tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post4795444835170052855..comments2024-03-04T04:12:57.650-05:00Comments on THEORY NOW: Censorship in ArtMark Cameron Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-24936097953996452402007-03-27T21:37:00.000-04:002007-03-27T21:37:00.000-04:00I think that no matter what we do to try and neutr...I think that no matter what we do to try and neutralize censorship in museums and art, there will always inevitably be that censorship there. There is no way to allow everything into the art world. This is what creates the standards that are so important to museum/art's credibility with the rest of the world. drawing the line on what to censor will always be an issue, no matter who is doing the funding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-80405476906818973122007-03-21T18:40:00.000-04:002007-03-21T18:40:00.000-04:00Katie: Generally we seem quick to judge the museum...Katie: <BR/>Generally we seem quick to judge the museum when a work or show is censored. But your right to point out that they rely not only on private funds but public funding as well, which includes money from the government. This can prove tricky for the museum and definitely informs what they do and do not show.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-57188516543898274372007-03-21T15:26:00.000-04:002007-03-21T15:26:00.000-04:00This is JackieIt is a difficult position that muse...This is Jackie<BR/>It is a difficult position that museums have been in due to funding. In these cases, the removal or rejection of these shows are just extensions of conservative figure-heads who probably don't let art affect them anyways, but they see the potential infiltration of people's minds that art can have, it may be a sort of social control. But if the broad spectrum of art is to always have a social focus, then why did we let these people, who only have money, get away with hindering any kind of social evolution these shows may have caused? I feel that it's important for people such as Vance to be writing about these situations and bring attention to them. I think that we will discover that censorship starts much earlier on then just the rejection of shows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-85670091540018830262007-03-21T15:24:00.000-04:002007-03-21T15:24:00.000-04:00When certain people are in the position to deem wh...When certain people are in the position to deem whether a work of art is offensive in any way, that is automatically censoring an artist. Unless everything is allowed to be shown, someone, somewhere will find something offensive. Should the NEA be comprised based on political beliefs? Would it make censoring obsolete? Is it really straight down the middle; Democrats vs. Republicans when it comes to the censoring of art? The only way a museum would be able to rely on public or private funding and still be able to avoid censorship would be to find seperate individuals with a crap load of money and an open mind.Antea Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08434353965502601184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-30602066895307543052007-03-21T15:23:00.000-04:002007-03-21T15:23:00.000-04:00Katie makes a good point about holding the museum ...Katie makes a good point about holding the museum responsible. Ultimately you have to please the people who are filling your purse, but there has to be a line drawn. just because someone has the money to put into "art" doesnt mean that have a good opinion on it. do we want a conservative christian to control what a museum can or cannot show? i think not. someone has to step up for the integerity of potentially offensive works. its is a fine line to walk, but we cannot let the funders stifle artistic voices.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-46252154857985387772007-03-20T21:22:00.000-04:002007-03-20T21:22:00.000-04:00Everyone has a differnt opinion on what they think...Everyone has a differnt opinion on what they think should be consored. From the reading and class discussion, i feel that just because there is a photograph of a child and their mother naked together it doesnt deserve a "peverted" label. I think that the way a photograph is composed make a differnce on weather it is precieved as a pornographic image or art. Any artist could say that their picture is art, but i some may have a hidden sexualy charged message that i dont think is apprppriate and needs censorship.Tiffany Mamonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330730986917628253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-27176540492190407162007-03-20T16:50:00.000-04:002007-03-20T16:50:00.000-04:00For further reading and research, read this.For further reading and research, read <A HREF="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=413&invol=15" REL="nofollow">this.</A>Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.com