Hello students of Robinson's Thursday night Humanities 101: Modern Culture and the Arts class! Remember, we will not be meeting in person on February 14 (Valentine's Day). Instead, you have an assignment right here at our new Hum 101 Blog!
What I'd like you to do is consider the following "controversial" works of art below. After looking at each piece, answer the questions at the end of this post by commenting on the blog. Please put your name at the end of your post (or use it as your username) so I know to give you credit. Remember, this assignment MUST be done by 2/14/08 at 6:00pm or you will NOT get credit! Doing this assignment will count as your "attendence" and points for 2/14.
************************************************************
#1 Andres Serrano "Piss Christ"
#2 Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary"--The blobs you see are elephant dung.
#3 Karen Finley-Performance where she covers the lower half of her body in chocolate. http://www.artinterviews.com/Karen.html
#4 Robert Mapplethorpe's photography
(One of his photos famously depicts a man in bondage gear with a whip protruding from his anus. I won't post it here but you can find it yourself through Google Image search. Other images can be seen at the link) http://www.mapplethorpe.org/index.html
#5 Michelle Hine's "World Record"
(No picture of this will be posted here, but this is a piece of performance art.) http://intermaweb.net/index.php/2005/10/29/world-record-4-peristaltic-action/
Now, answer the folllowing questions in the comment area of the blog. Use your first name and the first initial of your last name as your username.
*Please note* Depending on whether or not you think these works should be censored, you may not answer each question. Everybody should answer #4 and #5 and #1, #2, or both depending on your views. Your answers should be numbered like the questions, refer to the works above and should at least be a couple paragraphs long.
1. Which, if any of the works above should be censored? Why? (Give a seperate reason for each work). If you think any of the works should be censored, explain HOW they should be censored (should they be made illegal to make? Should they not be allowed public arts support monies? Should they be shown only in restricted places, etc? Describe how you would censor them.)
2.If you think any of the works should NOT be censored, explain why not. What benefit could these works have for society? (give a reason for each work you chose NOT to censor).
3. If the government withholds grants from these artists (while giving grants to less offessive art) would you consider that a form of censorship? Why or why not?
4.Which of these do you think caused the most public uproar and why?
21 comments:
Sample format for response:
1. I think Ofili, Mapplethorpe, and Hines should be censored because blah blah blah......To censor these works, I think that this this this and this should happen.
2. Serrano and Finley should not be censored. Both works do blah blah blah for society.
3. No, I dont think that this is censorship for the following reasons: blah blah blah.
4.Karen Finley probably caused the most uproar because of her blah blah blah.
Of course, in your answer include as much detail and thought as possible. These aren't easy questions so they will take substantial responses.
Happy Valentines Day! Enjoy the link!
1. Which, if any of the works above should be censored? Why? (Give a seperate reason for each work). If you think any of the works should be censored, explain HOW they should be censored (should they be made illegal to make? Should they not be allowed public arts support monies? Should they be shown only in restricted places, etc? Describe how you would censor them.)
Each of the works should be censored to a degree. All of the pictured works contain materials and/or themes that are unsuitable for children. I would support an age limit of viewers allowed to see any of the works, similar to a movie viewing rating. When, or if on public view, warnings explaining the content of the exhibit and its themes should be clearly explained and posted. If an adult wishes to see such displays, and clearly understands what they would be seeing, then that would be his/her choice.
I do not support the use of public funds for exhibits that use bodily emissions as a medium for their work. Any value in the works’ ability to cause people to question societal norms, or to force a society to recognize areas that need to be changed, are overshadowed by the debasement of humanity inherent in such work and are, therefore counterproductive. If Piss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary are art then the following true scenario could conceivably also be art. A student in high school defecates in the middle of the bathroom floor because he is upset with a disciplinary action and takes a picture of it. He was protesting a perceived injustice. But, it was not considered art; it was considered petty vandalism committed by a dysfunctional adolescent. It is a very fine line, what is just vulgar and dissolute and what has value in some way. There does need to be a line over which an advanced society does not cross or it looses its right to be considered an advanced society.
I also do not support public monies for work that is blatantly sexual in nature. This area flourishes without the aid of tax dollars. Anyone can purchase body chocolate, it’s available at most chain drug stores, and spin the public use of it - connecting it to a cause, as does Karen Finely. Is this art? I do not think so and do not want public money supporting it.
