Should art be allowed to offend?

This raises the question of allowed by whom, and who determines hwat is offensive. 

People should be allowed to make any art they wish. That does not guarantee it will have what we in the biz call "uptake." Anyway, the question is a bit simplistic, isn't it? Art offends, and has done for about as long as it's been around. That a given, isn't it?

Orlan: "Narcissism is Important"

I don't know if it's a given.  My comment in the Islamophobia threead, and this thread as a result, were in response to:

Now I'm sure we'd all agree that artistic freedom is not an excuse to douse someone in gasoline and murder them with a match. But what about just plain old offensive art? Art that doesn't burn anyone alive?

I got the sense that that was kind of a subtext of that thread.

I think Snert's question was not about legality but rather about funding. Public funding? Clarify, please.

Oh. Okay. So it is about legality. In that case, it's a question of where the art is displayed, and again, whether it's public, at taxpayer's expense, or, if private, in a place where the public goes in their pursuit of other business. If it's displayed in a private home or gallery, it can be as offensive as it likes. In public places, unless the content is already covered by existing statute, offense is up for debate.

Do artists have the right to create whatever art they want in all places? No.

Simple example.

If you are in my venue and my conditions are that you don't use the word "shit" and you agree to the terms, then you don't have the right to use that word.

If you want to get into other more esoteric examples like who has the right to use certain words (like several choice ones you might find in hip hop lyrics) I suppose some technically you do have the legal right to use them. Whether one SHOULD use them or not? - well the circumstances for Harper Lee and for Patti Smith were and what they are for an artist today depend entirely on who that artist is and what his or her message is.

I wasn't really considering it in either context.  I brought up funding only as a quick example of the difficulties of agreeing on "good" or "bad" art.

And as far as legality goes, we have hate speech laws, and I would think those should define the border between legal and illegal.

But I think there's an odd middle ground, or at least I get the sense of one, where offensive things remain legal, but people think that artists "shouldn't".  That's the best I can put it.  Not legal, but not acceptable either... somehow.  That's the area I'm interested in, if it does indeed exist.

Who determines "shouldn't"?

No, art shouldn't be allowed to offend. All those paintings of big eyed clowns, kitties, anime characters and assorted pixies should be banned, banned, banned - they offend the crap out of me.

Oh wait, are those really art?

Some people will always be offended.Whether a thing is art, an advertisement, a political cartoon, a greeting card, a comedy routine or an editorial, if it has a message, somebody won't like it. And some people will always talk it to death.

But, as you say, we already have laws about slander, libel, hate and decency; we already have criteria for public funding; we already have a mechanism for civil action and appeals to change the law. How the rules change is through people talking each particular instance of contraversy to death. Each particular thing - picture, song, joke, essay - that falls into that "middle ground" is taken up and argued over until it finds its place in the 'acceptable' or the 'banned' side. Tedius process, but it works, more or less.

Eventually, the majority sentiment of a community or society. The offending work may not fall foul of the law, but if it's unpopular enough, the people who displayed it (sponsored, published, staged, etc) will probably take it down again, so as not to lose their audience, and they will probably not commission a similar peice in the near future, which will send the message out to all the artists who want to make a living..... Or they may be defiant and leave it up, for the contraversy and publicity, or because they believe in it. And people may eventually learn to accept it, even like it. That's what happened to paintings and sculptures of nude human figures. (Not if it's crap, though; crap never seems to catch on with the public, no matter how offensive.)

"the true measure of good art is how confrontational it is" 

the point of art is to make you think, feel and react, and when you ask people to think, it often offends them because it's challenging their beliefs or assumptions (look what happens on rabble!).  If art were not allowed to offend, in other words to make people react to it, what's the point?  

to me it's a bit of a silly question.  like saying "should people have the right to say what they think?"  the only people who would disagree are people who have contempt for freedom.  

and when you look at what offends people in art, it's pretty much everything.  people find a reason to be offended by everything without knowing the context or what it really even means in the first place.

now, "should art BE offensive" is another question, but when you say "allowed" it implies that if it's offensive it should be banned or made illegal or something, and no one who takes human freedom seriously would ever propose that.

ooh. nicely put, milo204

@ milo204

Actually I think the true measure of good art is how enlightening it is. That includes challenging ideas, but also a good deal of other things that art also does - healing, inspiring awe, appreciation of beauty, and as a record of people and things.

But there is also a great deal of art which offends because it is dishonest, manipulative, or hateful.

In part I agree with you - In theory I think with a very few exceptions artists should have the freedom to create whatever they want so long as they can back up what they are doing and are prepared to take whatever comes back at them.

It's not in the theory, but in the practical application that things get a little more difficult, and some of us might be willing to risk that "contempt for freedom" accusation.

Without even getting into things like appropriation of culture, or art which is propagandist or promotes hatred, a big red flag for me is people who are vulnerable - in particular children, and other people who might be strongly-affected, hurt or manipulated.

So no, I don't think one has the right to do anything in any place.

the problem though is that the mechanisms people put in place to control ideas, even when they are really objectionable, end up being used against artists who are neither objectionable or offensive.

i just look at how the full force of the law was not brought down on bands like skrewdriver or nazi bands, but ice t was banned for writing a song about the rodney king beating.  censorship of art is just a bad can of worms to open.  censoring art won't protect children or reduce hatred.  And propagandist art and that which appropriates culture is fully encouraged rather than challenged.  Most forms of pop art around today are appropriated be it movies from japan or india or kesha wearing a feather headdress in her videos.  

nobody will banning hatred and propaganda filled sermons or books, political propaganda, objectification of women etc.  it will be some some book in an school library that says it's okay to have two dads. 

@ milo204

Of course, but I don't think that is what we are talking about. Banning and censorship have been around for millennia, and very often it didn't even even need to be written down or rationalized.

The question (as I understand it) is whether there are any reasonable limits to art and expression, and I think there are, definitely.

But it is not as if talking about this is going to suddenly bring down the mailed fist of censorship, because that has always been there.

