Printable View
ok! this isn't about birthcontrol per se but rather what is art and what is just downright offensive.
for instance, Andres Serrano's "piss christ" (a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine), don't you think world organizations (EU, UN etc) should forbid the display of such crap?
ok! this isn't about birthcontrol per se but rather what is art and what is just downright offensive.
for instance, Andres Serrano's "piss christ" (a photo of a crucifix in a jar of urine), don't you think world organizations (EU, UN etc) should forbid the display of such crap?
I don't think it is up to the EU, the UN, or any other political organization for that matter, to decide what is art and what is not. Art is often offensive (Michelangelo was extremely offensive in his time), and there indeed is a fine line between "offensive art" and plain "offensive whatever". The problem is that, usually, the "offensive whatever" is protected by such fine articles as the Constitution of the US and its Amendments - why not art, the prime example of free expression, too?
I don't think it is up to the EU, the UN, or any other political organization for that matter, to decide what is art and what is not. Art is often offensive (Michelangelo was extremely offensive in his time), and there indeed is a fine line between "offensive art" and plain "offensive whatever". The problem is that, usually, the "offensive whatever" is protected by such fine articles as the Constitution of the US and its Amendments - why not art, the prime example of free expression, too?
Firstly: I think Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder. As much as I think this group is stupid for doing so, they have every right to call it what they want. And honestly I can understand where they are coming from... just don't let the media blow it out of proportion for you! Its not that big a deal!
Secondly: on the situation in India, it will be intersting to see what happens in the next few generations - will the value of a womans life dramatically increase as the men seek to find wives? Will this mean a change in their cultural values? or will these values continue to the detriment of the population? Or will this be the thing that slows population?Quote:
The girl child has traditionally been considered inferior and a liability - a bride's dowry can cripple a poor family financially.
As far as I know, the One Child Policy in China will be having a similar effect... women will be scarce in China too.
Al
Firstly: I think Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder. As much as I think this group is stupid for doing so, they have every right to call it what they want. And honestly I can understand where they are coming from... just don't let the media blow it out of proportion for you! Its not that big a deal!
Secondly: on the situation in India, it will be intersting to see what happens in the next few generations - will the value of a womans life dramatically increase as the men seek to find wives? Will this mean a change in their cultural values? or will these values continue to the detriment of the population? Or will this be the thing that slows population?Quote:
The girl child has traditionally been considered inferior and a liability - a bride's dowry can cripple a poor family financially.
As far as I know, the One Child Policy in China will be having a similar effect... women will be scarce in China too.
Al
What one sees as garbage, another may see it as a treasure, if we were to censor or sanction art where would we be today, regards the great works........
Who has the "Moral" authority to tell me what I can look at, touch or read, it may be offensive to you, but you have the option or choice not to participate in the viewing of said image, if what is on the tv is offensive, well use the remote and change the channel, better yet, turn the tv off....sounds simplistic, and I quite agree, yet it is down to "Choices"........
I chose to look at that image, I chose to not let the periphial conoctations about it clowd my judgement on the intrinsic value it has as 'art", it's the old leaf over the private parts.......every male statue done au natural, has a body part we commonly call the "penis", is that offensive, it must be to some, otherwise why cover it up....it's "art", now in this forum a lot of members (no pun) chose to hide their cuss words or post so as not to offend someone, that is plain courtesy, myself I could care less, they are just words.........it's how you say them that may have real offense.....
To me, if this art is not considered to be a form of oh I don't know the PC term today would be to say "hate art" (aka hate literature) then let it be, I don't think it's a direct attack on the Holy Church, it may just be someone's opinion, and as they say, everyone is entitled to theirs.
Remember Sinead O'Connor when she tore up the picture of the Pope, the hue and outcry, tar and feather her, burn her at the stake, etc. She was making a statement, pure and simple, and if you disagree, well then that's your right as well......
What one sees as garbage, another may see it as a treasure, if we were to censor or sanction art where would we be today, regards the great works........
Who has the "Moral" authority to tell me what I can look at, touch or read, it may be offensive to you, but you have the option or choice not to participate in the viewing of said image, if what is on the tv is offensive, well use the remote and change the channel, better yet, turn the tv off....sounds simplistic, and I quite agree, yet it is down to "Choices"........
I chose to look at that image, I chose to not let the periphial conoctations about it clowd my judgement on the intrinsic value it has as 'art", it's the old leaf over the private parts.......every male statue done au natural, has a body part we commonly call the "penis", is that offensive, it must be to some, otherwise why cover it up....it's "art", now in this forum a lot of members (no pun) chose to hide their cuss words or post so as not to offend someone, that is plain courtesy, myself I could care less, they are just words.........it's how you say them that may have real offense.....
To me, if this art is not considered to be a form of oh I don't know the PC term today would be to say "hate art" (aka hate literature) then let it be, I don't think it's a direct attack on the Holy Church, it may just be someone's opinion, and as they say, everyone is entitled to theirs.
Remember Sinead O'Connor when she tore up the picture of the Pope, the hue and outcry, tar and feather her, burn her at the stake, etc. She was making a statement, pure and simple, and if you disagree, well then that's your right as well......
i dont disagree at all....did i say i did? i know im a kook but not quite that big a one. i posted this because i was interested in what everyone's thoughts on such matters were ....more as a survey than eneything else. and it seemed like a good topic to start a lively discussion.
i dont disagree at all....did i say i did? i know im a kook but not quite that big a one. i posted this because i was interested in what everyone's thoughts on such matters were ....more as a survey than eneything else. and it seemed like a good topic to start a lively discussion.