Mapplethorpe’s work is the most gray of the five works shown, and I would support the use of tax money for his work. It pushes the line but does not cross it.
The problem is, who gets to decide? These are my personal opinions. I do not presume to know what is correct for all. Could there be a Supreme Court of art funding that functions independently of current administrations and is peopled by unbiased, enlightened justices?
3. If the government withholds grants from these artists (while giving grants to less offessive art) would you consider that a form of censorship? Why or why not?
Yes, giving money to some artists and not others is a form of censorship. It is censorship in the way that laws governing behavior in society is censorship. All human actions are not deemed acceptable in a functioning society. No one can truly argue that murder, rape, etc… should be allowed as an acceptable form of human expression. The censorship of art by government is not perfect, just as laws governing behavior are not perfect. But, without laws how would we be living?
I am sorry that a few shock artists dried up much of the government funding for the arts. The lessening of the arts depletes the richness our society could have. Would this have happened if the ’everything goes’ attitude of previous funding had had some basic limitations. What did we loose to the shock artists? They should not be outlawed but private sources of funding could have been employed.
4.Which of these do you think caused the most public uproar and why?
My guess would be the Piss Christ. It is a very blatant, desecration of a symbol a majority of Americans hold sacred. Even if not a follower of a Christian faith, it would be difficult to not know someone who is, someone you respect or care about. This work diminishes all that believe in Christianity.
1. I think all of these artworks need to be lightly censored. Yes, people may be offended, but they can always turn their heads and walk the other direction. Now, I do not think that they should be broadcast on public television or anything of that nature, but placed somewhere that an adult can choose to see them.
2) All of the works need to be censored tastefully. I understand that sometimes an artists purposly tries to offend people. But, citizens have to right to not be exposed to vulgarity. The pictures of the lady taking a shit were impressive, until I read about how she accomplished her...poop. That was not artsy at all, but more like torturing herself.
3. Yes, it would be considered censorship because they are only allowing the public to see what the government wants them to see. The Gov't is then blocking out the "innapropriate" works of art while shinning light on those works that they enjoy.
4.Probably PissChrist. I think a lot of religious people would be offended enough to cause an uproar over this work. It is really gross and disrespectful. I found this the most offensive of all the material.
1. If any of these pieces of art were to be censored, then it would have to be the world record by Michelle Hine. First, I really don’t think that this is considered art, I see it more of being in the Guinness book of world records or Ripley’s Believe it or Not, because what she did is amazing. I don’t see how you could censor it out, without ruining it.
2. To be honest, I don’t think any of them should be censored, because now days, people take pictures like this or paint pictures like this all the time. Now, after that is said, if this art is going to be shown in an art museum, then put it into a separate room, where there is an age limit to see them.
3. Yes, that would be a form of censorship, because it’s showing those other artist that is they make a less offensive piece of art then they are going to get some money out of it. People now a day’s judge things way to fast, and with art you can not do that. When you look at art, if you want to judge it, keep it in your mind until you find out the meaning of the piece and way the artist made it that way.
4. The piece of art that caused the most of an uproar would have to be the Piss Christ piece. The reason I say this, is that a lot of believe in Jesus Christ and also they go to church, so when they saw this, they were more than likely offended. I understand way they would get offended, but I also see way this person made this. That’s the whole thing you have to remember when seeing art, you may not like it, but there is a reason behind why it was made.
David Motycka
1. I think that all of these should be partially censored. I think that it’s the artists opinion and sharing your opinion about certain issues whether it be by expressing it artistically or written. Those should be rated based on the viewers of age, just like movies are rated pg 13, G, R, etc. That is one way they could possibly please everyone.
2.I don’t think the lady that covered her body with chocolate should be censored because there is no parts of her body actually able to see that would consider it nudity. She is expressing herself which is part of the freedom of US citizens. I say if people don’t agree with something then deal with it and don’t look at it. If you see it then just don’t look at it and avoid it.
3.I would consider government withhold grants from these artists a form of censorship because artists need money to continue to paint, and if they paint more offensive art then they will not receive money which in turn they may begin to take their art in a different direction. Eventually eliminating all the obscene art available.
