Find some art works that illustrate the two sides of Plato's argument that freedom of individual artistic expression should not be allowed. Which images seem to "invite" censorship in your opinion? Which images are works of art that, if censored, would represent a great loss to our society? Why?
Due Monday, September 12th at 12 noon.
Most of Andres Serrano’s works can be use to illustrate the two sides of Plato’s argument against individual artistic expression. Serrano’s work can be very vulgar and disturbing to some people especially those outside of the artistic realm. The Immersion or what is better known as the Piss Christ is one of the work that has caused many controversial issues. Some people find the work to be highly offensive to an extent that a print of the work was vandalized during an exhibition in Avignon, France. Some people interpreted the “Piss Christ” to be blasphemy and anti-religion thus should be censor and destroy because it might convey a wrong message to other viewer especially the young. The thoughts of these people echo Plato’s view against freedom of artistic expression. However, I personally feel that it would be a great loss to the society to censored Serrano’s work. The “Piss Christ” was not intended to carry an anti-religious message. In fact the work commented on the commercialization of Christian icon in modern society. The image of Christ has turned into a commercial object that anyone (even if they are not Christian) can purchase and is perceive as a decorative item rather than an object of veneration. It is very unfortunate that the work was wrongly interpreted and vandalized. The society would miss out on such a valuable message if we decided to censor the work.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMost of Andres Serrano’s works can be use to illustrate the two sides of Plato’s argument against individual artistic expression. Serrano’s work can be very vulgar and disturbing to some people especially those outside of the artistic realm. The “Immersion” or what is better known as the “Piss Christ” is one of the work that has caused many controversial issues. Some people find the work to be highly offensive to an extent that a print of the work was vandalized during an exhibition in Avignon, France. Some people interpret the “Piss Christ” to be blasphemy and anti-religion thus should be censor and destroy because it might convey a wrong message to other viewer especially the young. The thoughts of these people echo Plato’s view against freedom of artistic expression. However, I personally feel that it would be a great loss to the society to censor Serrano’s work. The “Piss Christ” was not intended to carry an anti-religious message. In fact the work comments on the commercialization of Christian icon in modern society. The image of Christ has turns into a commercial object that anyone (even if they are not Christian) can purchase and is perceive as a decorative item rather than an object of veneration. It is very unfortunate that the work was wrongly interpreted and vandalized. The society would miss out on such a valuable message if we decide to censor the work.
ReplyDeleteIs Nattakun making a statement about art censorship by censoring his own comment? That is so bad ass!
ReplyDeleteI think that once art has become actually physically harmful to a living creature, it has crossed a line and perhaps should be put to a stop. The art of Aliza Shvarts comes to mind, particularly her performance art piece that she proposed for her senior project in 2008 at Yale University. I do not like the idea of censoring any art but if I was required to come up with some art work that “invited” censorship, I would say that the artificial insemination of a female who then self-induced multiple abortions comes pretty close. Brown University bioethicist Jacob M. Appel was quoted as saying “the history of great art is one of controversy and outrage” and that Shvarts was “an imaginative and worthy heir to Manet and Marcel Duchamp.” However, other people say her art is gruesome and pornographic and insensitive to women who have had miscarriages. I agree with Jacob Appel that great art is often controversial and fraught with outrage but the idea of actually physically harming living creatures does seem a little too intense.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, I think that the art of Ai Weiwei is super interesting and insightful and artfully executed and if he and his art were suddenly to be snuffed out it would represent a great loss to our society. It’s so sad that he has actually had to struggle with censorship. However, through this censorship and even through his arrest, great art has been able to bloom. When his brand new studio was bulldozed, he photographed and videotaped the demolition and attested it was his greatest work of art. When he was arrest, groups of artists and other supporters brought chairs and sat in front of the Chinese embassies, in reference to Ai Weiwei’s installation Fairytale: 1001 Qing Dynasty Wooden Chairs. This guy! This guy is just the coolest!
