NationStates Jolt Archive

Art or Porn?

By Marion Kraske and Annette Langer

Posters designed by a group of artists are causing quite a stir in Vienna. The image of three people having sex while wearing nothing but masks of Bush, Chirac and Queen Elizabeth is proving particularly controversial. Politicians are outraged and artists have offered to withdraw the two most shocking posters.


Keep your eyes on the road: A billboard poster displaying naked models posing as Queen Elizabeth II, U.S. President George Bush and French President Jacques Chirac is pictured at the side of a road in Vienna.
Just as Austria takes over the rotating presidency of the European Union, a dispute about good taste is raging in the country's capital. The art campaign "euroPART" has landed the group, named "25 peaces" and led by former Austrian Broadcasting Corporation culture boss Wolfgang Lorenz and federal theater boss Georg Springer, in hot water.

A topless woman sprawls on a bed with her legs spread wearing blue panties decorated with the EU's symbol, a circle of yellow stars. A few streets away three individuals are hard at it: their unambiguous, naked poses show them indulging in a menage à trois. The participants wear masks of France's President Chirac, the British Queen and US President George W. Bush. The images have caused an uproar among the Viennese since they were put up on Dec. 27. ...

Full article here (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392803,00.html)

So, what do you think of this? Do you think it is art and should therefore be displayed publicly like this? Or do you think that there are limits to art, that it shouldn't violate morals or good taste?

I don't really know; it's kind of hard to have any choice as to whether or not you see the image on the billboard, so it seems inappropriate to expose people to that sort of thing without their consent to view it.

It's not like TV or radio, where you can change the channel to avoid objectionable content...those things are at street-sign level.

Full article here (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392803,00.html)

So, what do you think of this? Do you think it is art and should therefore be displayed publicly like this? Or do you think that there are limits to art, that it shouldn't violate morals or good taste?
No problem with their Art being made. No problem with their art being sold or shown in exibits/galleries. Big problem with their art being put up for others to view without their consent.

Unless the art in question complies with outdoor advertising guidelines, it should not be allowed - and putting it up is nothing more than graffiti-like vandalisim.

It's not porn because its purpose isn't sexual stimulation, it's sending a derisive message. It's definitely art, though that doesn't mean it should necessarily be protected by freedom of expression.

Well art is always an interpretation.

So I would vote yes......

not porn and not art ... i make better pics, depending to the models i have ;)

not porn and not art ... i make better pics, depending to the models i have ;)

I agree with the "not porn" bit... but why not art?

maybe i have not enough IQ to realize what art is ???
i love the romantic way of art ....like Duerer....

btw....what is art?

it's art in the sense that it is shocking and has a message _ I think art needs to take people out of their preconceived notions of what to expect when looking at art, BUT this is imitating art that has already beend one. Maybe the artists haven't seen the other stuff that is bascially the same thing though, I dunno. Most "art" I see is just imitations of previously done stuff though. I think real art is always fresh and new.

like this ??

I think this is wonderful art

http://www.wolfgangkiel.de/bilder/biggi/callo6-k.jpg

thx the actress for inspiration

btw....what is art?

Art (or the creative arts) commonly refers to the act and process of making material works (or artworks) which, from concept to creation, hold a fidelity to the creative impulse —ie. 'art' is work distinct from creative work that is driven by necessity (ie. vocation), by biological drive (i.e. procreation), or (in art-purist contexts) by any undisciplined pursuit of recreation.

The creative arts essentially denotes a collection of disciplines whose principal purpose (or sole purpose) is in the output of material whose creation is compelled by a personal drive and echoing or reflecting a message, mood, and symbology for the viewer to interpret.

As such, the term 'art' may be taken to include forms as diverse as prose writing, poetry, dance, acting, music (both performance and creation), sculpture and painting. In common parlance, 'art' is most commonly used to refer to the visual arts —in particular painting, drawing, and sculpting.

Art is a broad term, which may be interpreted in different ways, often relating to creativity, aesthetics and generation of emotion.

Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art)

Personally, I think art is not the object created by the artist. Art really is the reaction the object provoces in the beholder...

I should probably clarify; I don't find the image displayed on the billboard to be porn..it's art, but not appropriate to be exposed to people without their consent since it does display what would normally be considered "inappropriate" imagery.