4.I would say the one that caused the most uproar would be piss Christ. I think this because not only do many Americans go to church and believe in god, most are strongly for god and Jesus. I wouldn’t doubt that many people fought against this because it is a powerful picture against Christ and that subject is really sensitive to many people.
I don’t think any of these works of ‘art’ should be censored. I do understand how each of these images would be considered distasteful or even offensive, but it is still a creation from someone thought. Just because the image or idea doesn’t positively affect me doesn’t mean it wouldn’t help someone else out. I personally don’t care to see dung the length of a bowling lane or someone’s half naked body but obviously other people can grasp a significant meaning from these pieces. I do however think that such controversial images should not be posted in a way that you would just come across them like on a billboard, but instead have to seek them out- chose to go to that art exhibit. tara l
As we watched the video about shock art last class period I found several different reasons that art- even shock art is important for our society. The one reason that stands out in my mind is that controversial art can prevent controversy. People who are voicing their displeasure with the government or their childhood are doing so by painting, drawing, or rapping, instead of violence. I also think by shocking people and exposing them to something they find crewed or even immoral will first of all create a discussion around a topic and second of all- the more something is talked about the more common place it becomes giving whatever moral issue a greater chance to be acceptable. For each piece I think that self expression alone is a good enough reason to allow these works of art to be examined.
I would consider that indirect censorship because it is hindering the artist from being to create that art that is controversial. The government may not be saying you are not allowed to create this form of art around this topic, but by not financially supporting that artist they are in a way condoning the same sentiment. However at the same time I feel that certain work should not be publically backed. A piece of art that is perhaps justifying racism should not be financially supported by the government.tara l
I am sure all of these works of art caused an uproar during their day in time. But in my opinion I can see how Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography would have created the most uproar. There used to be absolutely no room for tolerance for homosexuality in our society, so I think trying to show the beauty in it through erotism probably didn’t go over so well with the public. I think this especially noting that there were nude picture of children that got thrown in by this ‘perverse sex addict’ tara l
1. I believe that Serrano’s, Ofili’s, Mapplethorpe’s, and Hine’s should all be censored. Our children see enough of this out in their everyday lives. They do not need to see it in the arts. People who wish to see and support the art can do so in private, but not out in the public. Too many artists out there could use the money given to him or her for some “real” art and not for the use to watch someone get a world record on the longest turd.
2. The government withholding money from artists is a form of censorship. They are controlling the flow of art and are making the decision to censor a piece of art for the public. It should be up to the public to decide whether they wish to see that art displayed in their museums.
3. Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” caused the most uproar. I believe this because the United States is a very Christian oriented country and it would have offended the whole Christian community. Robert Mapplethorpe’s pictures of male bondage would have also caused an uproar. Most people do not want to see graphic pictures of male or female bondage.
#1. I feel that Michelle Hine’s, “World Record”, should be censored. I don’t feel that someone defecating is art. It’s a body function, like a woman menstruating, but you don’t see me putting that out there as performance art. For one, I wouldn’t want to see someone doing that, because it’s gross and it should only happen in private. Another reason, why would someone go and see that, morbid curiosity maybe? I agree with what David said, about putting it on Ripley’s Believe It or Not, or putting it in the Guiness Book of World Records.
#2. Out of all of them, I think the lady dipped in chocolate shouldn’t be censored. They show more skin on the “Girls Gone Wild Commercials” than they do in that picture. I don’t know if any of those pictures could benefit society in anyway. I feel that the woman dipped in chocolate was the least controversial. You make your own assumption about why she did. Maybe she wants men to cherish women, not abuse them.
#3. I don’t know if withholding funds is a sign of censorship or not. If someone is a true artist then they will make their art, regardless if it is scandalous or not, or whether they are paid or not. I mean if someone supplying your funds doesn’t agree with your art, I feel that they have the right to pull their funds. It would be like going to work and you do something totally outrageous, and they fire you. Do they have the right to? Yes, they have their own image to uphold as well as those that work for them. The artist would be the outrageous employee, the boss would be the government, the other employees would be us tax payers. Honestly, I wouldn’t want to pay someone to defecate at a bowling alley for a world record. I don’t think that artists that aren’t compelled to produce controversial art should be penalized by those that do. If you want to produce controversial art then they should be willing to suffer the consequences, even if that means their funding is pulled.
