|
Art
Link |
by
 
on 2008-04-04 06:53:20 |
|
• Should there be limitations to the kind of art available to the general public? This is challenging for me XDD To me, there should be limitations due to the fact that some art sends out a negative message to the society? No idea -- I doubt that actually made sense XDD..    |
|
Re: Art
|
An art expresses what the artist wanted to express. So if the artist created that art to send a revolting message to the audience, it will create a revolt. In a society where public rights are yet to be noticed, that revolt is necessary. But that certain revolt can even result in a war. So, you see, an art sends out both positive and negative messages.  |
|
Re: Art
|
|
The simple fact of sending negative messages to the audience shouldn't be the reason for limitating the access to art. Any action of gov't to limitate it ought to be on the basis of last resort for solving the problem created by an artistic manifestation. On cases of inflammatory speech, the american jurisprudence states that the advocacy of violence isn't protected by their constitution when it incites or produces imminent lawless action and its likely to incite or produce such action. If in those cases, which are kind of extreme, the action of the State is limited to a certain situation, how can we restrict the display of some forms of art (sometimes filled with negative messages) without falling on a logical contradiction? I believe there should be restrictions, like in the aforementioned example or in defamation cases. Nevertheless the existence of both positive and negative messages on works of art contributes on the formation of society, to what Holmes calls marketplace of ideas which leads, according to him, to the common good. That can be translated nowadays to critical thinking which is the corner stone when u think about changing society. So bigger the public, more likely to see some changes. Ps.: sorry for any grammar mistakes ;D |
|
Re: Art
Link |
by
on 2008-04-04 21:02:47 |
|
Thank you =) |
|
Re: Art
Link |
by
on 2008-04-05 19:44:24 |
|
Hm. Well, I agree yet disagree because yes; you are expressing yourself and it's good to let that out. I mean, sometimes it may offend others, but what others may think is alright may offend you. we should just move on, you know? and no, because it's very very possible to take my last statement to far. I hope that makes sense ^^; 
Avatar/Sig Sets and Singles requests
are OPEN! Stop by my Profile
for details! >.-b
Satisfied? then
|
|
Re: Art
Link |
by
on 2008-04-07 02:22:24 |
|
actually, art always have its limitation if the artis only focus on skills perfomance and not trying something new or weirdo. without art, there's no evolution on human perspectives, expression, also maths, science, language, etc. 'should there be limitations to the kind of art...' maybe not... if the art give sound negatively, it means something just wrong with the society. its important to know and understand what the message means that needed to deliver through arts. but, if u still support that certain art needs limitations, well, that's up to which society area you're now, what's their view about it - it's up to you - just a-o-k. and if it is really-really extremely bad and not true... (i just don't care about it, leave it, don't bother it, ignore it)... ..... ..... ....  |
|
Re: Art
Link |
by
on 2008-04-07 03:13:32 |
|
What is art? Define that first. I am a martial artist. Note the word artist. Now their are many types of people involved in martial practice, but I am an artist. Why? Because of the enjoyment I get and the appreciation I feel and the way my soul rages when I put into practice all of my martial knowledge. Art is expressive. You can't ban a persons right to express, even if it is going to impress an opinion to others. It's their choice whether they want to share a point of view. For example. I can attack a person in such a way that I break both bones in their forearm and damage a nerve in the spine causing a temporary paralysis. I will smile and feel good while I do this. Someone who doesn't share my combat lust and spirit would look at it as barbarism. Someone who does would appreciate it as a restrained and yet effective method of constraint. Someone else would see it as meeting of spirits where one soul was absorbed by the other. That is art. Personally, I say just try and take my freedoms. I have done many good deeds by my art and will continue to do so. I see no need for limits on such things. Remember you always have the choice not to agonize or antagonize with it. And yes, I know you are referring to drawn and written forms, but I just thought I'd give a bit more of a universal perspective in a way I can communicate well.  |
|
Re: Art
Link |
by
  
on 2008-04-20 17:23:26 |
|
Art is subjective~ So~ You could draw a picture of the Swastika and have someone call it a symbol of Nazism, while another could claim it a symbol of peace (hinduism). A three year old would call it a squiggle line. And Also, I agree with Renshi's statement. So, to sum it up, you can't limit kinds or select art. It is perceived differently in each person, and there are 6.5 billion people on this earth. |
|
Re: Art
|
|
An artist should better keep in mind what the public prefers, even though some may dislike that art and launch a revolt. Hey? What the worse can happen then a few broken windows? |
|
Re: Art
|
|
Art is subjective, i would say its a grey zone.... It's up to the target audience (viewers) how they perceive it... Though some artwork may come across sending negative messages to society, but they did create awareness! Somehow it's HOW humans react to a situation (happened) and NOT what happened that really matters. //geez......