(edit)

On the actual question, although I do have some hard limits, there is a much wider grey area for me. I have seen a few works which made me grit my teeth and give the artist the benefit of the doubt that he or she actually understood the lines that were being crossed, and that it was not done blindly, arrogantly or gratuitously.

Once it gets to the point that pushing a barrier overshadows the actual message of the art - or when that becomes the sole purpose - is it really art any more, or is it simply a demonstration?

I'm not sure there could be a lot of agreement on the answer to that. Or, to be more specific, while we could probably agree that things that are primarily offensive aren't really "art" the same way other things are "art", I don't know how we'd ever agree on which things are primarily offensive.

Remember many years ago when Sinead O'Connor tore up a photograph of the Pope on television? I have no doubt that Catholics saw that as primarily offensive, and lots of other people said "right on!"

@ Snert #16

Well I'm not suggesting banning "Life of Brian" or "Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian" nor re-banning "Naked Lunch". I also do not support  Canada Border Services' targetting of Little Sisters Bookstore, and I would have been happier had VanderZalm lost that lawsuit way back when.

...and I know not everyone is offended by the same thing.

Even so, I think there are a few things that a lot of people generally agree on. As I said already, one of the main considerations for me is children and other people who might be strongly affected or manipulated, and material that is used to incite hatred.

If someone makes it a righteous cause to push expression to the limit, fine...  I am okay with having a place where that can happen. I am just as much a fan of COUM Transmissions as the next person, and if someone decided to stage a post-modern minstrel show as a piece  of artistic expression, well I can only hope that artist has done the appropriate homework before deciding to go ahead with it.

But not in front of my kids, please.

Wading in.

First I will beg the question, as history has asked and answered it. Art (however that's defined) that is offensive (ditto) is allowed, flourishes, and is prevalent already. No discussion will change that.

Second, is everyone assuming the artists are white, and are creating art in the North American context?

Lastly, a reminder that "offending" sensibilities from the "less powerful" position carries greater weight and impact for me than "offending" from the powerful position. This is why, in my analysis, the photo of Stephen Harper in a sweater holding a kitten is open for critique and humour and images of desecrating the Quran (by non-Muslims) are not. 

P.S. What offends bagkitty also offends me. Add in photos of kittens and puppies wearing clothing/hats/etc.

Well I did mention cultural appropriation as a whole area all its own. Being that I'm white and in North America that's as far as I felt was prudent to go.

...though surely you can appreciate the powerful artistic statement conveyed by those black velvet Elvis paintings.

Only if the medium of choice is velvet.

Can I quote you on that? Whoops, looks like I already did!

i agree smith there are some limits that people would see as reasonable as far as taking art to an extremely offensive place, and i agree the best course is for the public to organize to make sure people don't support it.  I agree there are reasonable limits people should respect where appropriate, but doesn't that pretty much happen anyways?  But the statement in the title of the thread was should it be "allowed" to offend, and that i don't agree with.  

I think that's where Maysie's point comes in.  Whenever there is a desire to clean up art, it's usually not usually directed at the proper sources.  It ends up chasing a heavy metal band around in fear that their record played backwards will cause kids to commit suicide (judas priest) or on banning a song about the rodney king beating (icet) etc.  As opposed to say challenging fast food marketing to kids, or political/capitalist/military propaganda aimed at kids.

I guess where i'm coming from is that i can't remember the last time i was really offended by art.  i mean there are plenty of things that offend me but art doesn't rank too high.  can you give an example of art you find offensive? 

@ milo204

Yes, I agree with you about what happens when the powers that be try to impose a comics code, movie ratings system, or lyric advisory. You wind up with alternative and political art being suppressed, and also with a big to-do  being made whenever someone runs afoul of the censorship laws - on purpose (that singer who walked around Houston or whatever city it was and took her clothes off) or maybe not (Janet Jackson at the Superbowl).

When I think of things I object to, many of them have to do with historical context - I am glad I can enjoy Loony Tunes and other cartoons without seeing the gratuitous racism that was in a huge percentage of them. I wouldn't want to see the originals burned and erased forever, but they are much better without it. And sorry, I don't see that as quite the same as bowdler's version of Shakespeare.

Same thing for a lot of gender, orientation, body image and disability slurs that mar some art that is otherwise pretty enjoyable.

When I think of art that I don't think should have been made, there are only a handful. One might surprise you because it was a clown performance - a fairly modern style one. Anyway, there was one point at which the performer ripped up a five dollar bill and threw it up in the air, and the kids - 2, 3 and 4 years old - just freaked out and scrambled all over the ground trying to get the pieces. Perhaps I am sensitive, but something about their reaction and the lesson in it just seemed very wrong to me.

Dusan Makavajev's film "Sweet Movie" has a scene involving children which I think should never have been made. The movie is available in Canada, so it's not against the law and there is lots of actual graphic stuff in it that I am sure would push other people's buttons, but that scene crosses the line for me. Too bad, because I think it is a good movie in other respects.

I can think of a couple of pieces of shock art that seem gratuitous enough to me that they are well into that grey area I spoke about, and art that focuses on gore, depression, negative emotions, and disconnection from life is something that I think is very damaging to people generally. But again that's not quite the same as a hard limit.

Oddly enough (since it hasn't happened often) the last time I was offended by art was this summer, and it was actually because someone didn't respect those limits after agreeing to do so. It was at a festival - middle of the day, with an audience of people of all ages, including lots and lots of kids, right down in front of the stage. This poetry slam guy got up. I won't repeat his words (I would not be able to repeat them here) but they were disturbing, deeply misogynist, graphic, profane, and most of all arrogant and juvenile. Plus, it was just shitty poetry. Many of us were furious and hurt by what he said, not least of all the person who booked him for the event, and whom he promised he would deliver a piece appropriate for a family audience (and it was not, by the way, an audience that would have been shocked by the word "fuck". The tirade was much more than that). When told about it the guy acted like people were making a big deal out of nothing.

