neal_shields Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 I think that we are missing the point here. If the government decides to use tax dollars to deciminate "art", isn't everything that someone wants deciminated and isn't "censored"? Are they "censoring" my work because they don't display it? If I want to take my money and run an ad that says this or that politishion "knows" little children in the bibical sense, and I am prevented from doing that, that is "censorship". If a galery choses not to hang my work, that is "good taste". We just lost a huge chunk of our constitutionally protected rights to the "campaign finance reform law" and everyone is concerned over wheither or not, Howard Stern can use the F word on the radio??? Go figure. "People get just about as good a government as they deserve". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 I think I see the point. If the play Vagina Monologues script is removed from public supported libraries,that is censorship. The burden of proof is on the library system to say why. Is all. Simple. Just show us,or tell us why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neal_shields Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 So there should be a formal justification for every book the library doesn't shelve??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattvardy Posted June 19, 2004 Author Share Posted June 19, 2004 So, how does censorship keep society functioning? The only thing I can think of is how censorship can protect the sensitivities of some people (younger and otherwise), but are there any other ways through which censorship helps society function? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbs Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Matt, That is a huge question for a forum like this. Simply, and through my eyes, Censorship is a mechanism that helps maintain the status quo. We as a society, as humans, don't neccessarily want to progress so we turn to censorship (all forms) to slow down the progression of self awareness so that we as a species can enjoy our sleep a little longer before we are forced to awaken and get on to the next thing. Simply, By giving structure and rule and abating for the time being...chaos. Have fun...;)...J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Well, i was going to say something, but Jay said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john falkenstine Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Well put with few words Jay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 All those that want four letter words on the evening news,raise your right hand. " And now for our summary tonight. Things in Iraq are as fugged up as before. And in Arabia,some mean motherfubber named Ahmed X beheadeded a civilian. Here's a clip of that body part now, graphic yes,but I want our viewers to know what kind of motherfuggers we are dealing with. And now back to Melody and her Naked News segment. Melody..."Silly,sure,but I have watched some of that whatsisname Stern.Jesse Helms had a bit of a point about decency. Censorship,not always involuntary,is a means of maintaining a society that upholds a sense of proportion and dignity in its public offerings. That applies to art as well as the public airwaves. The emphasis is on public. Anything goes is for the private world which government ought to keep hands off. Oops,another issue. Adios,amigos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Censorship - "Good" and "Bad" Art... Depends how far the individual can look round corners. Most folk, don't. They like to be told what to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Allen wrote<p> <i>They like to be told what to think.</i><p> And Allen, we'd like you to keep thinking that:)<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_elder1 Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Its simple:any kind if censorship is always bad, because once it is allowed to start it will never end. I believe our Constitution refers to it as freedom of expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Anyone see that horror film "The Passion of the Christ"? If you could see past the grotesque and pointless violence, I think there might have been a point about censorship and free speech in there somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteraitch Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Disclaimer: I'm British and UK mores do differ from US ones (despite Blair). Censorship may be legal or economic. In either case, it may be political, overtly or not. From what I've learned from the BBC and other sources here, the current US situation is producing a tightening of the legal situation and wholesale use of the economic one. Economic sanctions have been used with Michael Moore and others who have been openly critical of the current political situation through their their "art". In some instances, it goes further - for example, the cosy relationship between the Pentagon and Hollywood film makers who rent DoD troops and helicopters for their blockbusters. To avoid offence to their main supplier, they rewrite the history they are purporting to show - a common enough practice in some films, but especially extreme in this genre. This could be described as "censorship before the fact". Legal censorship is intended to act as a safeguard on society, to avoid extreme representations of behaviour or "lunatic fringe" activities. Although technically consensual, in most societies their is inevitably an element of political control. Sometimes it can go further - I understand that Colin Powell's son is in charge of the organisation which licenses cable channels in the US. Coincidence? Maybe. So how does this relate to "art"? Great art is to some extent transcendent and throws light on the human condition (sometimes reflecting the dark corners of society in the process). It seems to be recognised with the passage of time - although some people can recognise it immediately. If it happens to fall outside the accepted parameters of the times, it is often condemmed and perhaps even destroyed as threatening. "Good" art may share some of these traits and is good because many people can recognise them (over time). "Popular" art is of its time and recognised at once. It may also be "good" or even "great" but is less likely to be threatening. Some artists are consciously subversive and become controversial. Their level of infamy is