PDA

View Full Version : Is there a line to be crossed in the territory of acceptable?



Dirge Inferno
02-09-2015, 08:27 PM
Do you believe one can take things too far with what they say or create? Do you believe some things simply shouldn't be allowed to be said or created in this world?

jacobn28
02-09-2015, 09:22 PM
The video on YouTube of a brick flying through a windshield and killing a woman. That video still haunts me 3 years after I watched it. It should be removed from every corner of the Internet. I never understood people's obsession with "death tapes". I've seen a few, and I just don't get why they stay up. Horrible.

Dirge Inferno
02-09-2015, 10:10 PM
Yeah, this subject has been on my mind because of the uproar about the game 'Hatred.' Check this out if you haven't seen it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytdEYapPXdY

blue angel
02-09-2015, 10:34 PM
I do believe that there are lines that just should never be crossed, if we are to keep our humanity about us and our world, but I do believe that before our time is over, all lines will be crossed and we will lose all humanity.

Iulian
02-10-2015, 01:36 AM
I think any type of censorship is bad, we should be able to talk about anything, but I also believe in being respectful. If you know that a video or a subject annoys you too much, simply stay away.

Cat
02-10-2015, 04:50 AM
Some humans are very primitive, they really don't understand that everything we do/say always have some kind of consequence, it's pure logic!

You ask..... can we take things too far?! - Sure we can, unless we have a death wish!

Mercurius
02-10-2015, 11:17 AM
A certain voyeurism comes with being human and looking for the forbidden in order to reflect upon ourselves. Other than that, our "natural" voyeurism makes us vulnerable to instrumentalization from outside. Therefore, I think that it is somehow important to boykott the yellow press and the immense craving for recognition on the social media, for it does not only violate the portrayed, but also the watcher, as his/her empathy is gradually blunted.

M Tragedy666
02-10-2015, 11:40 PM
That game looks fucking badass! I will definitely be checking out "Hatred" when it comes out. Thank you for introducing me to it.

BreakingYourMomsOldMound
02-18-2015, 09:52 PM
My basic philosophy is this: Never go out of your way to piss anyone off or to avoid pissing anyone off. Unless they're radical Muslims, in which case maybe avoid pissing them off too much unless you have damn good bodyguards. Like Manson said, that's purely out of pragmatism and common sense.

The only time I've ever been truly disgusting by someone's use of their freedom of expression was when I first heard about the Westboro Baptist Church. Protesting a funeral is to good taste what creationism is to science. Besides, a funeral is a form of expression. It's about expressing love and respect for someone who's passed on. Saying that you should be allowed to protest a funeral is like saying that you should be allowed to protest a film by holding your signs in front of the cameras while it's being shot.

Halo Infinity
02-26-2015, 07:35 PM
I suppose so. If people could go too far with physical violence, people could also go too far with their words as well. The power of words should never be underestimated or taken for granted. I'm unfortunately guilty of that myself though, but I could always use a reminder whenever it comes to matters and questions such as this one.

Oh yes, and then there's also the fact that what you say wrong and what you do wrong could also come back to haunt you and hurt yourself, if not hurt others, or even both. Like most things, it's still easier said than done sometimes though, but it certainly just goes to show that you can never be too careful at all times yet again, and why I should take this topic a lot more seriously.

filthytothecore
03-19-2015, 09:45 PM
No do not ever censor yourself, It is interesting to observe the delicate human sensiblities when it comes to suffering and pain from either a first person or third person perspective, Art is what you make of it whatever you create do not create a piece of shit work to create to 100% or destroy whichever is your choice.

TMC
03-31-2015, 01:13 PM
I believe that art and any other form of creativity ends where suffering begins. If someone kills or harms any animal (including humans, and in this case I could make an exception if a person agrees to some kind of violence or whatnot) is committing a crime, not creating anything that can be called art. A good example is an artist who starved a dog to death as an "artistic performance".
I don't believe that any blasphemous or offensive material should be censored as long as the above mentioned rule is respected.

21Faces
04-03-2015, 02:43 PM
Exposición N° 1
Guillermo Vargas' exposition included the burning of 175 pieces of crack cocaine and an ounce of marijuana while the Sandinista anthem played backwards. The work also included an emaciated dog tied to a wall by a length of rope with "Eres Lo Que Lees" ("You Are What You Read") written on the wall in dog food. The work attracted controversy when it was reported that the dog had starved to death as part of Vargas's work.

http://lab.art-madrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Art-MadridLAB_limites_post_1.jpg

TMC
04-04-2015, 10:43 AM
Exposición N° 1
Guillermo Vargas' exposition included the burning of 175 pieces of crack cocaine and an ounce of marijuana while the Sandinista anthem played backwards. The work also included an emaciated dog tied to a wall by a length of rope with "Eres Lo Que Lees" ("You Are What You Read") written on the wall in dog food. The work attracted controversy when it was reported that the dog had starved to death as part of Vargas's work.

http://lab.art-madrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Art-MadridLAB_limites_post_1.jpg

That's a great example of what I would never call art, just as I wouldn't call Ed Gein an artist or a designer...

blue angel
04-14-2015, 02:55 PM
There should be a law that if you are doing any sort of ART of suffering, it should only be done on YOURSELF with no exceptions.