It screwed things up for a number of us, because we were all mindful of the principle of free expression, but how does one balance that when faced with a violation and a breach of trust. There was an apology from one of the organizers the next day which broke a lot of the hurt and anger that was there. But it was a good illustration of the fact that there are real limits (not just those imposed by the evil oppressors).

This isn't a question of art, but of of homicide, which is covered by most countries' existing penal codes.

Do you acknowledge that  there is a difference between tearing up a photo of the Pope and, say, crucifying John Paul Jr.?

i hear you.  and that thing with the clown is very much something i'd find objectionable!  teaching kids to fight each other off the pieces of a bill is pretty lame!  Same with the poet.  It's like these things wouldn't be an issue if people just used their heads and therein lies the problem.

Some artists are perceptive enough to know when the time to offend has come, and others seem to simply revel in being offensive for no reason.

It's funny, because i remember as a kid listening to some pretty offensive stuff and my parents being far from impressed at some of the records i would bring home (i was pretty into heavy metal and punk rock) and the images and lyrical content was sometimes graphic and plenty of cursing.  I think they handled it well.  They just made sure they talked to me about the lyrics and ask me what i thought they meant and then let me listen to it.  It was good because then i felt like i had some freedom and they were involved with what i was being exposed to, whereas some friends parents would take their records away which made them want to listen to even more graphic or offensive stuff.

The only record i was ever forced to return was the Suicidal Tendencies first LP.  It was right around the time kids were committing suicide after listen to judas priest backwards  so the name kinda freaked my mom out.

kids were committing suicide after listening to judas priest backwards?

oh please do provide a linked news source to this bit of info to support your contention it was in fact occuring..

Articles re. the Judas Priest controversy

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/17/arts/2-families-sue-heavy-metal-band-as-having-driven-sons-to-suicide.html

http://www.suite101.com/content/judas-priest-and-metal-on-trial-a49944 [28]

http://videosift.com/video/Judas-Priest-Subliminal-Messages-Suicide-Trial [29]

"was in fact occuring" is the key element in my post.....not someone's misguided, at best, belief that music lyrics cause suicide.

Milo spoke as if it were true and accurate that it did happen.

I was simply providing background information. This one is between you and nilo.

Caissa, while it is appreciated that you went to the work of finding links for background, it was based upon the assumption I had not heard of the whacked out parents who were falsely blamming music lyrics and who correctly lost in court.

Frankly, Remind, you don't know what assumptions it was based upon. The links I provided would provide some background for any babbler that wondered what you and Milo were discussing.

fair enough....

not sure why it doubled

I love Suicidal Tendencies

catchfire you have good taste!

Sorry remind, i don't think judas priest had anything to do with it either, i should have written it differently.  I just meant to refer to the whole controversy at that time where parents thought kids were killing themselves after listening to judas priest.  a well paced "apparently" would have been better in front of that sentence!!

the whole idea of subliminal messages in metal was so stupid, you could play any record backwards and think you're hearing real words.  Wasn't there a similar thing with stairway to heaven?  I also heard a really great program on college radio that was some pastor from the US talking about how certain lyrics to rock songs were coded signs from the devil or something, wish i could recall more about it so i could find it on youtube or something, because it was hilarious!

Catchfire might have great taste, but Mike Muir certainly does not. Those "Warrior" style headbands and plaid shirt as in the original video here [39]... uhh, ok Mike...?!

actually thanks remind for bringing this up, i just read the wikipedia thing on "backmasking" and it was a good read.

here's a recording of some wacky pastor talking about satan infiltrating rock music!

http://vocaltracks.blogspot.com/2010/01/pastor-gary-greenwald-on-backmas...

Should this be allowed to be called art: Sleepytime Gorilla Museum - A Hymn To The Morning Star .

Art is freedom of expression...Good art can speak to a person in ways no spoken word could (I'll limit my point to the visual arts)

I remember some years back,when a couple of college students tortured and skinned alive a cat on film as a work of contemporary art depicting the murderous meat industry.

To this day,I'd like to meet these 2 gentlemen and create a work of art of my own--- (I'll leave it as that)

There are little to few examples where art can transcend so far that it is offensive and morally repugnant to anyone who is not a psychopath and what I just mentioned is one of them.

But that's an extreme example that thankfully never caught on.

Besides an over the top piece of 'art' such as that,the freedom for one to express him/herself should never be denied because it may offend someone.

And let's face it,you cannot do or say anything that won't offend atleast one person in this world.

My gut sense is that Snert was not really asking, "should are be allowed to offend" but "should people be allowed to be offended by art"?

haha

I sure hope so. Otherwise we'd have to listen to all those disappointed artists mope about and complain.

And not to diss artists looking to push boundaries, because there are enough out there doing valid work... but if the goal is to outdo what has come before it will be awhile before anyone matches Yukio Mishima's final work.

yeah, disemboweling yourself and then getting beheaded is pretty much as far as you can go...yikes.  

Since many artists are obnoxious and offensive, I can't see why that shouldn't be reflected in their art.  Honestly, there's no reason to disallow their snotty work.  Anyone who disagrees can 'booger off'!

No, people should feel free to feel offended. It's not like I can control anyone's emotions, even if I wanted to.

But as I noted upthread, I sometimes get the sense of some kind of unspoken "middle ground" between taking action on, say, hate speech grounds, and simply being offended, and that interests me some.

A good example would be the Danish cartoons. I've seen people say "They shouldn't have" or "the flip side of freedom of expression is that you have to use that freedom responsibly" -- these seem to me to suggest some sort of onus on artists, above and beyond what's limited by law. What if they don't?

@ Catchfire #45

Good quote. Thanks for the reminder.

If we were to take that as the yardstick one could argue that Hitler and Stalin were indeed great artists. Same for Mishima, actually, though I think what he did actually had an artistic dimension, since his coup attempt and suicide were intricately linked to his art (and besides, he wrote a death poem as part of it).

I remember hearing a story that Dali made an offer to Frano to build a monument out of the bones of republican soldiers. I haven't been able to find an online source, but I do remember hearing that, whether it is true or not. Franco turned him down, aparently.