When reading this prompt it was difficult for me not to think of the Japanese film i mentioned in class. The British Board of Film Classification banned a Japanese film called 'Grotesque' because as its name ensues it was a disgusting display of horror. They banned the film because there was very little character development or plot beyond the sadism and therefore they felt that the film would only be viewed by people who enjoyed to watch sadism. I have always thought of films as art. When I read this the first thing I thought of was that it deserved to be banned. Though I believe in freedom of expression I do think that quoting Plato would not have been wrong in this case. Appealing to a side of society as disgusting as this for no other reason or message than to appease is a quality reason to ban a film. However I then found an article written in 2010 about a group of sculptures that were excavated in Berlin. They had been banned by Hitler. Obviously this is a very drastic example however also shows the downside of taking away a freedom because of how one wants society to act. After seeing these pieces which are now displayed in the Neues Museum in Berlin, it is difficult to think that censorship would ever be ok. I think these two examples effectively show both the pros and cons of Plato's argument.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about art works that can pose censorship concerns, I can’t help but think of the artwork of Hans Bellmer. A friend introduced me to this work to show me how “sick” it was that someone grotesquely morphed different human body parts together. I found his work to be intriguing and disturbing. He was possibly inspired by his love for a teenage girl and he was certainly influenced by Jacque Offenbach's Tales of Hoffman. Most importantly, the Nazis famously promoted a reactionary view of art that idolized the human body, at least, the perfect Aryan body. Bellmer rejected this authoritarian concept of art and instead he created a series of dolls that he mutilated and then photographed. The dolls have the appearance of young girls and are obviously sexualized. It is as if Bellmer is wishing himself to fall in love with his own young, mutilated images. The result is disturbing because of the eroticism inherent in the photographs of these child-like forms, intriguing because they are mutilated, yet beautiful. I feel as though Plato would not have appreciated this form of art because he would not classify this art as beautiful in any way - When Plato defined beauty or fineness relevant notions are “appropriate” the “beneficial” and “useful.” Bellmer’s dolls would not fit in these categories. On the other hand, Plato was concerned about the removal of portrayals of figures such as gods and heroes in poetry; Bellmer gives me the impression that his goal was to also remove the portrayal of a “god” or perfect being such as a doll. By disfiguring his Dolls, they are no longer perfect physical representations and pose symbolic meanings that make viewers think about what they are looking at. This body of work doesn’t need to be censored; my only concern is that a hypothetical cult could try to recreate these images with real bodies-but this thought only comes from me watching too much CSI crime shows.
ReplyDeleteAlmost immediately what comes to mind is modern society's view on graffiti. It seems that our society is a bit more focused on looks, and would much rather have a perfectly white 50-foot wall than an Andre the giant "OBEY" tagged on it. So when the spray paint goes up, out come the pressure washers and countless hours of civic-duty get wasted on what would could be a really cool design.
ReplyDeleteReally, there's an interesting dichotomy going on with graffiti and its artists. Some artists who spray their tags all over cities; only to have them washed away. However there are artists, like Banksy who actually get paid by cities to spray some of his legendary social comment graffiti. I once saw one of his pieces in Chinatown (San Francisco, CA) with a piece of plexiglass screwed in over its face. The funny thing was that there seem to have been attempts in the past by others to actually remove the Banksy piece by pouring paint behind the glass or trying to burn it. So while some artists are being censored all over the place, artists like Banksy has free reign and actually gets protected by the censors!
In the past I've seen graffiti photographs online which actually tempt the police to cover it up. Usually these pieces are - to me atleast - extremely beautiful in their creation, delivery of wit, and social commentary. The simple fact that its illegal and yet there are those who are willing to risk jail time in order to post a commentary in the forum is just cool to me. Without such pieces, city life would just be a series of rather boring facades.
Even though I do not agree with Plato, in terms of not allowing free artistic expression, I believe that sometimes artists can go of the limits and present images that can be harmful to certain individuals or groups of people. For example, when I was still in high school, I went to the Athens Biennale in Greece and viewed some very extreme art. It was mostly installation pieces, and video work. Even though all the pieces had strong and harsh imagery, there was one video piece that showed a 'sick' person cutting, with doctor knifes and tools, through the body of another person who was tied up to a bed and had covered eyes. I do not remember and could not find the name of the artist, but I thought that this kind of imagery is not as appropriate, and brings a lot of violence out. On the other hand, losing imagery like the one Pablo Picasso created, i believe would be a loss for our society and the artistic world and evolution. Guernica for example, shows the suffering that was caused by the Nazis during the bombing of the town of Guemica. There are many examples of works of art that voice an opinion, or shout out messages, that are helping the society and their concerns.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about Plato banning art for the good of society it reminded me of the Buddha’s of Bamiyan in Afghanistan. They were destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. I couldn’t remember all of the details so I did a little research on it to refresh my memory. These were 180 and 120 feet tall (two of them) built in 501 CE and considered “the classic blended style of Gandhara art”. For years the Taliban had tried to destroy them in the name of protecting Islam. These statues were beautiful and brought money into the town where they were located through tourism, but to the Taliban nothing was worth the thought that something could exist outside of their beliefs. This represents a great loss to society, not only for their beauty and craftsmanship but the history that they carried with them.
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard for me to think of art that should be censored. I agree with Ann that if it is hurting innocent (by innocent I think I mean unwilling) people, it probably shouldn’t happen. Censorship creates such a fine line that can be changed throughout time by events and attitudes. There will never be, I suppose a definitive answer to this question.
