NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my proposal about art. I haven't submitted it yet, waiting for your advices.
Thanks.

"The United Nations notes that:
- Practice of Art is one of the first human expressions,
- Art processes and concepts are universal,
- Each culture, nation and regions have developed different art concepts, making impossible the lecture of artistic production as one entity,
- Define a production as art only basing on its beauty is restrictive,

The United Nations affirms that:
Only can be considered as an art production, an esthetic creation aiming to be exposed and seen with the objective to cause sensitive reactions or physical interactions.

To protect the freedom of art, The United Nations decides that:
- Having an artistic activity is a right for all, whatever the form it takes, in the limit of the civil and international laws applicable.
- The production, export, displacement, negotiation, sell, purchase of an artistic production is free. No government has the right to restrict this freedom.
- No governmental institution is suited to forbid or privilege any form or style of art in the detriment of another.
- No governmental institution has the power to proceed at the requisition of any form of artistic production.
- The Artist or his heirs keeps the intellectual property of the artistic production. No reproduction, changes or alteration in the physical aspect of the production can be done without the former artist authorization."

define "artistic activity".
do you mean that everybody could put art works in the middle of the road?
and if graffity is art, what about politicak graffity?
what about hate's art, like racist caricatures that hang all over the city?
what about art that harm the feeling of the public?

art need limits. set the limits and add them to the proposal.

define "artistic activity".
do you mean that everybody could put art works in the middle of the road?
and if graffity is art, what about politicak graffity?
what about hate's art, like racist caricatures that hang all over the city?
what about art that harm the feeling of the public?

art need limits. set the limits and add them to the proposal.
Should creativity be limited ?
if grafity is art, political graffity is also, just like political paintings.
I can't imagine creativity being limited by rational and political concepts.
I tried do define this vision: "Only can be considered as an art production, a work aiming to be exposed and seen with the objective to cause sensitive reactions or physical interactions."

Should creativity be limited ?
if grafity is art, political graffity is also, just like political paintings.
I can't imagine creativity being limited by rational and political concepts.
I tried do define this vision: "Only can be considered as an art production, a work aiming to be exposed and seen with the objective to cause sensitive reactions or physical interactions."
graffity that called to kill the president, or support terror will be legal? because this is political graffity.
burning store could define as creativity act? the fyroman could claim that he aim to be exposed and make sensetive reaction.
wacko that spray all over the city "kill the [insert here any nation/race/religion/sex/political party/other] can't punished? and you can't remove that, either?
if someone put nuke bomb in your major city, and kill half of the city population, do you want the terrorist will be free, because he did it for pictures exhibition?

I said it, and I keep said that: "every thing could be claim as art, if the art has no limits". add limits to your proposal, or you will create anarchy.
I am say that as left wing democracy. I can't see reasons why dictators would support that, so you will have to make changes if you want to get enough endoresments.

thanks green Israel, I'll think about that.

thanks green Israel, I'll think about that.
sorry if I was too much offensive, but sometimes you just had to take proposals to the radicalism, if you want to improve them.

I think i have it:
"- Having an artistic activity is a right for all, whatever the form it takes, in the limit of the civil and international laws applicable."

that definition is fine with me. anyway I can't endorese it, because I am not the regional delegate.

Why should we have artistic freedom?If we pass this resolution,the next thing you know people are going to want elections!And democracy!It may even go as far as human rights!You are insane and no man should ever allow art to be legal without goverment experts checking whether it is patriotic and does not display your nation and/or goverment in a bad way.Also,all the pieces of art should be goverment property since the private property only turns people into dirty greedy capitalists.I can't believe anyone will pass such a resolution.

Why should we have artistic freedom?If we pass this resolution,the next thing you know people are going to want elections!And democracy!It may even go as far as human rights!You are insane and no man should ever allow art to be legal without goverment experts checking whether it is patriotic and does not display your nation and/or goverment in a bad way.Also,all the pieces of art should be goverment property since the private property only turns people into dirty greedy capitalists.I can't believe anyone will pass such a resolution.

art can't be property of any government or regime, art must be UNIVERSAL!

Please send me your comments and advices about this project of proposal.
Thanks.

Why? It's easier to post them here.

"The United Nations notes that:
- Practice of Art is one of the first human expressions,

Some people in my nation consider cutting open a living human while chanting to a god of death to be practicing an art. You might want to define your terms more carefully.

- Art processes and concepts are universal,

Not true, even among human cultures.

- Each culture, nation and regions have developed different art concepts, making imossible the lecture of artistic production as one entity.

How can art concepts be universal if each culture, nation, and region has developped different art concepts?