Basically, I KS was either reaching, or deliberately trying to provoke. If the magnitude, execution and effect are the only things we consider, it begs the question of where the actual art is.

@ Snert #44

Exactly. I think artists do have that responsibility beyond the law. 

I think that art occupies a special territory where the usual laws of propriety do not apply. They are allowed to do things that would ordinarily not be allowed in a non-artistic setting. In that respect I think it is like desire and sexuality in that you cannot judge it in quite the same way as other aspects of what we do and think.

Nevertheless, there are limits in both areas, and if anything GREATER responsibility that goes hand-in-hand with that special freedom

Ok, but this still seems... unfinished.

Perhaps we could say "all citizens have a responsibility to be patriotic toward their country". Fine. Or what?? The law makes clear our responsibilities, and also the penalties for ignoring those. Outside of the law, what is there besides finger-wagging to enforce extra responsibilities?

And how do we reconcile, say, those who say that artists have a "responsibility" to challenge and shock with those who say that their responsibility is to celebrate beauty, and to not challenge?

@ Snert #47

I don't see it as unfinished; I see it as an open question because aside from some a few basic things you're never going to codify it into a hard rulebook of what one can and cannot do.

In the first place, it's hard to predict what people will come up with. In the second place, as I said already, a lot of it comes down to who is doing what and where.

But really, making a book of rules isn't the point. Art affects us on the level of symbol and feeling. When someone does something wrong it's not always apparent from words written down on a page, but when you experience it you know it.

(edit)

And if you're talking about legal injunctions and consequences, I think the whole question of artistic responsibility only intersects in part with the law. Again, with respect to children, or physical harm. I'm not talking about prohibitions and censorship, and for me that is not the point at all.

But I still think that an artist can breach his or her responsibility and be guilty of professional misconduct, just like any other worker.

Responsibility and other nebulous terms only mean as much as society ascribes to them. We don't, in fact, learn responsibility from the law. Law (in the form of commandments rather than oral history) does not enforce responsibility, society does. We (i.e. society) do this by encouraging some voices and discouraging others in myriad ways. This should be no great secret: there is a reason why Criss Angel has his own television show and no one has heard of Sam Hsieh.

So when those of us question why a Danish newspaper would publish a stupid cartoon guaranteed to infuriate a billion people who are already targeted by a global economic, propoganda and war machine, it is not because we want Johnny Law to step in and actively prevent the cartoonish from putting pen to paper. Rather, we simply voice aloud the prospect of a world which doesn't cynically value the "free speech" of Danish cartoonists while ignoring the voices of those our governments and rulicg classes are actively oppressing. We wonder what it would be like to live in a world where the gleeful mockery of oppressed cultures doesn't get mainstream coverage, doesn't get supported by the perverted pillars of liberal thought, ideologies so corrupt they wouldn't recognize the noble vision which created them. It's not those who condemn such 'artists' who, like Göring, would reach for their sidearm--it seems to me that such a refrain is only imposed on such a utopian vision by those who fear its imminence.

@ Catchfire #49

Agreed, absolutely, on all except one point.

Responsibility may not be an absolute concept, but it is far from nebulous. Any mature person knows what it means. It is simply understanding (as best as you can) the effect of the things you say and do, accepting ownership of  them, and being prepared to back them up and accept the consequences for them.

The idea that this is a legal concept or should be is a red herring. States impose censorship (in most cases) to control, manipulate and shut out voices, which is an entirely different thing.

Artists have greater freedom than the rest of us, and with that comes greater responsibility. But it does not mean they have carte blanche and it is still a contract which can be broken, in my opinion.

How this works in practical terms for me? If I saw something that did not pass for me I certainly wouldn't expect the cops to throw it on the fire, but I would be less inclined to support someone claiming the art defense,

(edit)

Woudl it get to the point that I would actually want to prevent a piece of art from being shown? I am deeply opposed to absolute censorship, but in theory I think there might be some things that would drive me to that. Supportring freedom of speech is one thing; playing the patsy to someone who wants fo abuse that principle for self-indulgent or hateful ends is quite another.

Just excellent, seriously.

... when I read it though, I leave out "cultures", and input "the" before 'oppressed'. As it is not just cultures who are oppressed.

Is it liberal thought or libertarian thought whose ideologies are so corrupt, or both?

Thanks remind--I don't have an answer to your last question, though. I think I can only say that libertarians and liberals alike use uninterrogated concepts like "free speech" as a crutch, without recognizing that they are not religious, transcendental decrees but social concepts. We, as a society, make them what they are.

It's this kind of statement--"Any mature person, etc."--which railroads difference and participates in false universal discourses (shorthand for white, capitalist, patriarchal discourses) like "free speech." Responsibility, like freedom, is not some hill we can build a city on. It is a carefully manicured concept which serves the status quo: think of the number of times "responsibility" has enabled tyranny: war, resedential schools, anti-choice activism, and many more spring to mind. The truth is when we utter phrases like "any mature person" and so on we are in fact thinking of a single kind of mature person, usually white, usually male, usually middle-class.

There is nothing wrong with a concept being nebulous--indeed, it could draw much strength from being so. The trick is to build up these terms with an eye for difference, to understand them as functioning in different ways for different people. It's ok, even desirable, to idealize them in the way you have for responsibility "simply understanding the effect, etc.," but we have to take to heart the way these ideals function in real life. Which is to say, they do not. We need to imagine ideals (utopia, essentially) as futurity and potentiality, not as "here and now," which is only ideological fantasy.

I think we can agree that art is culturally bound. We can probably also agree that every culture contains within it power relationships. If we can agree upon that it seems to me Catchfire that you are arguing that the dominant group(s) in a culture should not create art that offends members of the oppressed group(s). Is this correct or am I missing what you are setting forth?

@ Catchfire

I think we're starting to get off on a semantic sidetrack.

