@ 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".
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
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.