The United Nations affirms that:
Only can be considered as an art production, a work aiming to be exposed and seen with the objective to cause sensitive reactions or physical interactions.

Which covers just about everything.

To protect the freedom of art, The United Nations decides that:
- Having an artistic activity is a right for all, whatever the artistic activity can be.

Why should it be? Considering the previous item, I would say certain types of art need to be banned. Unless you want to make a case for beating old ladies with tire irons as being some kind of artistic expression (which, in a form, you have).

- The production, export, displacement, negotiation, sell, purchase of an artistic production is free. No government has the right to restrict this freedom.

I beg to differ. My export and import laws cover just about everything equally. Everything has a regulation and restrictions. And I don't see why I should allow items that my nation's culture views, to be blunt, as the uncultured trash of a backwards species that has yet to prove its own sentience to itself. I'm sure you can understand why I wouldn't allow it to be imported.

- No governmental institution is suited to forbid or privilege any form or style of art in the detriment of another.

See above.

- No governmental institution has the power to proceed at the requisition of any form of artistic production.

So now not only do I have to allow trash in, but my government cannot buy art pieces it thinks deserve to be preserved in museums for all to see?

- The Artist or his heirs keeps the intellectual property of the artistic production. No reproduction, changes or alteration in the physical aspect of the production can be done without the former artist authorization."

Why is this even necessary?

I am definitely opposing this one.

Why? It's easier to post them here.
Yes that's what I meened to



Some people in my nation consider cutting open a living human while chanting to a god of death to be practicing an art. You might want to define your terms more carefully.
well if you say it, why not! We' shall find some sort of arrangment, :)



Not true, even among human cultures.
So practices and ideas are resctricted to your own borders. What an awful country it must be!


How can art concepts be universal if each culture, nation, and region has developped different art concepts?
because art concepts can't stay in your own mind, they travel and are being compare with ours, changing themeselves and the others. It's the world as an artistic creation!



Which covers just about everything.
What's why everyone could recognize his art practice in it. political art? trash art? religious art? whatever!



Why should it be? Considering the previous item, I would say certain types of art need to be banned. Unless you want to make a case for beating old ladies with tire irons as being some kind of artistic expression (which, in a form, you have).

already answered: "- Having an artistic activity is a right for all, whatever the form it takes, in the limit of the civil and international laws applicable."



So now not only do I have to allow trash in, but my government cannot buy art pieces it thinks deserve to be preserved in museums for all to see?

I said "requisition" in an arbitrary form, I didn't want to forbid the sell to a governmental institution.



Why is this even necessary?

because you are against it! :)

Yes that's what I meened to

Okay. Makes it easier.

well if you say it, why not! We' shall find some sort of arrangment, :)

That happens to be illegal in DLE.

So practices and ideas are resctricted to your own borders. What an awful country it must be!

Certain practices and ideas are restricted in all countries. I allow art, but your definition of it covers things that are very illegal in DLE.

because art concepts can't stay in your own mind, they travel and are being compare with ours, changing themeselves and the others. It's the world as an artistic creation!

Which is not really that good of an arguement. Some of us take a far more practical view of the world. That includes the majority of DLE.

What's why everyone could recognize his art practice in it. political art? trash art? religious art? whatever!

It covers quite a bit that isn't even related to art.

already answered: "- Having an artistic activity is a right for all, whatever the form it takes, in the limit of the civil and international laws applicable."

Which is not in the version I quoted, or in the original post at the time this post is being types.

I said "requisition" in an arbitrary form, I didn't want to forbid the sell to a governmental institution.

You effectively did. You have to be careful with the terms you use.

because you are against it! :)

Doesn't answer my question.

sorry I thought the "Why is this necessary" concerned the whole proposal.

The question of the intellectual property of an artistic production protect the artist of any attempt to betray the original intention. It protect also the artist for wages, just like publishing industry pays writers.

- The Artist or his heirs keeps the intellectual property of the artistic production. No reproduction, changes or alteration in the physical aspect of the production can be done without the former artist authorization. What about Parody?

define "artistic activity".
do you mean that everybody could put art works in the middle of the road?
and if graffity is art, what about politicak graffity?
what about hate's art, like racist caricatures that hang all over the city?
what about art that harm the feeling of the public?

art need limits. set the limits and add them to the proposal.

There are already limits. It mentions civil and international laws that are appilcable, so I would imagine that given the various tolerance laws that exist within the UN that sexist, homophobic and racist material would be banned, or at least would have the potential to be banned.


edit Bugger. The proposal was edited halfway through, wasn't it? And the line I quoted was not there originally was it?
Sorry :}
/edit

And if art harms the feeling of the public, the public should get over it. (I have seen the arguement made that two men kissing can halm the feeling of the public, but that is not a reason to prevent it).