Responsibility is not absolute. A doctor, judge or artist has a higher level of responsibility than you or I do. Likewise, I think that under certain circumstances I might have a higher level of responsibility than someone who is starving to death, or otherwise driven to desparation.

That said, I don't consider responsibility nebulous at all. I know people whom I can trust, and who stand by their word, and I know people who do not.

Like I said, I know part of our difference might be semantic, but to imply that the concept effectively has no meaning is just moral relativism. I do not agree at all.

(edit)

And by "mature" I meant exactly what the word means - not an infant or child.

No implication of whiteness, developed world-view, or any other cultural difference.

Semantics are all we have, as a culture, to communicate. Nebulous is not a cognate or synonym of meaningless. To attempt to connect the two is again to work to elide and erase difference. Indeed, to state that certain people in our society have a "higher level of responsibility" is again ideologically grounded. Why does a doctor or a judge have more responsibility than a mother? Or indeed, a crack addict? Their responsibilities are different, and it means different things to different people. To discard such a concept as "moral relativism" is simply not doing the mental heavy lifting required to make such a complex concept work.

Caissa: I believe artists should be allowed to create any art they please--more than that, they will anyway, regardless of what I want, or regardless of those holding the guns want. What I am talking about is imagining a world in which the "uptake" of such art--how it is recieved, digested and recirculated--happened in a more progressive way, say, with an eye for capitalist and imperialist critique rather than latching on to art which parrots or translates hegemonic narratives (e.g. Islam is evil, etc.).

Thanks, Catchfire. I better understand now what you were saying.

Good expose on the thought behind the use of the word 'mature' catchfire. Mature, as a word is also nebulous really, as what one person considers mature, another does not. And of course that is based upon one's personal view of "responsibility".

And I have met children way more mature than some adults who considered themselves very "mature".

...mature in its actual definition that is. As the age of maturation is different in definition than that of mature.

@ Catchfire

Sorry, but I expect a different level of responsibility from someone in a professional capacity than I do in a non-professional one. Some professions have specific ethical rules - like not having personal relationships with clients - that the rest of us do not. Likewise a judge, a journalist  or a moderator applies a different standard when the professional hat is on, and when it is off.I don't know if there is a distinction for you, but there is for me.

It is the same for artists.

And my last word on the word "mature". I can think of plenty of words that have a range of different definitions, and if we're going to start making hay with this I'll just say that I resent having my words twisted.

If I had wanted to say that  that white male capitalists know more about responsibility than other people then I would have said just that.

whose voice are you speaking from 6089?

That of a white male.

Full stop.

So...no one is twisting your words, you are being short sighted, at best, in respect to your white male perspective on what is "mature".

Look remind, with all respect, any interpretation beyond the words I used is just speculation on your part. 

It would be better if we didn't focus on what Smith "means" when he use the word "mature," but what "mature" (or "responsibility") means in its discursive context, based on how we, as a society, use it and ascribe meaning to it. The point is not to say that any of us, Smith, remind, or I, are individually confederates of ideology or whatever, but to ask how ideology circulates through these words we use, to interrogate what we mean when we say "mature"--and the answer is not found in the dictionary. That is, we can't use these words as a priori universals--they're not--they are socially determined meanings. If you choose to only accept one meaning, that's an ideological choice.

Likewise, with "responsibility." Even if you believe in only one, true, transcendental meaning of 'responsibility' you cannot legislate that meaning into other artists, so the point is ultimately moot. Indeed, if you had to choose, do you think the Danish cartoonish was motivated by a sense of responsibility or irresponsibility? I doubt it was the latter.

No, respectfully it is not, 6089.

You are a white male, who has not, and cannot, know/experience other's perceptions of what responsibility and maturity are, full stop.

@ Catchfire #61

I get your meaning. Though my original meaning back at #46 was not "responsibility" in the sense of what an artist feels is his or her duty to convey through art. 

What I was getting at was the responsibility to stand by what one says and does, which really shouldn't be such an esoteric concept. I know people I can trust to be honest, and I know some whom I cannot. Likewise, If one of us says something out of order on this forum the responsible thing to do is not to deny saying it, feign ignorance or otherwise side-step the issue. 

(edit) and to be clear, I'm just using that as an example, not implying anything.

I know that a lot of these terms are built on shifting sand as well as you do, but even within that I think artists (like any of us) have to use our freedom in a responsible way. We're talking here in a space where those limits should be pretty clear.

with all do respect since i haven't been in on this conversation for a bit, I think everyone is being pretty unspecific here and it is creating some confusion.  When smith provided the example of someone being told in advance it was a "family" event, and they then jumped into a profanity laced "art" performance, i think that's what he was talking about with respect to responsibility and maturity (sorry to speak on your behalf smith).

Any person who had either of those qualities would say "okay, well my performance probably isn't right for this then" as i have had to do many times.  Their art belongs somewhere else.  Not that the art should be banned or anything of the sort, but that obviously we place boundaries on the where/when in reference to "offensive" art.  Such as, i wouldn't do a vulgar, profanity laced play during a "children's festival" but it might fit in just fine during the fringe festival.

To be honest, i think "responsibility and maturity" might be the wrong terms.  what it seems smith is talking about is misrepresenting your art simply to get a gig where it is obviously not the place.  

@ milo204 #64

In almost all cases I can think of I would put it down to that, yes. It depends on who is doing it, and where it is being done.

But it is not just restricted to lying about one's intentions. Although I believe one should be able to do almost anything in the name of art I still think there are moral limits, as I explained above.

We can drop the word "maturity". That I only used to indicate a person was able to assess anothers' intentions.

"Responsibility" though is exactly what I mean.

i pretty much agree, although setting moral limits is hard.  To you and i, it might mean art that is not racist, sexist, homophobic, capitalistic etc.  

But we know that the larger society will not take those things things into consideration, since dominant cultural norms tend to include all those things.  i guess that is where it's the artists responsibility to check themselves, but then we're assuming the artist is more enlightened than your average person, which is sometimes true, but is often not the case.