#4. The “Piss Christ” probably created the most uproar. Our society is very high on religion. There are so many different religions in our society today that this one piece of art would have outraged all of the religions.
1. I think that the first work is ok. I don’t personally like it but I don’t think it is as bad as the other works. I also don’t think that is should be censored. The second one I don’t really care for either but I don’t think that it should be censored either. The third piece isn’t really art if you ask me but I don’t think that it should be censored because in sports illustrated magazine they paint outfits on naked women and people don’t complain about that. The fourth work almost made me throw up because I was sitting down eating dinner when I opened the page. I think it is disgusting and it is NOT art at all. It is absolutely disgusting.
2. I think the poop one should be censored because it is absolutely disgusting and I never want to see anything like that ever again in my life.
3. I do think that the government withholding money from artists is censorship because without money the artists can’t make the art any more so they are being censored “quietly” for lack of a better word. They aren’t blatantly censoring them just taking their money away.
4. The poop caused an uproar to me I HATED IT. I can’t believe someone would do that. That is a complete waste of time and money and I hate it.
#1 I think Piss Christ should be censored. I only think it should be censored in a way that stops children from viewing it. I also think that Mapplethorpe's photography should be censored from children. As for the adults if they don't like it they don't have to look.
#2 I don't think "The Holy Virgin Mary" should be censored. I don't agree with it, but that if that is the way the artist wants to desribe himself then let him go for it.
Karen's performance should not be censored at all in my opinion. Not only do I think that, but I also think that someone should be funding her for what see is doing. She is not just covering herself in chocolate, she is trying to send a message, and I think she should be heard.
#3 I don't consider it censorship. Although they are making it harder from trying to make their art, they are not stopping them or telling them when and where or to whom they can sell or display their art.
#4 I would think that Mapplethorpe's photography caused the most uproar. Although the religion is a touchy topic, people seem to get all bent out of shape about homosexual topics. I don't agree with it but it seems to be the way people are.
1. I think all this art work should be censored. For picture #3, #4 and# 5, I don’t see the reason why they should put picture like this to show us all especial the person like me who did not want to see all this. Everybody has right, and I believe have a right of not see what I don’t want to see. They are many people look picture for different reason, but if someone wants to stay necked, I think there are proper places here you can stay like that and nobody can question about it, but not in public. They are a lot of young people who are looking and try to learn from this people, I think if the government will not censored these art work, these is what the government should experience for the next generation.
For Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary"--The blobs you see are elephant dung- I think this picture does not real show who Virgin Mary is. For those people who are Christian like me will believe this is evil more than saying this is the Mother of JESUS.
For the first picture, this picture doesn’t present the real meaning of what it supposes to show.
2. If the yes, I will consider that as a form of censorship because these will reduce the number of offensive art in the public. And I suggest the government should d not give grant for nay offensive art because they tend to destroy more the community rather than building them.
3. Ht one which can cause most public most public uproar is the third and the filthy picture. Because these picture are total offensive, they make you fill shame of yourself, cheap, and even if you’re with friend or people you respect, you will never wants these people to see these picture. These pictures are so inappropriate.
1)I think that Mapplethorpe and World Record should be censored. Mapplethorpe because it's a subject that most consider really taboo...I personally couldn't tell it was a man but whatever. It's also definitely not something I would want my children to see (if they were still young). World Record because that's just not art in any way in my opinion and pretty sick! Mapplethorpe shouldn't be able to be displayed but to a restricted age audiance and copies should be covered with brown wrap like XRated mags. World Record should just be flushed. No pun intended but if the shoe fits...and definitely no support monies for this one! Some poor buggers cry for attention!
2)Piss Christ is in bad taste but doesn't need to be censored. I don't see any benefit to society from this one. Holy Virgin...again...not censored but do we really need to know it's elephant dung and why can't he use something like chocolate pudding if he really feels a need to be so creative? Finley...not censored. Erotic art perhaps and much like the SI swimsuit issue whose recent cover model previously modeled nude...doesn't leave much to the imagination so it's a mute point but whatever. Wouldn't put it on my wall.
3)No, I don't consider that censorship. I consider that to be good strong morals and perhaps good judgement.