Posters designed by a group of artists are causing quite a stir in Vienna. The image of three people having sex while wearing nothing but masks of Bush, Chirac and Queen Elizabeth

lol

I agree with vetalia - I have no problem with the image or its message but I can appreciate how some parents may not want their children seeing it

If it was in a gallery or an exhibit, I might say art, on the billboard though? I don't think that is the best way to display your art period, but something so objectionable, should be in a venue where the people who want to see it can, and people who don't want to don't have to. It's not porn, but is probably indecent, as it deals with subject matter that people shouldn't be forced to see if they don't want to (like I wouldn't want to be driving down the street and have my kids see that)

If it's not against the law though, then I say freedom of speech, it is however against the law where I live to depict something like that.

lol

Is it just me, or is the Bush mask on a woman's body?

Definitely art. Not porn. I agree that it should probably be shown in a more private venue.

I think that we have to realize that this is in Austria, which does not have the same laws or morals regarding things of this nature as does the US. I also think that people need to stop being so damn uptight about the human form. I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but none of you would be here if it weren't for this kind of act. (Minus the masks of course.:D)

Full article here (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392803,00.html)

So, what do you think of this? Do you think it is art and should therefore be displayed publicly like this? Or do you think that there are limits to art, that it shouldn't violate morals or good taste?
I voted for option #1 because I don't think that this kind of art should be restricted. But on the other hand I wish that the Viennese had selected some slightly less offensive art, or at least something more subtle.

Another matter that greatly concerns me is that stuff like this just encourages many members of the public to think that all contemporary art is rubbish.

So, what do you think of this? Do you think it is art and should therefore be displayed publicly like this? Or do you think that there are limits to art, that it shouldn't violate morals or good taste?
Depends on if they were good-looking naked bodies beneath those masks... just kidding.

I am not offended by nudity, although it might make me uncomfortable to see it billboard-sized and "in yer face". I think it a valid artistic expression.

I think that we have to realize that this is in Austria, which does not have the same laws or morals regarding things of this nature as does the US. I also think that people need to stop being so damn uptight about the human form. I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but none of you would be here if it weren't for this kind of act. (Minus the masks of course.:D)
Like I said, if the billboards conform to the Law of the area then I have no real objection.

I think that we have to realize that this is in Austria, which does not have the same laws or morals regarding things of this nature as does the US. I also think that people need to stop being so damn uptight about the human form. I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but none of you would be here if it weren't for this kind of act. (Minus the masks of course.:D)
I am not uptight, I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it at all if it had just been "the human form" and not "the human form engaged in a threesome" there are somethings that I don't want my kids exposed to while we are driving down the road. Since I have kids, I am quite aware what "acts" brought them into being, and hey my kids know too, and since we are so open about it at our house, it doesn't even gross them out.

Like I said, I think it's kinda trashy to display anyone's art on something as commercial as a billboard though.

I dont think that it is porn. There is a deeper meaning to this. If it were porn, the "artist" (im trying to use that term lightly) would not have bothered to put masks on the people that it was depicting. What would be the point if you could simply depict three random people or the leaders themselves? I think that the sexuality of this artwork is an attempt to jar our brains in order to think about what is going on between Bush, the Queen, and Chirac (which still escapes me). A better question to ask is, if this billboard was made two hundred some years ago, would it be put in an art history museum? I'm not saying that placing a sexually explicit object in full view of anyone who travels past is a good way of voicing your opinion, but porn it is not.

I would agree with a lot of people that have posted so far. I don't think it is porn in any matter. And although I guess I would classify it as art, it isn't very classy art. I would say that if it was up in someone's house or in a gallery it would have to be accepted. I just don't think it is acceptable to put it up on a big sign on the side of the road.

It's not porn, but is it art? A lot of art is political, but not all political images are art. I say this is more statement than art. This only matters if we're going to talk about whether they should have chosen a less graphic way of giving the same message -- a little self-censorship, in other words. Art shouldn't have to worry about whether it is offending people. But a statement meant to persuade others does need to think about that.