I think the best course of action is for everyone to set their own moral limits and expectations, and support art that fits into that, while leaving others to make the same decision for themselves.  

The question in the thread title ("Should art be allowed to offend?") really raises at whole host of more fundamental questions:

1. What is "art"?  Is burning a flag "art"?  Is depositing a crucifix in urine "art"?  Is burning a Bible or Quran "art"?  Is a cartoon of the Pope or Mohamed with a candlestick shoved up his arse "art"?  Is hanging the American flag upside down in Texas "art"?
2. Who determines what is and is not "art"?  Who will be designated with the authority to determine whether or not a particular expression is "art"?  If someone is going to have the authority "to allow" (or disallow) offensive art, then someone must first have the authority to determine whether or not an expression is "art".
3. If an expression is art, then what is "offensive" art?  If art offends anyone, is it therefore "offensive"?  Do most people need to be offended by a particular artistic expression in order for that expression to be deemed "offensive"?
4. Who determines if art is "offensive"?  Who will have the authority to determine whether a certain expression of art is or is not "offensive"?  Again, if someone is going to have the authority "to allow" (or disallow) offensive art, then someone must first have the authority to determine whether or not a particular artistic expression is "offensive".
5. And, after all of that: Who has (or should have) the authority "to allow" (or disallow) offensive art?

The first and third questions should be left to the marketplace of individual preference and opinion (which also addresses the second and fourth questions).  Who wants to empower any person or group with the final authority to make those decisions?

With regard to the fifth question, no one should have the authority to prevent any expression simply because someone considers it "offensive".  If someone thinks a particular expression is "offensive" (whether or not it is "art"), then that person is free refrain from viewing, listening, or reading it and to criticize it.

@ Sven

Nicely put together.

I'll just say that 2, 4, and 5, while they are important things to consider, aren't relevant to the way I see it. I don't think it is a legal question (at least not in most cases). I am not talking about sending in the firemen to torch people's books. 

I think you hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph, though the question is what to do about art which hurts people. Complain? Protest? Shun? Spraypaint? I don't claim to have an answer to it, but I think that in some cases people who object strongly should be able to register their objection in some way.

I agree with what milo said at #66

I was thinking too, there are parallels between artists' freedom and responsibilities and the freedom and responsibilities of members of the press. Our gut feeling is that both should be completely free with no restrictions. Nevertheless, both jobs involve ethical considerations.

When you say "hurts people," are you referring to a harm greater than being offended by art?

Don't we already have laws to address any tangible harm that art might do?

@ Snert #70

No. As I have said a few times already, I don't think it is primarily a legal question, but an ethical one. One can abuse freedom of expression and still be within the law. And besides, in the interest of freedom I don't think the law is the appropriate instrument for getting people to take responsibility for their actions.

@ Sven #69

I gave what I thought were some pretty clear examples upthread. Anything which exploits or manipulates vulnerable people, specifically children -  crosses the line for me. Not everything which does that is against the law.

Again, I'm not even going to get into stuff that should be clear - racism, sexism, and cultural appropriation that is a part of some art in a strictly exploitative way.

Putting live animals in a blender and inviting the audience to turn it on is human arrogance and a callous disregard for life; I don't care if no one flips the switch. I can think of some cute transgressive party tricks too, but I don't think much of them.

And "offense"is sometimes more than just prudery, a soft stomach or getting one's nose out of joint. I would think the feelings of a person who lost loved ones to a serial killer might offended by seeing that murderer's bad art on display, or depicted on canvas, simply because of the notoriety of the crime.

If I had a loved one who died screaming in a burn ward I don't think I'd want to hear a song based on a transcript about people throwing up at the sight of that suffering.

And the fact is, most of this is material I think is valid art (I have a copy of Hamburger Lady in my record collection), but which is well into the grey area, and terribly close to the edge.

We put art on a pretty high pedestal (rightly so) when it comes to its powers to enlighten and teach. It seems odd to me that we would turn a blind eye to its equal power to harm and manipulate, simply because artists should have the freedom to do whatever they want.

So, with regard to the question in this thread's title ("Should art be allowed to offend"), you are saying that there are legal standards and there are ethical standards.  And, that distinction makes perfect sense to me.

With regard to ethical standards, I don't think there is (or should be) a mechanism by which certain art is "allowed" and other art not "allowed" - other than through public criticism and shaming (such as what we saw successfully used in the recent case of the Florida preacher who wanted to burn the Quran).  In other words, there should be no societal organ which would be vested with the power and authority to prevent the creation, publication, or display of ethically offensive art.

Is that something you agree with?

Any societal organ, would in effect be a legal tool. No. I don't think that would be either good or sustainable, or given the internet, even possible (again, look at what happened to the comics code). So yes, I agree.

If anything, I think the opposite is important - to ensure that art that threatens or is unpopular has a proper venue, and proper funding, because there is a lot more censorship that happens by blacklist than by injunction.

I would think most protest should be in the form of shunning or protest, or better still, pointing out to the artist how hurtful a work is.

But in theory, if I thought a serious enough abuse was taking place, I could see disrupting or destroying art, or not stepping in to prevent someone else from doing so. I should say that I am talking in theory, because I would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of something that would get me that angry.

On the other hand, if someone is carrying out an attack under the pretext of making art, why should I not step in as I would in the case of any other assault?

I know this is a pretty provocative idea; it's not something I like either. On the other hand, there have been plenty of performers booed off stages, and plenty of artworks vandalized, so it is hardly outside the realm of possibility.

*thinking about the apocryphal story of Pete Seeger wanting to take an axe to Dylan's power cable*

Here's where I feel like this gets slippery.

If you see someone being physically assaulted, you're free to step in to help them defend themself.

I'm hard put to think of any art that physically assaults someone. Are you maybe conflating physical assault with hurt feelings or offense?

How would you help, say, the Catholics who insist they were harmed by "Last Temptation of Christ"? What actually harmed them?

@ Snert #74

Yup, I agree. Very slippery, and I don't feel 100% comfortable talking about it myself. But I think it is an important question.

