Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Aug 8, 2004.
anyone familiar with "Degenerate Art?"
I remember it well. THOSE were the days
No one is banning the art altogether, they are just saying its not appropriate for this particular setting. Nothing slippery about it. Alot of people have apprehension about flying, the last thing they need to see are images in an airport to compound those fears. If the artist wants to display the art, I'm sure there are lots of places where she can.
kriz -- what role does art play in your daily life?
Hmmm, and there are first amendment concerns if art that's publicly funded or placed in publicly funded venues is partisan. I have a problem with the overt anti-Bush aspect, if its in an airport. But I think the idea is actually very cool in general. Someplace like the Hirshorn in DC should totally pick this up (blatant plug for my favorite museum in the world )...and I would totally go see it there. Or, erm, the Museum of Modern Art in Jacksonville, FL? Because, ummm, it's closer to me? But then the Hirshorn. Mos def the Hirshorn.
But outside museum and other art venues, I think there are concerns that become legitimate that are not necessarily censorship of art.
I don't know if I have a problem with the other two in an airport or not. I have mixed feelings. Mostly the only part that bothers me is the anti-Bush program hi-jacking a public art display. OTOH, those kinds of things probably should also be spelled out up-front.
I can see not wanting the images in an airport. I know that they don't put magazines etc. in airports (or at least they didn't use to) that talked about plane crashes... I would prefer it to have been a decision made by the artists, though... censorship is NOT a good thing...
Hopeuflly they will find a gallery that will take the art.
ahh what a nice warming fire out of books
when the "degenerate art" point is reached i would recommend leaving the country
but this suitcase story ?
what is so offensive about them ? it's not even real blood (from animals) they used...
i wished this story were as amusing as the "prozac in tap water" one
Gotta prevent people from making connections. If they start doing that, we're ALL in trouble....
airport...people making connections....a clever pun?
I don't know about slippery slopes. This looks to me more like yet another wacko mountain. What ever happened to looking the other way?
This story reminds me of another failed attempt to introduce artworks into an airport. A couple of years ago Los Angeles International commissioned artists to design artworks for the terminals. One of the designs, placed on the pavement inside a concourse, was a takeoff on Da Vinci's drawing of a man in a circle (no doubt someone will be able to supply the real name of the original). The contemporary artist instead used the figure of a woman, which had (gasp!) breasts. Artistically suggested, of course. Very tastefully done, I thought. But a few other people were so offended, the impure image had to be covered until the airport could figure out what to do. I don't know how the airport resolved it.
So, now we know -- it's become politically incorrect to display Leonardo Da Vinci in a public place in the good old USA. I hope people outside of the US don't take away from these episodes that we're all completely nuts.
i'll assert that by the time you make "art" that offends no one, it is no longer art.
can anyone name a piece of music that is universally loved? along the same lines, how many of us go out and buy the muzak that is piped into supermarkets?
"Uomo vitruviano" aka. "virtruvian man"
(i had to look up the spelling for the vitruvian part)
but i know it because i took a leonardo da vinci course in the history of arts faculty of our university just for fun
Ahh, I see. We should probably ban any 9/11 imagery from newsstands, right? I mean, the last thing a person would want to see before a flight is a "9/11 remembered" collectors magazine showing one of the planes hitting the WTC.
This is a joke. 9/11 imagery is everywhere. Every "news-magazine" out there shows violent pictures and scenes, many of which deal directly with terrorism. This is not about protecting passengers from "inappropriate images." (WTF is that, anyway? Who defines it? Do you really want public officials do define it?) This is clearly about the message this particular piece was sending.
Just so I'm straight on this:
If 9/11 is invoked in a "patriotic" way, I'm free to use it any way I want. But if I invoke it in an "unpatriotic" way, then I'll be censored.
Does that sound about right to you?
Thanks. I'll bet you didn't know that in America, some people consider it to be pornographic.
The problem is that nobody here can figure out exactly what "patriotic" is.
The other issue is that an airport generally exists as a different sort of social atmosphere, especially here in the US. For some reason or another people like to travel with as little human interaction as possible. As soon as a simple political or social message goes up in an airport, people begin to get pissed off because it makes them think - something they apparantly don't like to do when they travel. The whole social thing sounds somewhat backwards considering that an airport is potentially one of the biggest venues for cultural and social interaction.
In Europe, some people consider America to be pornographic...
Regardless of how tastefully done it is, some people feel that nudity is innappropriate. Its not a matter of being prudish, its a matter of respecting other peoples views. If you want to fly you have to go to an airport right? So what you are saying is that these people have the choice of either having to look at art YOU consider fine but they don't or not flying. Isn't it a better choice to place that art somewhere else, like an art museum? No one is saying that the art in that case or in this oen shouldn't be seen at all, just that its not appropriate in THIS particular location.
Imagine how you might feel if instead of the suitcase or the da vinici piece it was the a big painting of Jesus? Or how about the Confederate flag? What if they put up a painting of a man with multiple wives? Its not about censorship, there is a time and place for the art, a highly public place like an airport just doesn't seem to be one of them.
Inappropriate? There's that word again!
Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand NAKED.
because it's nigh well impossible to make any piece of worthwhile art which will offend no one, you must be suggesting that it's inappropriate to place art anywhere except in places where people specifically go to seek it out.
is that your position? if so, do you find that to be inconsistent w/ the ubiquity of other aspects of daily life, such as advertising? should we relegate advertisiting to rooms where people seek it out? and what happens when an advert incorporates a piece of art, or someone sees that advert itself as a piece of art?
i'll ask again -- what role does art play in your daily life?
If we want art in public places, I guess it's going to have to be restricted to Thomas Kinkade paintings, pictures of puppies and kittens, and possibly Elvis on velvet. Then only people who actually care about art will be offended.
Oh boy, I'm I ever going remember this discussion the next time a conservative rants about liberal political correctness.
Well, interesting to me is who can be the final judge of what is considered to be "offensive?"
For instance, let's compare this incident to the ruling about the statue of the ten commandments having to be removed. In that case, the director (judge) was holding onto something that some people deemed offensive and was ordered to remove it. In this case, the airport director deemed this art to be offensive and thus removed it. Should people be legally forced to keep something they believe to be offensive (due to free speech laws) and yet be forced to get rid of something just because others might believe it is offensive?
While some might argue that one is a religious statement and the other is a political statement, both instances were considered "art." Isn't art simply defined as the expression of one's beliefs?
Just a thought I had about this case...