Nav_image
Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image
Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image Nav_image
Nav_image
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Is there a line to be crossed in the territory of acceptable?

  1. #21
    cold blows the wind Golden Eel's Avatar
    Join Date: 06.20.09
    Location: Boy's Club
    Posts: 3,186
    Rank: 15 Gauge

    Default

    Sorry, I thought I was literally addressing the entire point of the thread.
         

    and with just one faint glance back into the sea
    the mollusk lingers with its wandering eye
      
      

  2. Like 2 Member(s) liked this post
  3. #22
    Ghetto Space Drac's Ghost Smoking Mirrors's Avatar
    Join Date: 12.17.15
    Location: Somewhere in the recesses of my mind
    Posts: 17
    Rank: Brilliant Slut

    Default

    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 salÚ 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 salÚ 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.
    Last edited by Smoking Mirrors; 01-11-2016 at 04:17 PM.

  4. #23
    Eat Internet Primadonnas
    Join Date: 04.23.14
    Location: In Orbit
    Posts: 440
    Rank: Glass Jaw
    Follow Penance Sentence On Twitter Add Penance Sentence on Facebook Follow Penance Sentence on Tumblr Visit Penance Sentence's Youtube Channel Visit Penance Sentence's Instagram Channel

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

NEWS | TOUR | BIOGRAPHIES | DISCOGRAPHY | VIDEOGRAPHY | GALLERY | MEDIA & INTERVIEWS
MANSON'S JOURNAL | ESSAYS & ANALYSIS | TIMELINE | FORUM | THEATRE | INFORMATION & LINKS