Should art be allowed to offend?

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?

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.).

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.

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".

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.

@ 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.

@ 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.

Caissa wrote:

This raises the question of allowed by whom, and who determines [what] is offensive.

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 [u]authority[/u] 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 [u]anyone[/u], is it therefore "offensive"?  Do [u]most[/u] 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 [u]authority[/u] 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 [u]prevent[/u] 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.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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.

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

@ 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.

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*

@ 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.

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?

Snert wrote:

I ask because, for the most part, I really don't think of art (good, bad or otherwise) causing tangible harm. 

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?

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 wrote:

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.

And to me as well.

How about this one:

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. 

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).

@ 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.

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 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.