I have stepped in when I saw people being physically attacked, but on two occasions when I have seen children's minds being played with and exposed to really disturbing stuff I just stood there with my jaw hanging open because it was supposedly art.

(edit)

Though I can think of a really easy one - not too many people complain when a monument to a tyrant is torn down. I wouldn't extend that to trying to erase all the art from an era people want to put behind them, however - though there are examples of people trying to do just that.

Okay, you've given a good example of when you would NOT step in.  But when would you (theoretically) step in, and what would be the harm or hurt you would be trying to prevent?

I ask because, for the most part, I really don't think of art (good, bad or otherwise) causing tangible harm.  And perhaps more to the point, I don't think that the art that most seems to offend people is guilty of causing real harm.  But plenty of people claim to be harmed nonetheless, or behave as though they've been actually harmed.

I agree that there are some -- maybe many -- things that young children aren't ready for, and that's why we have film ratings and the like.  I doubt you'll get much argument there.  But it's nearly always adults who claim that some art of some sort "harmed" them.  As I really don't see how, that's far more interesting to me.

In the cases involving children I DO think there is a point at which it would have been appropriate to step in.

Likewise, I could think of offensive material that would be bad enough for me to yell for someone to get off a stage, or even throw something (an apple, rather than a rock) to express my disapproval. I do not think art is so sacred that one has to sit idly by in all situations and take it. In fact, for some art, that fourth wall is open for people to complain.

In terms of offending adults, I'm not in favour of banning pieces like Marcus Harvey's infamous work, or those pictures that would never have been noticed had they not been painted by that child murderer. That said, I think a lot more about the torment of the families who have to endure that spectacle than I do about the the artistic statement and the money being made by using the torture and murder of their loved ones for voyeurism and artistic fodder.

I can imagine it must be like a knife to the heart, and if someone so personally affected by that were to do something to destroy a work of art like that I would have a hard time condemning it.

Another example which doesn't involve the destruction of art is the objection to Marcien Lemay's sculpture of Louis Riel. Was the removal of that sculpture justified because it was not considered an honourable depiction?

Don't see the potential for psychological harm? 

I don't want to give to much importance to any one piece of art.  But when your options for meaning making are reduced to a more narrow selection I do think there is harm done.  I spent some time with a man from Burma who was jailed four years for a poem he had written....In a situation like that it's not so much that the any one piece of government propaganda is particularly harmful but the fact the is a complete void of different ideas.  I think we'd all agree banning native cultural practices in Canada has caused tangible harm.

I can't conceive of any way setting up any hard and fast rules for what art is allowed and what isn't while also guarantying no creation of value will be suppressed as well.  So it would seem to me art should be allowed to offend, but I don't think any one individual should be able to amplify their voice to the extent that the voices which would give them balance can not be heard....Perhaps I'm just saying the only thing that really offends me is self-righteous dominance?

Definitely. I think we could all think of good examples of banning expression resulting in harm.

But what of permitting it?

From one piece of art? I'm having trouble thinking of an example, or at any rate, an example that would be worthy of censure.

I suppose if your favourite uncle, the policeman, was killed in the line of duty then IceT's "Cop Killer" could be a trigger for whatever pain his death caused, and that's unfortunate, but I don't know that I'd say that psychological harm would warrant taking any action against the song or the artist.

Does that ever really happen, though? Do the massive sales of established recording artists like (say) Lady Gaga really prevent people from hearing indy bands, if that's what they want? I'm not denying that some artistic messages are dominant, but I don't know if it's fair to say that alternatives are silenced as a result.

Well I was thinking more of my Poet friend being silenced by the military Junta which controls all media.  I guess that is an extreme example and there is a whole spectrum from outright silence to equal volume/time to speak for all.  I guess the less silence is expected from the audience or the more oppurtunities that exist for others to create art the less offended I would be [84]. So I personally don't think pop stars are offensive, however, the modes of mass media [85] distribution often are offensive.

so i guess a fitting resolution to this debate would be :

yes, art should be ALLOWED to offend, however in certain circumstances we should confront and make our views known when we find something objectionable about a particular piece of art.  sounds good to me.

@ milo204 #81

The only thing I would add to that is I personally think there are some places that artists should not go.

Speaking of which, here's a relevant and timely bit of news:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/09/15/police-charges-dawson...

I can tell you right now I wouldn't complain about artistic freedom one bit if somebody crashed this guy's site.

And to me as well.

But is one allowed to dress up ones offensive and bigoted media campaigns as art, in order to protect one from the accussation that one is just engaging in racist propaganda:

For example, this:

How would one dress up a drawing as "art"?  Isn't it already "art"?  Do you mean "high art"?  In which case I'd ask the same question.  Would a cartoonist publish a small blurb underneath the cartoon that says "Please do not mistake this for a mere drawing!  It is ART."?

@ Snert.

THat is my point. Some people use the pretext of art as a vehicle to do somehting completely different. To ignore that and simply say it is art and therefore untouchable is foolish, IMO.

The art defense only gets you so far. Like they say about the law - it should be a shield and never a sword.

Even "art" does have a line, where it crosses over into hate speech.  I don't think anyone's suggesting that if something self-identifies as "art" that it's then untouchable (or should be).

I'm just asking how one takes a drawing and makes it "art"?  Isn't it already "art"?  Not necessarily good art, or collectible art, or skilled art, but what is it if not art?  What's the line between "drawing" and "art", and how would a person take a drawing and convert it?

Considering the fact that I can eat an apple and call it art if that is my intention, I wouldn't say there is any difference at all.

How about this one:

Let me guess.. black and red are probably the team colours.

cueball, i think your examples fit in with my point.  I (and you) disagree with what those drawings are saying.  I don't think they should be "banned" by the state, but eliminated through public pressure.  I think the state should have no say in what people think and talk about and express, it does unfortunately mean people with really objectionable views are going to be there as well (like racist logos and cartoons).

i think it's fine to ban actions, but banning words is just a bad idea, because we know how bans are manipulated by the powerful for their own interests.  Look at what happened with terrorism...who's getting investigated? environmental activists, protesters, etc. 