As for this case, it doesn't bother me, but in general, I think graphic sex images should not be broadcast in such a way that people have to see it whether they want to or not. On the other hand, if the Austrians are okay with public sex pictures, then it's not a problem. It's a local culture thing. Hell, a little smut never hurt anyone, and a some blunt honesty can be the best tonic. But if the Austrian commuters are upset, then maybe they should have kept those images for a gallery.

BTW, where can I get some of those panties? ;)

Full article here (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392803,00.html)

So, what do you think of this? Do you think it is art and should therefore be displayed publicly like this? Or do you think that there are limits to art, that it shouldn't violate morals or good taste?

It's called "freedom of expression".

It's not porn, it's simply rather bad art, crude and sensationalist. There's a lot of this about! As other posters have said, no problem with it being made or displayed, but I don't think its content is appropriately 'U' for very public (in the sense of 'can't avoid seeing it') display.

Ask the 'artists' who committed it what they want to be when they grow up, and move on.

I am not uptight, I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it at all if it had just been "the human form" and not "the human form engaged in a threesome" there are somethings that I don't want my kids exposed to while we are driving down the road. Since I have kids, I am quite aware what "acts" brought them into being, and hey my kids know too, and since we are so open about it at our house, it doesn't even gross them out.

Like I said, I think it's kinda trashy to display anyone's art on something as commercial as a billboard though.

Ok, this I don't get.
If you are very open about this topic in your house, if your kids already know what goes on between adults and what sex is about, what would be the major problem with them seein it on a billboard?

Ok, this I don't get.
If you are very open about this topic in your house, if your kids already know what goes on between adults and what sex is about, what would be the major problem with them seein it on a billboard?
Well, since they are 2 and 4 they don't really know "all" about it. The 4 year old knows the mechanical stuff of how babies are made, and that adults have sex when they are married, seeing a threesome might not be good for her. I do answer questions that my girls have, and will always be honest, but I don't see the point in letting them see people engaged in sex. I mean if I was really going to be "educational" about it I would let them sit in the room and watch me and my husband right? well, no because I think it would be emotionally damaging to them. So, I could set them down in front of a porn movie right? No, because I would probably get arrested, there is a reason for that, young children can't process such things. There is a big difference between me talking to them, and answering their questions and them being exposed to people having sex.

Ok, this I don't get.
If you are very open about this topic in your house, if your kids already know what goes on between adults and what sex is about, what would be the major problem with them seein it on a billboard?
Mask wearing threesomes are not usually "what goes on between adults" and I don't agree that it's "what sex is about" either (though you may disagree and that's OK). Reply to my first post, will you? As an art student I think I have an important interest in this matter.

OH NO!!! BODY PARTS EVERYONE HAS!!! THIS CANOT BE LEGAL!!!!! :mad:

everyone is too sensitive and politically correct and needs to CALM DOWN. :confused: i honestly don't see what the big deal is.

Is it me or does Bush have 34 D's??

Does it truly matter whether it is a piece of art or a piece of pornography? A billboard that is not falling or on fire has no potential to harm anyone, and cannot violate anyone's rights. Even if it's *shock* sexual, it's still not a violation of anyone's rights or harming anyone and as such the government has no right to take it down.

No worse than this (http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=underwear+ads/v=2/SID=w/l=IVS/SIG=1345fmnco/EXP=1136422235/*-http%3A//pobox.upenn.edu/~davidtoc/images/doubleblack_houston_billboard_sep_04.jpg) billboard really. Advertising is all about getting someone's attention. It just goes to show that not all art is required to be "good" or even tasteful. We have the ability to avert our eyes for a reason. As far as kids viewing the subject, they are probably less affected by it than adults. Unless, of course, an adult chooses to make a big deal out of it in their presence.

Does it truly matter whether it is a piece of art or a piece of pornography? A billboard that is not falling or on fire has no potential to harm anyone, and cannot violate anyone's rights. Even if it's *shock* sexual, it's still not a violation of anyone's rights or harming anyone and as such the government has no right to take it down.
sigh... this isn't about sexuality and freedom of expression, and you know it! Your right to swing your fist stops at my face, your right to depict whatever you want to depict stops when I can't _avoid_ seeing it.

Put it somewhere where one must make a conscious and informed effortto view it, and all is well. Risque internet sites of all sorts typically have a 'warning - adult themes' page before you make the _conscious, informed_ effort to view them; it doesn't hurt expression in real life either.