4)Mapplethorpe probably made the biggest uproar. Bad subject all the way around and even as "soft" as society is getting about censorship...still something I can't imagine any of my friends with children wanting to have their kids see.
Adele Seitz
1. I think all this art work should be censored. For picture #3, #4 and# 5, I don’t see the reason why they should put picture like this to show us all especial the person like me who did not want to see all this. Everybody has right, and I believe have a right of not see what I don’t want to see. They are many people look picture for different reason, but if someone wants to stay necked, I think there are proper places here you can stay like that and nobody can question about it, but not in public. They are a lot of young people who are looking and try to learn from this people, I think if the government will not censored these art work, these is what the government should experience for the next generation.
For Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary"--The blobs you see are elephant dung- I think this picture does not real show who Virgin Mary is. For those people who are Christian like me will believe this is evil more than saying this is the Mother of JESUS.
For the first picture, this picture doesn’t present the real meaning of what it supposes to show.
2. I will consider that as a form of censorship because these will reduce the number of offensive art in the public. And I suggest the government should d not give grant for nay offensive art because they tend to destroy more the community rather than building them.
3. The one which can cause most public most public uproar is the third and the filthy picture. Because these picture are total offensive, they make you fill shame of yourself, cheap, and even if you’re with friend or people you respect, you will never wants these people to see these picture. These pictures are so inappropriate.
1.) First of all I think that there is a time and a place for censoring materials. Some materials are appropriate at specific times. I also think that our culture as a whole needed to be exposed and become more knowledgeable on the topic of censorship. In saying that, censoring #3 Karen Finley-Performance where she covers the lower half of her body in chocolate at an young age would make sense to me as this reveals another level of thought and understanding that little ones may not have the capability to understand yet. In regards to the other pieces of art I believe that they are in the same boat, it is dependent on what level they are shown at and the level of knowledge and understanding that the audience has.
2.) I think that the #1 Andres Serrano "Piss Christ" and the #2 Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary" could be shown without any censoring, but the level of conversation and understanding of these pieces will be different because of the abundance of knowledge that one has. This all relates to ones thought of what is right and what is wrong. In our society I believe that they would not show any or these as they could be considered offensive to someone. If you think about what all that they have censored because of the double meaning to the words in the English language, then it would seem that someday everything will offend someone so nothing will be allowed.
3.) Yes I would consider giving funds to one type of art and not the other is a form of censorship if the funds are going for general support for the arts. Now if the funds are segregated to specific types of art then they should be given strictly to that type of art. I also think that it should be an option for tax payers to put money into the arts rather than having general tax money portioned off to support something that the majority cannot agree on.
4.) I would have to think that the #1 Andres Serrano "Piss Christ" did as there are many Christians throughout the world. I think that this piece of art caused a large uproar as this is a hot button topic on many different levels. Also, many people even if they are not Christians could think that this would be is a horrible thing to do or they could think that this expresses the way that they feel about Christ and Christianity. I believe that this piece of art was expressing the experiences and knowledge of Christ and or Christianity as a whole.
1. I think Andres Serrano "Piss Christ" and Robert Mapplethorpe's photography should be censored because first of all Andres Serrano is disrespecting peoples religion by pissing on Christ. If he wants to make art he can make his own religion up and piss on it. Also Robert Mapplethorpe's photography is pretty sick and he should just go into the porn business if he wants to make money off his product.
Karen Finley-Performance where she covers the lower half of her body in chocolate and Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary" shouldnt be censored because there is nothing offensive about these expressive artwork. Karen Finley is not showing anything revealing. She pretty much coppied the sports illistrated women when the paint on there swimsuits. The holy virgin mary is just someone painting it the way they see it in there head, its pretty creative.
3. I pretty much explained why they shouldnt be cencored in my last satement.
4. Robert Mapplethorpe's photography should probabley cause the most uproar because it has to deal with sexual preprance which these days causes alot of problems in the public eye.
The post right above this is Lucas Armstrongs post.
To the people who mentioned that controversial art is good because it brings controversial subjects to the fore and, as they are discussed, makes them less controversial- that is generally why it is taboo. If I were to make a film based entirely around the rape of young children by large bears, would this be acceptable? Would you have a problem with it becoming more socially acceptable?
There is a line and it's there for a reason.
Post a Comment