Immediately Ron Mueck pops into my head. His work is of the utmost realism, its lifelike down to the very pores. Some even call it hyper-realistic. Often his work pushed the limits of some audiences because its nudity. There are a few which are shocking purely because of their intense nudity. "In mother and child" depics a woman having just given birth, child still attached by ambilical chord, her legs revealing the process of its birth. Plato might argue that his work not only "invites" censorship but demands it so much so that it is what creates the hype for Mueck's pieces. It would demonstrate a deep loss to society if this sort of art work were to be censored because we would be loosing art work of detail that is remarkable. Ron Muecks work is maybe the most lifelike renderings I or anyone else has ever seen an artist accomplish.
ReplyDeleteThe works of art that should be be censored are those that are misleading in a way the viewers are unlikely to discover. For example, a photograph of Hitler making him look like a respected and just ruler. Any propaganda trickery that is presented as truth, needs to portray the truth. This however is probably the most difficult to decipher because maybe the photographer did see Hitler in this light and believed he was not misleading people. All the same in a perfect world, I would have this type of images censored and accurate. On the other hand, there is an artist known for his controversial topics and is wanted in many countries for arrest because he has been dubbed a "terrorist." I do not think that Banksy should be censored or need to be in hiding because he has decided to attack very difficult topics. He tends to dislike the upper echelon of hierarchy and the decisions that they make for a whole group of people. His images are shocking yet they make you think, make you question authority. This is very important for a society to do so that they are not running blind. Unfortunately Plato would not agree with me, in fact he would despise Banksy for his disruptive ideals.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sam’s idea that some films have crossed the line from controversial to simply gratuitous and mindless. Certainly, film is an art form, and it provides the artist with unique opportunities to express their creative intent. Yet in recent years we have seen an outpouring of films that exploit the torture-porn aesthetic, that is, extreme sadistic violence against the human body for no other reason than shock and controversy. Rather than convey any sort of meaningful message, these films aim to push the boundaries of cinema by depicting grotesque murders and mutilations of the characters. Certainly, violence and gore are not new subjects in the art world, yet without any deeper message or social commentary, these films cross the line from controversial to dangerous. At what point does the audience become so desensitized to extreme violence that it no longer provokes any reaction? The over-saturation of meaningless violence in film could lead to a culture where such displays no longer provoke any reaction, and this mindless acceptance could certainly be dangerous. In this way, I side with Plato’s argument of the dangers of artistic expression and its effect on the population. However there is another side to the argument. Certainly contemporary art explores other controversial topics and themes, yet if it is done with the intent of conveying a deeper message, its effect can be beneficial rather than harmful. Andres Serrano’s work can certainly act as an example of this concept. While his subject matter is usually controversial, whether its Klan members, dead bodies, or highly sexual scenes, his work invites discussion and understanding rather than outright repulsion. His highly personal works allow us to look into the faces of his subjects and contemplate their realities, bringing us closer together and closer to understanding the universality of the human condition.
ReplyDeleteTo Anne - I think the Blog just hate my comment and wouldn't post it up!
ReplyDeleteMost of Andres Serrano’s works can be use to illustrate the two sides of Plato’s argument against individual artistic expression. Serrano’s work can be very vulgar and disturbing to some people especially those outside of the artistic realm. The “Immersion” or what is better known as the “Piss Christ” is one of the work that has caused many controversial issues. Some people find the work to be highly offensive to an extent that a print of the work was vandalized during an exhibition in Avignon, France. Some people interpret the “Piss Christ” to be blasphemy and anti-religion thus should be censor and destroy because it might convey a wrong message to other viewer especially the young. The thoughts of these people echo Plato’s view against freedom of artistic expression. However, I personally feel that it would be a great loss to the society to censor Serrano’s work. The “Piss Christ” was not intended to carry an anti-religious message. In fact the work comments on the commercialization of Christian icon in modern society. The image of Christ has turns into a commercial object that anyone (even if they are not Christian) can purchase and is perceive as a decorative item rather than an object of veneration. It is very unfortunate that the work was wrongly interpreted and vandalized. The society would miss out on such a valuable message if we decide to censor the work.