- It's NOT.thecolorofyour s k i n.|BUT|.thec o n t e n t sofyourHEART.that reallymatters -
|
|
Re: Art
|
|
Renshi hit upon a good point: what is art? The original question sounds as if it's more of a free speech issue than one that is specific to art. Plato, in the Republic, goes to some lengths in discussing about art and society, but then he took art to be merely a representation of the world. Art has evolved since then. Some will claim that art is politic; some might claim art is ethical. As far as I'm concerned, art is about beautiful representations, but that's just me. As for negative messages being put across by the artist, this does make it more a free speech issue than you're letting on. If the work of art isn't a thing like film, literature, and the likes, then it is much more open to interpretation. This will, of course, be subjective depending who experiences the artwork. Whether the artist can effectively communicate their intended message is another issue. As for the swastika. As I understand it, the Nazi symbol is actually a mirror image of the Hindu one you have in mind, Ichi. It's supposed to be a deliberate perversion. But your main point of interpretation stands.
Wait a minute, are you sure about that?
|
|
Re: Art
|
|
Art. we can make whatever we want and present it to the public. our art has consequences, whether it be good or bad. people have been killed for their art. some art has incited people to kill. art can produce hatred toward an individual, or in similar yet tamer results, ridicule (Satire, anyone?). There was a newspaper comic in denver I believe, that posted a comic about Allah. smart move there. muslims were outraged; islamic extremists outraged tenfold. That sort of art could lead to an attack on that country, or the newspaper company. Art can be that controversial. BTW, if anyone has anymore information regarding that incident, could you inform me? Because I am quite interested but I never got the full story on it. 
wooo maplestory |
|
Re: Art
|
|
uh, yeah that is. dude, in america, we have ALOT of art that isn't peaceful. they come in the form of satire, parody, etc. yes it IS art. did you not see renshi's post? his martial arts are in no way peaceful, but it is art nonetheless. to not acknowledge such art to be art is ignorance.
wooo maplestory |
|
Re: Art
|
|
actually, yes that is art. Are you implying that the Greeks and Romans who made their statues and paintings are vulgur and disgusting? Do you mean to tell me that the statue of David is disgusting? You are suggesting that the human body itself is naughty and shameful, and provocative. you are very close minded when it comes to art. and "and then racist issue, and now about religion. woahh so much [not only in america]" that makes absolutely no sense. where is your argument? you're just talking about religion and racism. what is your correlation with them to art???? Whether you like it or not, it is Art, and Art comes in many forms. lets take it up a notch. Rap. It can be quite derogatory at times and may just seem like crap. but one can not deny the poetic movements of Tupac Shakur. One could claim that his rap was indeed Art. and btw, political cartoons and satire exist all over the world. Not just the liberal press! the conservative press too! everyone is indeed a critic! some people choose to criticize through their art. yes it provocative. it's provocative art. " .and then martial art, what's wrong, that's awesome martial art is not for say war or for fight, right ? " you were just telling me how ART is only for PEACE. well guess what, shige. Martial Arts are not exactly PEACEFUL. it is a violent and painful art. and actually, there are martial arts that are indeed for fighting. the ones that I know are only for defense though (Karate). seriously man, whats it gonna be? you say art is for peace, but martial arts is not peaceful, then you turn around and say "YES, violent art is peaceful and awesome." (exaggerated but basically true.)
wooo maplestory |
|
Re: Art
|
|
martial art is anything BUT peaceful. but neither you nor I are experts on martial arts, and that is best left to Renshi-Sho to tell whether or not it is. and you still havent addressed my questions.
wooo maplestory |
|
Re: Art
|
|
I'm sorry but you're going to have to improve your english grammar, I can't even understand the general idea of your post. if only we had an effective translator =\
wooo maplestory |