Ok, but what if they were banned by the state. Do you think that others who likewise are ridiculed have the right to demand the state do the same for them? My first example, is most certainly banned from public exhibition in most of Europe, except under exceptional circumstances where it might be used for educational purposes, such as in a history book. Very likely, if someone were to begin using that picture in a serious manner it could also be banned here, as hate speech.

I guess it is your position that all of the hate speech legislation should be repealed, in this country?

milo204

I think that is how it is already done - the act of inciting hatred is criminalized. We don't ban the drawing of spiders.

I know the child pornography laws are specific enough that they would include naked cherubs, but they are not applied that way - though does anyone remember when the RCMP seized those Nazi books from the University of Calgary Reference library back in the early 80s, even though they were there as examples of racial hatred?

Likewise, I know the swastika is banned in Germany, but of course, not applied in the case of historical drama and such (nor even art, I would think).

While bona fide calls for violence or fomenting of hatred are, and should be, covered by hate speech laws, there's still considerable latitude for "ridicule" in the form of some sort of social commentary. It gets pretty slippery when you try to decide whether the person who drew this picture is making a comment on Americans, or genuinely trying to convince people to hate Americans or harm Americans. It seems not unreasonable to discuss whether or not Americans, in general, are ignorant of the world. I don't know that there's a similar validity to discussing whether or not Jews bake bread with the blood of gentile children, or similar.

Anyway, I think it's worth noting that both Cueball and I have posted offensive images, but we're both unlikely to face any legal action, nor really any scorn, given that in neither case are we attempting to convince others to hate.

@ Snert

Same thing for the University of Calgary. The epilogue is of course that the RCMP returned those historical artifacts.

Again... it comes down to who is doing it, and where (and why, of course).

But again, this is not primarily a legal issue in my opinion. If you check the news this morning, you will probably notice that there are some very thoughtless people doing a monstrous thing by spreading pictures around on the internet. Part of what they are doing is perfectly within the law, but it is far from morally right.

The fundamental question is: Who is going to have the power and authority to ban or not "allow" offensive images, words, or music?

If an entity will have such power and authority, it would necessarily have to be the state.

Given that, who here wants to give whatever political party that happens to be in control of the state at any given point in time the unfettered power to censor and prohibit "offensive" images, words, or music?

Remember, it's just when "the good guys" are in power.  If a precedent is set for the state control "offensive" speech and art, then the same rules will apply when "the bad guys" are in power.

Sven.

No, that is not the question at all. At least it is not the question for me. I think I said so, for the umpteenth time, in my most recent post.

Perhaps someone else might step up to build that straw figure for you, but I am not sure who.

I was making a general comment - my post wasn't directed specifically to you.

The question is: Should art be allowed to offend?

If some art is to be "allowed" and some other art (i.e., "offensive" art) is not to be "allowed", then it necessarily follows that some entity must have the power and authority to "allow" some art and to not "allow" other art.  Otherwise, the question ("Should art be allowed to offend?") is meaningless.

So, given that some entity must have the power and authority to "allow" some art and to not "allow" other art, I repeat that the following question must be answered: Who is going to have the power and authority to ban or not "allow" offensive images, words, or music?

I stand by my original post way up there.

I find it interesting that this has evolved into a "banning" debate, which I avoid. 

But to reiterate Cueball's point, which I also made upthread, when depictions/art/creative expression are showing mainstream/power over/privileged position (such as racist professional sports mascots and team logos which are defended as both art and tradition) this is offensive and usually, through time and attrition, go away. Sometimes by protests. This is entirely different than a depiction/art/creative expression that is trying to depict a position that is heard far less, that is, multiple positions from the margins.

Offensive to the mainstream (like Sinead ripping the Pope picture) is usually something that I would support in theory, if not in practice.

Offensive, such as, let's say, PETA images, which play on but do not critique, mainstream notions of beauty, bodies and politics, deserve to be denounced.

So, are you saying that the initial question ("Shoud art be allowed to offend?") is the wrong question and that, instead, all expressions should be "allowed" but with the proviso that some art (i.e., art that someone or some group deems is "offensive") is worthy of being denounced and criticized, but not subject to banning or punishment?  If that's the case, then I don't think anyone here would disagree with that and this would be a non-issue.  This matter only becomes an issue if those making certain expressions are not "allowed" to do so.  In that case, a whole series of questions would then become relevant.

@ Maysie #99

Yup. I agree with all of that, though I think mainstream power is only one (admittedly very important) mitigating factor. And I don't think anyone, anywhere gets an absolute free pass (though of course the real judgment would properly come from the artist's own community).

Like I said, I wouldn't buy the art defense from that kid who put that murder game up on the internet. I don't care where he buys his shoes.

Anyway the question is completely loaded right from the start. The real question that is being asked here, is, should art be allowed to be racist and prejudiced, not if it should be allowed to "offend".

...and for me, should an artist be allowed to manipulate, or to exploit the suffering and vulnerability  of others. I think culture and class are a big part of it, but that's not all there is to it. Like I said, the first thing that comes to my mind is the protection of children.

And yeah, the "allow" thing is a herring

You keep using the term "allowed" yourself but then call that issue a red herring. 

If expressions (however odious they may be) are to be classified as either "allowed" or not "allowed", then you cannot escape the following question (other than by willfully ignoring it): Who will be doing the "allowing"?

On the other hand, if all expressions (however odious they may be) are simply left to be criticized or not (but in all cases "allowed"), then we have an entirely different question.

But, if certain expressions are to be "allowed" and other expressions prohibited, then the obvious and necessarly question then becomes: Who will be deciding that?

Legally allowed, Sven. Codified, with powers to ban outright. I do not believe in that; I do not believe any arbiter should be set up to decide that, nor is that the crux of this discussion for me.

I think I have repeated that enough. THis is the last time.

I will not allow this thread to offend any longer.

Closing.