Should certain forms of art, political cartoons be banned?

1. 66

   ptosisposted 7 years ago

   Should certain forms of art, political cartoons be banned?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 54

   peter565posted 7 years ago

   Ahh...yes and no, art work like television need to have rating, some are not suitable for children. Other art work eg those which can result in defamation, can consider been ban. The rest, there is no point of banning it. The principle is not to cause harm to peace and harmony between people and within society, art work that cause no harm to peace and harmony between people and within society, should be allowed, as long as peace and harmony can be maintain. But causing harm to peace and harmony might not be enough also, we need to consider both the mean and the end. As for art work such as this one, personally, I don't like it, as male homosexuality gross me out, but just because we don't like something, doesn't give us the right to censor it, in this world, there are always going to be stuff we like and stuff we don't like, but we can not say "we are only allow things we like." otherwise I can also say "I don't like the fact, the hot girls is your girl friend and not mine, therefore, u can not date any hot girl I got my eye on and if I want to have sex with a hot girl or having a hot girl giving me a blow job, she cannot say no." the world would be a horrible place, if people only allow stuff they like.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Great answer, .

      replyreport
3. 94

   lisavollrathposted 7 years ago

   No. Just because you disagree with an artwork or a cartoon, or don't like it's political implications, doesn't mean it should be censored.
   
   If you don't like it, avert your eyes. If you don't want to support it, don't purchase the newspaper or magazine in which it appears. But don't assume that because it doesn't fit your ideology, it shouldn't exist.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      excellent answer

      replyreport
4. 60

   Erin Wisemanposted 7 years ago

   No.  I feel like that is the opposite of freedom of expression.

   replyreport
5. 45

   Ericdierkerposted 7 years ago

   Absolutely!! Certain stuff should be banned entirely.And not one of them by the government. I ban certain stuff from my home with my young child. Some stuff I see as having no redeeming social value. So it is banned. I believe that is how it should be.
   I think maybe our rating system is good for most. But in raising my children I pretty much open up the works at around 14 years old - give or take.Better we discuss things by that age.
   It makes me real nervous when high schools and public libraries ban things.If they could they would certainly have to ban the Bible for some of that OT tawdry stuff of adultery, multiple wives and killing babies.
   I wonder, if we banned hate speech, what would people do with all that anger -- probably not good.
   I like the idea of making love, but I do not like the idea of watching others do it.
   My wife bans a whole lot of language in our home -- so my son and I say some without her hearing and giggle(ass). I think that kind of tells of one great reason not to ban.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Confusing your own private own with public display. And yes you have a valid point.  Certain states have to have magazine rack of porno covered with a block so not visible to a child. I'm all for that!

      replyreport
   2. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      eh.. we where talking about banning art and cartoons, not banning porn,  hate speeches or four letter words. Stay on the subject.

      replyreport
   3. 45

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Peter -- you ok?
      "Should certain forms of art, political cartoons be banned?" Speech, writing, photography are certain forms of art. And the question includes cartoons.  Maybe you were only thinking cartoons, But it is not exclusive.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      A hate speech is not a form of art. To ban this is a different question. I completely agree with you that everybody can personally ban stuff from their own home. And it should not be done by the government.
      I'm simply confused by your answer.

      replyreport
   5. 45

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Peter maybe there is a reason you were confused by my answer, I often am ;-)
      That is an awesome concept - Hate speech cannot be art? Just say a cartoon showing and expressing hate about Pol Pot? To me Dali's Guernica depicts hate of war. Hmm

      replyreport
   6. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The guernica is from Picasso. And a cartoon is not a speach. I can imagine a hate speach on the stage or in a movie. But a hate speach in the political arena is not art. hate is an emotion to superficial and simplistic for an artist to use.

      replyreport
   7. 45

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      My bad on poor old Picasso. I wonder why I recalled Dali? I reckon you are correct to a degree. Being a public speaker in a few areas, I guess I just thought of that as art. Maybe Socrates was not an artist.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No I don't think Socrates was an artist, although he was crafty with words ;-) it's an interesting question though, and I will think about an artist who uses hate as a theme. The Guernica is more suffering and pain because of war then hate I think.