Oh noes! Its teh nakedd bod1ez!!onethousandonehundredandeleven!!!!!11!

I wouldn't call it art, but I'm not an art critic. But it certainly isn't porn, and it certainly should be allowed to be displayed.

Is it me or does Bush have 34 D's??

Yes, George W. Bush does have breasts. Either the creator forgot Bush's gender or it's a subtle jab lost in the midst of the greater image of the threesome.

My stance? Neutral, really. I'm not sure if posting billboards was the right choice, given they're placed in positions (along the roadway) that would make it extremely difficult not to be noticed, and maybe it's *too* much of a shock. Having said that, the posters wanted controversy and they got it, plus the definition of "what's acceptable" has changed a lot over time, so who's to say that they're not just trying to stretch the boundaries? Besides, it may be immovable and can't be easily concealed, but it's not like it can't be avoided- nobody said you had to look.

Definitely not porn or smut. As for art, I think I have to say no.

It's three live people with masks of well-recognized national leaders on having sex. It's not intended to be beautiful, to educate or inspire, nor is it intended to turn people on. It's intended to be crude and show someone's opinion of the world situation, presumably anyway. It's a perfectly reasonable picture to get their point across. The only problem, and the only real cause of controversy, is the placement of the sign.

I'd have no problem with the human form being displayed artfully, even with the threesome situation, but putting huge fake masks of those faces on (Well, any commonly parodied faces of world leaders, but especially putting Bush's face on a woman with fair-sized breasts) and posting it on the side of the road, billboard-sized, is kind of... yeah. Here's the line, there's the 'artist' crossing over the line, and here's the billboard way over the line.

I dont think that it is porn. There is a deeper meaning to this. If it were porn, the "artist" (im trying to use that term lightly) would not have bothered to put masks on the people that it was depicting. What would be the point if you could simply depict three random people or the leaders themselves? I think that the sexuality of this artwork is an attempt to jar our brains in order to think about what is going on between Bush, the Queen, and Chirac (which still escapes me). A better question to ask is, if this billboard was made two hundred some years ago, would it be put in an art history museum? I'm not saying that placing a sexually explicit object in full view of anyone who travels past is a good way of voicing your opinion, but porn it is not.
so, if the film maker or photographer "edits" out the faces, then it's not porn?


To think that they were editing out the other bits when covering the faces would work. :headbang:

why can't it be both Porn and Art?

so, if the film maker or photographer "edits" out the faces, then it's not porn?


To think that they were editing out the other bits when covering the faces would work. :headbang:

why can't it be both Porn and Art?

I'd have liked more options on the poll too - it's a bit too black and white. Like all things in life, you need room for nuance!

so, if the film maker or photographer "edits" out the faces, then it's not porn?


To think that they were editing out the other bits when covering the faces would work. :headbang:

why can't it be both Porn and Art?

Noted and agreed, after reading my post again...I realized that simply because there is a deeper meaning doesn't mean that its not pornography. But it doesn't seem as though the "artist" ( again using the term lightly) intended the piece to be pornography, more of a "shock and awe" treatment to get some message out. I also think that if we could figure out what that message is we might be able to figure all of this out easier.

Elgesh']sigh... this isn't about sexuality and freedom of expression, and you know it! Your right to swing your fist stops at my face, your right to depict whatever you want to depict stops when I can't _avoid_ seeing it.

Put it somewhere where one must make a conscious and informed effortto view it, and all is well. Risque internet sites of all sorts typically have a 'warning - adult themes' page before you make the _conscious, informed_ effort to view them; it doesn't hurt expression in real life either.

Sorry, but this is about sexuality and freedom of expression. If it had been three fully clothed individuals in those masks shaking hands or something, there'd be no uproar. But since they're naked, all of the sudden it's an issue.

But that's not the true issue. You can avoid seeing it. You might not avoid a glance or two, but you can avoid seeing it often or contemplating it. Your rights would only be violated if that image was mandatory viewing. As it stands now, you have every freedom to keep your eyes away and not think about it if it bothers you so. It's the same as, say the KKK. Should they not be allowed to march/hold rallies simply because YOU don't like what you might hear? No. They still have the right to hold peaceful public assemblies, just as you keep the right to not listen and not attend.

