TheJHub.com

All > Arts & Entertainment > Fine Arts
Should art be censored?
Topics:
Posted by Jen1180 Wed May 14, 2008 09:34:26 MDT
Viewed 351 times
0 responses 15 comments

Reply or Comment

Send to a Friend

Report a Violation

Comment From: jinx

I think it depends. You can "label" just about anything as being art. Nudity if displayed in a tastful manner such as, this picture, is art. I dont think something like porn is art. Things like that should be censered. Considering the manner of this picture, it shouldnt have been censered. Society today is just scared of the human body and the sexuality of human nature. So, most things get slapped "inaproperate" unfairly. Comment From: Jen1180

The piece was allowed to be in the show, but she had to put black bars, much as I have done in the picture above, over certain parts of it. Comment From: unboxed

I think it's all dependent on the audience. If the audience will include young children, I think the organizers have the right to censor material accordingly. Moreover, a mall is supposed to be family friendly. Comment From: HuntRyan

In the words of Justice Potter Stewart in his concurrence in Jacobellis V. Ohio (1964): "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [of obscenity]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it." Thus the question becomes, is the drawing obscene? Whether children are viewing it or not is irrelevant (as parents should censor the content from their children, not the government.) The relevant issue is whether this picture is obscene, or artistic. Was its intent to excite the base desires of the carnal mind? I think clearly the answer is no. No black bars, no nothing. This piece should have been shown as is. They allow naked women in African tribes to be filmed and shown on the discovery channel, but a girl can't tastefully DRAW a representation of the naked female form? This, my friends, is why John Stuart Mill felt literally NO censorship of expression or ideas was justified - it leads to ridiculous situations such as this. Comment From: Jen1180

By the way all, this drawing was inspired by the Alfred Hitchcock movie "The Birds," hence the birds and drawing of Alfred Hitchcock. Just thought I'd throw that out there in case you were wondering. Also, I am going to be getting a hold of the artist soon to get her take on it. Comment From: Ike

The mall is private property ran by a private company. Anything that goes on inside the mall can be censored anyway the company sees fit. If the art is on display, but deemed offensive by the company, it is the right of the company to handle the situation however they desire. Besides, I've seen "the Birds". Since when were there naked chicks in that movie? Or did I so happen to get the edited version? Comment From: unboxed

The reason why this was censored is because the private institution (the mall) thought it would offend those with small children at the mall. I am glad that the family institution took steps to maintain their standards.

I quote: "I believe that children shouldnt be hid from breasts or other body parts."

I would much rather my 4 yr. old first learn how to use her fingers to count before moving on to the uses of other body parts. What she sees at such a tender age will no doubt affect her, and I wouldn't want to inspire her curiosity outside of the basic essentials that a 4 year old needs to know.

My 4 year old wouldn't know it was "just art". Comment From: unboxed

I agree, I think putting up censored art detracts from the original work, and is better off not being displayed in the first place. However, it is the mall's prerogative.

No where did I say I favored sheltering children or hiding from them truths about life. Nor did I say I would not appropriately answer questions my children would have. What I did say was I am not in favor of inspiring "curiosity outside of the basic essentials that a 4 year old needs to know". This is not a sheltered view point, this is merely prioritizing things my children should learn. To shelter is to question "if" something should be viewed. To prioritize is to question "when" something should be viewed. Chasmal difference.

It is also the responsibility of the parent to explain these topics to their children, not the mall's. Comment From: Anonymous

In most cases, art should not be censored, because it's like vandalism to the artist's work. Artistic Nude i think is just fine, but pornographic art is unacceptable in public places. Comment From: Ike

Of all things, it most certainly isn't vandalism. Vandalism involves damaging something, and that is a far cry from censoring. Comment From: Anonymous

America is ridiculous. All the violence and crazy killing video games/movies a 4 year old can handle! But a tasteful nude is SCANDALOUS and obscene. I mean... what if a CHILD knew what a human body looked like and wasn't afraid of talking about sex?!?! Our society is terrifying. Comment From: HuntRyan

Ha! Well put Mr./Mrs./Ms. anonymous. Of all the things to be worried about the children of our society seeing, this is where the ax falls. Truly maddening. As to Ike's comment, to censor art of this nature IS indeed vandalism. How about I come put a giant black box over your front door or bedroom window to censor the contents therein from being viewed by small children? That of course wouldn't be vandalism would it, because it's a ridiculous example. Well, so is the censorship of this piece. Vandalism does NOT require something to be physically damaged; on the contrary it simply requires it to be altered from its original state without the explicit consent of the owner. To place a black box over your bedroom window without your consent is vandalism, even though I haven't damaged a thing. Similarly, to place black bars over this piece not only alters it, but DOES indeed damage the intended message and effect, and therefore it is plain vandalism. If the mall officials don't want nudity in art shown on their private property, they shouldn't show it. They overstep their bounds and do violence to the piece and to the nature of art itself by altering the piece. Comment From: unboxed

"America is ridiculous. All the violence and crazy killing video games/movies a 4 year old can handle! But a tasteful nude is SCANDALOUS and obscene. I mean... what if a CHILD knew what a human body looked like and wasn't afraid of talking about sex?!?! Our society is terrifying."

This comment is ridiculous. This comment exudes ignorance to state those in agreeance with the mall's censorship are also out buying GTA for their 4 year olds. I dare say those who are trying to prioritize their children's exposure to the world by agreeing with the mall's stance on censoring this picture also set violent video games at the bottom of the list of priorities.

On the note of vandalism - I would like to know how the mall reacted to the picture. If the mall censored the photo without the artists prior knowing and/or permission, then I say it is a form of vandalism. However - which I assume to be the case - the artist knew the picture would be censored in order to be presented in the mall, and the artist could have said no. If this truly was the case, then it is impossible to vandalize something with the owners consent. Comment From: Ike

There are a lot of assumsions being made, and I would personally like to hear from Stacy Lake, our artist, or maybe a rep from the mall itself.   After all, the main question is: did the mall display the art with the artist herself knowing that a portion of it would be boxed out?  Unboxed is spot on.  The only possible room for a vandalism argument is that the mall displayed the art without tell Stacy that the art would be censored.  If that is the case, the mall acted poorly. Comment From: Jen1180

I talked to Stacey and told her that this was going on and showed her the page and everything. She told me that she was going to log on and comment . . . . maybe I can give her a call and tell her that people want her opinion.