I have chosen to talk about two different images looking at violence in photography. Charles Moore’s Birmingham shows the fire brigade attacking helpless non-violent protestors with high-pressure water hoses during the Civil Rights Movement. This photograph is difficult to look at because of the obvious bullying and racism that’s taking place. However, it is photographs such as this one that helped bring awareness about injustice. Censoring images like this would make it easier for inequality and discrimination to continue and for the general public to be ignorant of major problems. Another photograph that is difficult to look at is Alexander Gardener’s The Harvest of Death. In contrast, Gardener’s image could be considered to “invite” censorship. The photograph shows a field full of dead bodies in painful positions. One figure’s head is pointing towards the camera with an agonizing facial expression. The viewers must ask themselves if this is taking art too far. Even if the aim of the image is to the show the dreadful realities of war, the people in the photograph had loved ones and families that they have left behind. It seems insensitive to show them in such a lonely and horrifying state. Furthermore, I think there are ways of sending a message about the horror of war but taking away such disturbing details.
ReplyDeleteThis prompt brings the work of Sally Mann to my mind (this may be because we recently discussed it or because I enjoy her aesthetic...) Anyways. Mann's work is what Plato would describe as mimesis. It is a representation of our world. This work also posses both the qualities Plato would have censored and those he would not have. There is a photo called the Three Graces in which Mann and her two daughters are all standing and peeing. Plato would have a. not been okay with female nudity and b. the work portrays bad virtues for women to have. In contrast an untitled piece from her At Twelve series (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=sally+mann+at+twelve&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1150&bih=578&tbm=isch&tbnid=618VqWxCjhEdpM:&imgrefurl=http://www.jacksonfineart.com/sally-mann-628.html&docid=UEsqPgkBQ-cxkM&w=595&h=472&ei=FyFuTuqsGMXDgQfG1oXgBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=573&vpy=132&dur=3675&hovh=200&hovw=252&tx=118&ty=165&page=2&tbnh=122&tbnw=154&start=19&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:19) shows a girl being controlled by a man in the doorway of a play house. Not only aesthetically please, this work also portrays a message about a man's control over a woman. This message would have pleased Plato (at least in my opinion it would have).
ReplyDeletePersonally I think most of Mann's images invite censorship because they are controversial in their subject matter. I also think that they should NOT be censored. If you don't put provocative images in the world then discussions won't start. Take for instance the Untitled work from the At Twelve series. This work when truly looked at makes the viewer uncomfortable (and rightly so) and brings up discussion on the treatment of women. If this image was censored then that is one discussion that will go unstarted. My personal theory is if you don't want to see it then don't. There is no rule that says you HAVE to look at something. One should censor for oneself; no one should do it for them.
I believe that there is a difference between art and obscenity. The work of Robert Mapplethorpe is an example of controversial art because there are those that believe it should be censored because of the content of the photographs. His work is disturbing for a lot of people and those that do not want to be subjected to it should not have to be. I feel that those who want to see it should be able to because I don't think that anyone should be able to control what we can and can't see but I don't think that Magglethorpe's images should be casually placed on the pages of a magazine. I don't think Plato would approve of Magglethorpe's work because I don't believe he would think that his work would lead to higher learning or the gain of any useful knowledge. Censorship is a difficult subject because there are many contrasting opinions about it and it will probably be a long time before society can come to a consensus.
ReplyDeletePlato did not believe that art has a place in the ideal society because it does not have “true being” (519) and is just an imitation. It appeals to one’s emotions rather than to the intellect. “Knowledge [for Plato] requires contact with the eternal, unchanging Forms, such as Justice itself of Beauty itself, which alone have true being” (519). Going along with this train of thought, all images “invite” censorship. However, I agree that in this day and age, images should not be censored unless they invoke some kind of harm against people. For the most part, images and artworks censored would represent a great loss to our society because many convey and bring to light important ideas and commentary about what is going on in the world we live in today.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading about Andres Serrano, I looked into his work and found it really fascinating. Plato, I suspect, would especially not care fir this work, which I imagine he would find destructive to society, particularly with Serrano's "Klan" series, in which Klansmen, a group of people who promote bigotry, were photographed in a dignified way. He would probably claim that this could inspire others to join the cause. Serrano's work as a whole is controversial, and it "invites" censorship in that way. His photograph, "Piss Christ" gained a lot of notoriety after several senators tried to have it censored and threw a fit over the funding he received from governmental art programs. This photo is a golden, iridescent image of a crucifix, which the artist explained was of a small crucifix placed in a container of Serrano's own urine. The crucifix is a mainstream, very powerful symbol which Serrano did something completely "disrespectful" and "disgusting" to. He's directly challenging popular and powerful institutions in society, and some people don't like that. That is how art invites censorship: it does something unpopular, and some people would rather ignore it and pretend the question posed does not exist. They'd rather shut down the discussion than take the opportunity to explore the art or to reflect on their own beliefs. I think any art censored is a great loss to society, because every work asks something, acts as a record of the artist and time period, and forces us to think and to question. Denying that opportunity is saddening.
ReplyDelete