Hmm, only losely related, but in this test (http://film.guardian.co.uk/quiz/questions/0,5952,1196044,00.html) you can find out if you can tell art from porn. Whatever that means.

Well of course there is a freedom of expression issue here, and these 'artists' should be able do this kind of art if they want. But people also have the right in public not to have to be spammed with it on the road of all places. with this kind of controverisal content, it must be restricted to private viewing galleries, for people who want to see it.

Sorry, but this is about sexuality and freedom of expression. If it had been three fully clothed individuals in those masks shaking hands or something, there'd be no uproar. But since they're naked, all of the sudden it's an issue.

But that's not the true issue. You can avoid seeing it. You might not avoid a glance or two, but you can avoid seeing it often or contemplating it. Your rights would only be violated if that image was mandatory viewing. As it stands now, you have every freedom to keep your eyes away and not think about it if it bothers you so. It's the same as, say the KKK. Should they not be allowed to march/hold rallies simply because YOU don't like what you might hear? No. They still have the right to hold peaceful public assemblies, just as you keep the right to not listen and not attend.

I think we differ wildly on too much to have a meaningful debate, but let's at least try :); to me, the content is fine as expression, but I don't want its _content_ - not its message, that's a different debate - to be forced upon everyone (I say forced because it's on a frigging billboard at the roadside, if you're either driving or a pedestrian you can't help seeing it!).

It's not the same as the KKK march/rally at all. Imagine I was neutral, or unsure about what their message was (I'm not, on both counts, but that's beside the point!), in the same way I'm neutral and unsure as to the message the billboard depicts. I don't propose to limit either for the message, it's for the way in which their message is put across. The KKK would have to get their race-hate message across through the medium of simulated sex before the two could be compared! :p

edit: you actually say 'as long as they're [the KKK marching bit] peaceful' - i.e. as long as they make allowances for other peoples rights. I think it's the same with this billboard - informed consent to view adult material and we're fine, I just don't see how you can get the idea of informed consent on a billboard...

Sorry, but this is about sexuality and freedom of expression. If it had been three fully clothed individuals in those masks shaking hands or something, there'd be no uproar. But since they're naked, all of the sudden it's an issue.

The reason that there would be no uproar is because three fully clothed individuals is hardly something to get worked up about. And if you put it that way, then this is no longer about wether or not it is either art or pornography because it becomes neither, it becomes a statement of beliefs. This billboard becomes nothing better than the pro life people who stand on the side of a busy street with pictures and diagrams of aborted babies. Their entire purpose is to get the message out in the most disturbing way possible. I don't agree with the billboard as I don't agree with the anti abortion posters, I think that stuff like that is better left out of daily life.

Elgesh']I think we differ wildly on too much to have a meaningful debate, but let's at least try :); to me, the content is fine as expression, but I don't want its _content_ - not its message, that's a different debate - to be forced upon everyone (I say forced because it's on a frigging billboard at the roadside, if you're either driving or a pedestrian you can't help seeing it!).

(snip)

edit: you actually say 'as long as they're [the KKK marching bit] peaceful' - i.e. as long as they make allowances for other peoples rights. I think it's the same with this billboard - informed consent to view adult material and we're fine, I just don't see how you can get the idea of informed consent on a billboard...

It's not like the billboard is being broadcast on a public service announcement on TV that forces everyone to watch it- the billboard can't move, and, if you try, you ARE able to get around seeing it- especially if you're driving, since your eyes should be on the road.

What's the problem?
Are you aware that it is quite common for kids in Europe to see their parents naked from time to time, that there are naked people in ads all the time, and that nudity used to not even get a warning before the movie (that was when I left in 2001, so everything might have changed).

It's not pornographic, in none of the pictures could I actually see genitalia being displayed in a lewd way. If a kid looks at these pictures, there is nothing that will in any way influence it either way.

And if adults can't cope with pictures of naked people...oh well, that's their problem, not the problem of the people around them, or the "artist".

It's not like the billboard is being broadcast on a public service announcement on TV that forces everyone to watch it- the billboard can't move, and, if you try, you ARE able to get around seeing it- especially if you're driving, since your eyes should be on the road.

