meant to be derogatory by those using them.   Sure they are policially incorrect by today's standards.   But it must be remembered: 'intention' is what counts.   If we are offended by a label the trouble lies in our mind, not in the word or words that triggered our response.

    The change to 'not being offended' must come from us, not from those outside of us.  We're responsible for our REACTIONS and well as our actions.

  10. ptosis profile image80
    ptosisposted 4 years ago

    Yes we can control reaction to a degree. People do offensive on purpose to get a reaction. Such as Pussy Riot ( they got 2 years in jail)

    or Biden's ham it up laughter on the veep debate " to signal incredulity. His none too subtle message: Paul Ryan's arguments are a joke, and he is laughably callow. " - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19930343

    I had an ex that I had a restraining order against to quit bothering me.  One time at the park he came out of the bathroom wildly making  the door slam open in order to frighten me but as soon as I saw who it was, I rolled my eyes and made a disgusted expression on my face.  He was trying his darnest to communicate with me even though any communication would land him back in jail.the last time earned him 90 days after repeated contacts.


  11. clevercatsup profile image61
    clevercatsupposted 4 years ago

    Art can be meant to piss people off. When people get pissed off, something, somewhere, somehow changes. If the world didn't change, if it stayed static, that would go against the law of physics.

  12. daisydayz profile image86
    daisydayzposted 4 years ago

    I don't think anyone should be able to censor art, and the distruction of anothers property, no matter what it is should be illegal. Art is a freedome of speech a personal expression, we souldn't be able to sensor it just becuase we dissagree - it would never end otherwise! If it is offensive to some then just dont go look at it. Its as easy as that. Art, or what is seen as art will always be subjective, no matter what happens. It is like literature, if a book is seen as offensive then chose not to read it, it does not mean it should be distroyed. Think how many books we would now be without if people had distroyed every offensive book of the past - something offensive could be found in so many books!

    I like the comment that some gave above about it being ok that Jesus is mocked or used for humor but if it was Mohammad then it would be an entirely different matter.

    The Jesus, Mickey and Lenin statue, might give some bad connotations - but if you look a the skill and workmanship that actually went into it, it really is a brilliant work of art.

  13. FatFreddysCat profile image94
    FatFreddysCatposted 4 years ago

    Am I the only one who found the Lenin/Mickey/Jesus statue hilarious? All they need to do is add Ronald McDonald to make it a "Fantastic Four"

    1. ptosis profile image80
      ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I just don't Russian humor, it more like WTF?

    2. Jen Card profile image60
      Jen Cardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My only comment is...wonderful thread!  Awesome topic and replies!

      1. Castlepaloma profile image26
        Castlepalomaposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Interesting thread.
        Been G-rated for 40 years. Have been working on non g rated artwork for the last four years. Not sure how to test the waters or to just jump in.

  14. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 21 months ago

    Art and free speech have that in common. 
    You don't have to agree with or like what people do with it to support it.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image26
      Castlepalomaposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Thinks it's safe to show most them, at first.

  15. DRG Da Real Grinc profile image78
    DRG Da Real Grincposted 20 months ago

    The great Fransisco Goya idolized Rembrandt who share similar dark moments in their lives which affected their art. Back in their times only if you were well known can you throw humor and religion together on a canvas or print. If not then you were hung. One should never be subdued to any blockade of expression. Nonetheless a parody form of art which should succumb to less mutiny.