      replyreport
   9. 45

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for working through this with me Peter. Now the question asked "certain forms of art". Are you saying you can judge what is art, and cast aside that whch does not meet your criteria. Not your claim but it does beg the question. Art definiti

      replyreport
   10. 66

       ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       @Peter: Political cartoons is free speech, and yes can include hate. Righteous anger is not a sin.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       @eric I'm an art teacher and yes can judge what's art and what's not.
       @ptotis. Yes, political cartoons can be a form of art. But the ones that consists only out of hate are poorly of content and are not art.
       I don't know nothing about sin.

       replyreport
   12. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Peter you do mean you have an opinion as to what art is, correct? You are not saying that ifsome one disagrees with you they are wrong are you?

       replyreport
   13. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       What I mean is that there is a global consensus of what art is and what's not. There are criteria. Like recognition in the art world, concept, context, etc. regardless of my taste.

       replyreport
   14. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Interesting. Maybe too far afield for this question but; If creativity is the basis how can a box be built into which something must fit or not be art. The two definitions I read had no criteria -- just "typically" notions. I get generally.

       replyreport
   15. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       There is a framework (box) that defines art but the borders and rules are constantly tested by artists.
       Creativity is a part of art but not everything. Cooking can be creative but is not art. Although an artwork can include cooking.

       replyreport
   16. 66

       ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Cooking is not art?  Wow. Too many McDonald's Unhappy meals for you.

       replyreport
   17. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       haha, that famous golden garbage can that calls itself a "restaurant".

       replyreport
   18. 45

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       My daughter says my kitchen looks like a drip painting when I create a meal.
       But I get your point Peter. It sounds a lot like the debate about "what is pornography" or "is it a game or a sport". But your idea is that it is a starting point I gather.

       replyreport
   19. 0

       PeterStipposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       yes. I ask my students sometimes: name an artwork you think is good but dont like and name an artwork you like but don't think is good
       There is a difference in taste and quality of art.
       I don't like the Nightwatch by Rembrandt but know its high art.

       replyreport
6. 87

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   No, and the self-censorship of criticism of Islam is absolutely dangerous because it sets the precedence that if you want critical content censored, just kill a few people and the rest will obey out of fear.

   replyreport
7. 0

   savvydatingposted 7 years ago

   No, but maybe you should be banned. Or maybe you should get a life. Seems to me you spend most of your time looking for offensive cartoons. Pathetic.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What a lovely thought Yves, You are always able to express yourself so succinctly even though you contradicted yourself in a single short sentence. Well thought out. Bravo!

      replyreport
8. 52

   xhinoireposted 7 years ago

   Absolutely not. The human mind needs freedom to criticise, evaluate, question and provoke.  Artists use their talents for self expression, empowerment of others, in protest and to tell a story. Call me crazy but when did that become a bad thing ?

   replyreport
9. 0

   PeterStipposted 7 years ago

   No,
   As soon as politics decides what kind of art is good or is bad for you, you know that the government is against freedom of speech.
   Art is a mirror of the society. It reflects ideas, trends and thoughts. You may not always like an artwork but that´s not a reason to forbid it.
   No artwork has ever killed anybody. It´s not the terrorists who use art as a weapon against political regimes. Dictatorships and terrorist organisations destroy and ban art. They fear it.
   As soon as a politician, may it be left wing or right wing wants art or political cartoons banned it shows itself as a dictatorial or fascist regime.
   Just like politics and religion should be separated, so politics and art should be separated. In a truly free country you have the freedom of religion and expression. A society without art is a dead society. You need art (visual, poetry, literature, film, cartoons, music etc.) to enrich peoples lives. And art has a large scope. From cutting edge that's only for insiders up to popular art that's wildly known. Just like some science is only understandable for a small elite, so some art is, nothing wrong with that. Progress is made by change. Without change everything will stay the same and degenerate in the end.
   If you can not stand political cartoons or can't stand criticism then you should not choose a profession that's public like being a politician or a famous movie star. It's part of the job.

   replyreport
10. 60

    Araazposted 7 years ago

    well freedom of speech and thought ,but I think people need to stop now..I mean there is no respect for the leader and its sad. He may have flaws and is blind to see things in different way but criticism always instigate rather than changing people in a positive way..

    replyreport
    1. 66

       ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Have to earn respect to get respect

       replyreport