TMC
04-15-2015, 06:10 AM
There should be a law that if you are doing any sort of ART of suffering, it should only be done on YOURSELF with no exceptions.


I would also add that it's acceptable to have other people involved as long as they are grown up, responsible for themselves and agree to be a part of it.

Dirge Inferno
04-26-2015, 08:20 PM
Exposición N° 1
Guillermo Vargas' exposition included the burning of 175 pieces of crack cocaine and an ounce of marijuana while the Sandinista anthem played backwards. The work also included an emaciated dog tied to a wall by a length of rope with "Eres Lo Que Lees" ("You Are What You Read") written on the wall in dog food. The work attracted controversy when it was reported that the dog had starved to death as part of Vargas's work.

That's not art, that's cruelty.

Cat
04-28-2015, 01:55 AM
I do believe that there are lines that just should never be crossed, if we are to keep our humanity about us and our world

I agree....

Golden Eel
04-28-2015, 08:53 AM
That's not art, that's cruelty.

You don't know anything about art if you think those aren't often one and the same.

Dirge Inferno
05-01-2015, 12:01 AM
Here comes MMT to nitpick and make smart ass remarks about every post I make, oh no.

Golden Eel
05-01-2015, 11:55 AM
Sorry, I thought I was literally addressing the entire point of the thread.

Smoking Mirrors
01-11-2016, 04:06 PM
I think it depends on the context.

I see no point in gratuitous violence, foul language, dark topics, things considered offensive, etc. outside of art, and I find it unnecessary and detrimental, in addition to fostering a general avoidance of those topics by people who consider themselves "morally upstanding" and whatnot.

In art, however, I don't believe there are lines that should not be crossed. It could be argued that that is the point of art - to cross those lines and strike a match to start a flame of thought, discussion, change. I think it's important to have said lines, because without them, there are no lines to cross and no bounds to push and nothing to cause any conflict or thought.

To ban, prohibit, whatever, anything within art is dangerous to me. It's a bit like Nazi Germany and "degenerate art", and that clearly turned out well.. Silencing artists and banning their art for its presentation or elements and their natures going against what the louder voices say cannot be positive. Leave the lines, let them be crossed.

That raises the question, what is art? What constitutes an artist and their art? Difficult question but with many definitions. Commonly accepted are paintings, music, dance, theatre/acting. What about movies? What differentiates an action or drama movie full of gratuitous violence, racial slurs, profanity, abuse, etc. from salň o le 120 giornate di sodoma, for instance? What makes one considered something along the lines of art, and the other a creation requiring censorship? The subplot of that action or drama could be even more thought- or change-provoking than that of salň o le 120 giornate di sodoma, simply in a more largely palatable form. What makes a musician's song about the despicable blood-lust and glorification of war different from an angry protest of the same thing? It's difficult to define art and decide what can be censored and what cannot, and that definition would be constantly changing.

And then, of course, what, specifically, is censorship? What are the extents to which it can and may go? Is censorship, "No, you cannot have that imagery of a black person being beaten or an abortion being performed in a church in your show" to a musician or director? Is it, "No, you can't say 'fuck' on live television or in that song aimed at this audience"? "No, you cannot depict nudity in your painting to be hung at an all-ages-admitted public gallery"? "No, you cannot do that specific thing in this venue"? Is it "No, you cannot" being replaced by, "It is wrong to", fostering a self-righteous attitude of disapproval toward anything deemed "wrong" by the standards of a religious person? Raises yet another question as to what defines censorship and to what extent will it reach.

So, it's more than a simple question of, "This is ok and this is not because reasons." Without boundaries of censorship and the definition of art versus general entertainment, it easily becomes a censorship free-for-all in which the religious right and politicians can silence and hide anything they don't want seen by those whom it may provoke to think and open their mind to more than their upbringing, the beliefs instilled by them from a young age, the things certain people want others to believe to increase the power of the particular way of thinking.

Complicated. Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but I think it's a very important issue to discuss, and many are unwilling to think about it at all in any way other than their preferred manner of censorship, so perhaps some over-thinking is needed.

Penance Sentence
01-11-2016, 06:11 PM
Everything is Art to me. We got into MM because he was edgy and transgressive, because it can be a path towards truth by seeking more and more novel experiences. By limiting Art, you limit Yourself. Art is a reflection of Life, and those who do less self-reflection, literally have a smaller inner World inside of their Heads.

I believe in total expression, even if someone says something purely ridiculous. I don't have to Love everything I see. But why Censor it? Out of Fear of the Unknown of Myself and Potentiality?

If you ever desire to Censor a piece of Art, then it usually strikes at the chord of who you Truly are, that is too painful to confront. This is why Art exists. It assists the growth towards True Enlightenment, if used for that purpose, and not for mere entertainment.