not directly related to the quality of their work - sometimes it's just a publicity stunt! Taxpayer's money can, in principle, find its way to any of these forms of art. In the UK, it tends to be controlled by special-interest groups, who spend a lot of time pontificating and then trying to convince us that they are "speaking" for us. The system is far from perfect (probably corrupt, even if only through unitentional group bias) but without some public money, some good or great art might not make it. Think of it as an intervention in the seed bed of a large Darwinian garden. Ultimately it is "survival of the fittest". Oh, and don't get me started on "patronage"! Just my thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 <a href="http://downlode.org/etext/zappa.html">zappa's lyrics censored</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 <I>I'm British and UK mores do differ from US ones (despite Blair). </i><P>Which means a bald guy dressing up in drag on TV is likely your pinnacle of commedial artisanship.<P>We'll trade you. You can have Howard Stern and Michael Moore, and we'll take the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmeyer Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Phylo: thanks for that link to Frank's testimony. Viva Zappa!<p> Matt! be sure to read that link. (I'm listening to "Strictly Genteel" right now)... t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Viva the great Zappa indeed for his music is still alive and kicking...always will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe604 Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 "Zappa's lyrics censored" ? That testimony was about the proposed music industry rating system, not about censorship and not about Zappa's lyrics in particular and certainly not about censoring Zappa's lyrics. Despite Zappa's concerns, the rating system was implemented (without legislation), Zappa continued to make the music he wanted, and the sky did not fall. So what's the beef? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 There's no beef (I don't eat meat). I made the link cause I thought it adressed the topic of censorship very well, and also because censorship in music and performance is an 'all time classic'. I think labeling ones creations in order to make an already decided negative judgement about it and trying to keep it away is a clear form of censorship. And some of Frank Zappa's lyrics and live performances actually where censored and labeled as they where 'sexualy too explicit' according to some people.While it was all about the music and nothing but the music (spiced with humor) such stigmatizing labels can make it look like it's only about that, while it clearly wasn't.Okay, there may be much heavier to life examples in history of censorship but I understanded that it was about censorship in art, and hey anyone who thinks that zappa's music isn't pure art, well... <a href="//www.ping.be/~jverfail/zappamemo2_humo_en.htm">interview</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Joe wrote<p> <i>So what's the beef?</i><p> It seems the beef, based upon reading the testimony, was that Frank didn't want to have a jacket hung on him based upon the rating placed on the CD cover. The funny thing, anybody that knows Frank Zappa lyrics, already knows what Frank Zappa is about. The point, Frank Zappa is already wearing a stigmatized jacket based upon his past performaces and published albums, so I don't understand his real concern of being "stigmitized":)<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_elder1 Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Zappa is not wearing any thing these days. He died from cancer quite a while ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeman458 Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 John wrote<p> <i>Zappa is not wearing any thing these days. He died from cancer quite a while ago.</i><p> So when he made the prensentation, he was already dead from cancer? Wow! That's pretty incredible. How'd he do that?<p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 By the way,Matt Vardy, I glanced at your portfolio.Nice stuff.Way to go. The censorship issue is designed to make you think. Since you understand the need to limit the expression of pictures that are offensive or obscene or violate individual privacy,then you can make your case with examples. Using some in this thread perhaps. Art is as subject to restraint or excess as anything else in a large society. Who makes the decision. Here you have an idea of the scope of the decisionmakers. So you can say it starts with the exhibitors and publishers and ends sometimes with the Supreme Court. And then finish with a declaration that you feel censorship or restriction should be limited,as small as possible in an open society,and when challenged,there should be understandable grounds for the censoring. Does that help more? We got off topic but that is the nature of such discussions. They wander. Keep your essay tight or the teacher will nod off.OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d. light Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 The freedom of an animal is follow its instinct. The freedom of humans should be different,.... I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe604 Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Thanks, Phylo, for the clarification. And a special thanks for that interview link -- it is a classic! In the interview, Zappa eluded to the kind of censorship that he endured. It is basically the sort of censorship that the music and broadcasting companies impose in the form of decisions about the material that they feel fits their market. However, he did argue that it goes beyond merely marketing choices -- he believed that the religious right-wing conspirators use their financial leverage to push for conservative social engineering. I'm sure this is true, but my uninformed opinion is that it probably is not nearly as big a factor as he implies. So, getting back to the photographic art world, is there a sense out there that religious right-wing conspirators use their financial leverage to push for a similar kind of censorship in art galleries, exhibitions, etc.? How is it accomplished? Is the impact significant, or just a minor irritation? I ask this question because of some very strong anti-censorship sentiment expressed in this forum. --Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now