Please send me your comments and advices about this project of proposal.
Thanks.

heh

The United Nations affirms that:
Only can be considered as an art production, a work aiming to be exposed and seen with the objective to cause sensitive reactions or physical interactions.

I think the NSUN already did that, with the resolution legalizing prostitution.


To protect the freedom of art, The United Nations decides that:
- The Artist or his heirs keeps the intellectual property of the artistic production. No reproduction, changes or alteration in the physical aspect of the production can be done without the former artist authorization."

"Motherf*k that and John Wayne!" - (guess the artist)

the heirs?
the HEIRS?

what right do those bloodsucking maggots have to the legacy of their progenitor?



Seriously, though: I can understand the no reproduction part, but no "changes or alteration"?
You're trying to, what, outlaw parody?

I'm also particularly concerned about the lack of a timeframe of any sort on the rights of heirs. That means no one can ever reprint Shakespeare without paying greenmail to some snotnosed corgish farmer who can claim direct illegitimate descent from the immortal bard.

Guess which way I'm voting?

Should creativity be limited ?
if grafity is art, political graffity is also, just like political paintings.
I can't imagine creativity being limited by rational and political concepts.
I tried do define this vision: "Only can be considered as an art production, a work aiming to be exposed and seen with the objective to cause sensitive reactions or physical interactions."

Artistic work cannot be destructive... Graffitti is the placement of characture, or imagery upon the property of another, against their consent; and therefore it is not "artistic" but rather an act of destruction upon the personal property of another... And therefore is rightly a punishable offense in the eyes of the law.

Artistic work cannot be destructive... Graffitti is the placement of characture, or imagery upon the property of another, against their consent; and therefore it is not "artistic" but rather an act of destruction upon the personal property of another... And therefore is rightly a punishable offense in the eyes of the law.
Baloney.

Pish. As if someone from Virginia would know anything about graffiti.

All of my youthful graffiti was artful.

Who made you the fashion police, anyway?

To protect the freedom of art, The United Nations decides that:
- The Artist or his heirs keeps the intellectual property of the artistic production. No reproduction, changes or alteration in the physical aspect of the production can be done without the former artist authorization.
Do you realise what you've done? In saying this, you have outlawed post-modernism, which is one of the most common types of art. This goes against what you already said.

No unauthorised reproduction: yes, well, up to a point. Do you really want to go looking for relatives of Leonardo da Vinci before using the Mona Lisa, or Michelangelo's descendants before you take a photo of David? No, that would be idiotic.
Or worse, what about things like the Venus de Milo, or Tutankhamun's death-mask?

I also presume you are only talking about the visual arts, but if you mean all arts, then you have bitten off more than you can chew. You'll never be able to:
dance the Cancan,
perform Shakespeare,
listen to Mozart,
publish Chaucer,
analyse political theory,
research history,
speak a language...

I could go on, and on, but hopefully you've got the gist of what I'm saying by now.
In short, in trying to save art, you are destroying it.

Oh, and before I forget, what is the position on porn? Is porn art that must be accepted by the public? Or is it something else entirely?

Baloney.

Pish. As if someone from Virginia would know anything about graffiti.

All of my youthful graffiti was artful.

Who made you the fashion police, anyway?

Not a matter of art... Painting or spraying something on the property of someone else, without their expressed consent, is wilfull destruction... And punishable as the law directs...

You are free to pray or paint any surface, to which, the owner has expressed their consent for you to do so...

No unauthorised reproduction: yes, well, up to a point. Do you really want to go looking for relatives of Leonardo da Vinci before using the Mona Lisa, or Michelangelo's descendants before you take a photo of David? No, that would be idiotic.
Or worse, what about things like the Venus de Milo, or Tutankhamun's death-mask?

I also presume you are only talking about the visual arts, but if you mean all arts, then you have bitten off more than you can chew. You'll never be able to:
dance the Cancan,
perform Shakespeare,
listen to Mozart,
publish Chaucer,
analyse political theory,
research history,
speak a language...


In RL, isn't art of a far enough distant past considered "public domain"? I'm curious as to how it works in RL. Perhaps some of those ideas can be applied to this proposal.

In RL, isn't art of a far enough distant past considered "public domain"? I'm curious as to how it works in RL. Perhaps some of those ideas can be applied to this proposal.
Yes, at least as far as Australia is concerned. 50 years following the death of the creator. But there are exceptions if you can show that your work contains individual content, as in the cases of satire, parody, post-modernisation and neoclassicism.
But as the proposal stands, they aren't allowed.

Not a matter of art... Painting or spraying something on the property of someone else, without their expressed consent, is wilfull destruction... And punishable as the law directs...

They'd have to catch me first!

Pardon my french, but your argument is merde. Graffiti is still art, even if it is a crime on someone else's property. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Do you realise what you've done? In saying this, you have outlawed post-modernism, which is one of the most common types of art.

That in and of itself is almost a reason to support this proposal.
Except that it would also outlaw mashes, which I quite enjoy.



Oh, and before I forget, what is the position on porn? Is porn art that must be accepted by the public? Or is it something else entirely?
Yeah, I'm still waiting for an answer to my post about that.

I think that I agree with the intent of this proposal, but not with its current wording.

In my country "beating an old lady" would be considered abhorrant to natural behavior, and would not be tolerated. In the case of graffiti, it is an encouraged form of expression in most parts of our country (it is legal in designated commercial zones). Of course it is Art, we do not wish to argue this point (as it is in the eye of the beholder).

DemonLordEnigma's assesments are very acute and should not be dismissed in these discussions.

We also are concerned about the public domain issue. We have laws allowing works of art to enter the public domain after a period of 5 years. At the point of the work entering the public domain, a contract (binding and mandatory) is reached between the government and the artist.

We purchase the copyright, make it public and compensate the artist accordingly. They have the right to appeal this decision, but most artists make far more money this way and approve of it. Perhaps the whole of the U.N might be interested in our legislation regarding this matter. Yes, it is something some consumerist nations might not like and it might not allow certain recording artists as much luxury, but it does keep the less profitable arts vibrant.

Interesting ideas on this thread, and valid questions.

Sai
Principality of Prachya

What about Parody?
You're right, I wasn't to forbid parody.
Maybe something like that:
"- The Artist or his heirs keeps the intellectual property of the artistic production. No reproduction, changes or alteration in the physical aspect of the ORIGINAL production can be done without the former artist authorization. "
This was to protect the unique chef d'oeuvre through ages

heh

I'm also particularly concerned about the lack of a timeframe of any sort on the rights of heirs. That means no one can ever reprint Shakespeare without paying greenmail to some snotnosed corgish farmer who can claim direct illegitimate descent from the immortal bard.


you're right! I'll add a timeframe point.
Thanks

heh

I think the NSUN already did that, with the resolution legalizing prostitution.



I replaced "work" by "esthetic creation" hoping that it does not concern prostitution.

you're right! I'll add a timeframe point.
Thanks

Perhaps you could do organize some form of committee. Say, a committee which designates a piece of art as public domain no sooner after two (or one)generations of the original artist's family. Or something. I feel at least the children of the artist ought to gain from the artist. Especially since art pays so little so much of the time, they likely had to endure many Christmases without presents.

Ohime, what one sacrifices for one's art!

But yeah, think about there being some human form of decision as to public domain. The more personable a proposal is, the more agreeable it tends to be.

That in and of itself is almost a reason to support this proposal.
Really? Want to use any found object (say, for instance, newspaper, or cane) in conjuction with painting then you'd need to find the caretakers of the Picasso estate.

Really? Want to use any found object (say, for instance, newspaper, or cane) in conjuction with painting then you'd need to find the caretakers of the Picasso estate.
You are about talking of an art technique. This proposal do not intend to limit the practice of arts by patenting techniques.
On the other side, you'll can feel that, when Duchamp or others used other paintings in their work, it was to provoque, and it was a scandal! What scandal would it be now, if it was normal and authorized? None, and the work would become rubish.

You are about talking of an art technique. This proposal do not intend to limit the practice of arts by patenting techniques.
Not just an art technique - it would be appropriating Picasso's work. Which, under your proposal as it originally was put, would be illegal.
On the other side, you'll can feel that, when Duchamp or others used other paintings in their work, it was to provoque, and it was a scandal! What scandal would it be now, if it was normal and authorized? None, and the work would become rubish.
Dadaism was definitely intended to provoke. And yes, scandals can still occur even when things are legal. You think someone coming out of the closet can't cause a scandal?
But appropriation of artwork wasn't, and shouldn't be, illegal. If Duchamp had required permission from some relative of da Vinci, then we wouldn't have works such as LHOOQ.
As your proposal was originally put, simple things such as appropriation and imitation, and complex art movements like post-modernism and neoclassicism, would be illegal. Despite what you might think of Duchamp or Stravinsky, you can't claim that they should be criminalised.
All I intended to do was to point out the extreme dangers to artmaking posed by the original wording of your proposal. Hopefully there will be another draft coming soon which will rectify this problem.