...To avoid looking at something, you need to be aware of it. To be aware of a thing, you need to percieve it. To percieve a silent image, you need to look at it.

Tell me again how it's possible to avoid seeing it? :p Yes, if you commit its placement to memory you can avoid looking in a given direction when you pass by (what a good idea, by the way, limit a driver's field of vision, splendid!), but why should the onus in this case be on the captive, unwilling audience who never chose (and in your example, never wanted) to see this artistic performance (of dubious merit, but still art)?

Elgesh']I think we differ wildly on too much to have a meaningful debate, but let's at least try :); to me, the content is fine as expression, but I don't want its _content_ - not its message, that's a different debate - to be forced upon everyone (I say forced because it's on a frigging billboard at the roadside, if you're either driving or a pedestrian you can't help seeing it!).

It's not the same as the KKK march/rally at all. Imagine I was neutral, or unsure about what their message was (I'm not, on both counts, but that's beside the point!), in the same way I'm neutral and unsure as to the message the billboard depicts. I don't propose to limit either for the message, it's for the way in which their message is put across. The KKK would have to get their race-hate message across through the medium of simulated sex before the two could be compared! :p

edit: you actually say 'as long as they're [the KKK marching bit] peaceful' - i.e. as long as they make allowances for other peoples rights. I think it's the same with this billboard - informed consent to view adult material and we're fine, I just don't see how you can get the idea of informed consent on a billboard...

Hey hey hey buddy, this is Nationstates - just because our debate won't be meaningful is sure as hell not going to stop us.

Let me see if I understand what we're laying down here - you are separating message(what they say) and medium of expression(how they say it). In this case, under your schema, the message is a political thing and the medium is a billboard sexual scene.

I was not separating the two as finely, and that's how I compared it to a KKK rally. I disregarded the political element of the billboard, leaving a medium of a public display, and a sexual content(because let's be honest - the political message is not what we're debating here). I contend that seeing it this way allows me to compare it to a KKK rally, inasmuch as they are both are public displays, and both may offend. I must argue though, that this billboard, as with a KKK rally, must be allowed. Though in each case some exposure is possible even if one doesn't want it, they are both expressions that ultimately cause no harm and violate no rights, so long as the fundamental 'right to not look/not listen/not think about' (essentially your right to free thought and action) is kept. As such, the billboard is fine.

But to make it more clear - back to the KKK analogy. You are correct in saying that with the KKK march, I referenced peacable assembly, and try to draw a correlation between the protection of rights there, and this billboard situation. That is fallicious because in an UNpeacable assembly, definite rights are violated(right to body(from assaults), right to property(from property damage), right to life(from killing)). Now feel free to prove me wrong, but in the billboard situation, I don't see a distinct right being violated.

I can't stand this smut. But that's just me.

The reason that there would be no uproar is because three fully clothed individuals is hardly something to get worked up about. And if you put it that way, then this is no longer about wether or not it is either art or pornography because it becomes neither, it becomes a statement of beliefs. This billboard becomes nothing better than the pro life people who stand on the side of a busy street with pictures and diagrams of aborted babies. Their entire purpose is to get the message out in the most disturbing way possible. I don't agree with the billboard as I don't agree with the anti abortion posters, I think that stuff like that is better left out of daily life.

Only if you pre-assume that nudity is wrong/harmful/evil. As I do not believe that positition can be supported logically, I try not to think of nudity as such..:)

But to make it more clear - back to the KKK analogy. You are correct in saying that with the KKK march, I referenced peacable assembly, and try to draw a correlation between the protection of rights there, and this billboard situation. That is fallicious because in an UNpeacable assembly, definite rights are violated(right to body(from assaults), right to property(from property damage), right to life(from killing)). Now feel free to prove me wrong, but in the billboard situation, I don't see a distinct right being violated.

I think it all boils down to this, doesn't it? :)

I'm guessing we might conceivably be using different meanings of the word 'rights' here... in the same way that 'it is a legal action' and 'it is a moral action' are often confused.

Additionally, we're talking about this as a piece of art (bad art, many seem to say, including myself, but again, that's another debate!), which carries with it certain schemas you need to take into account.

Any art is a performance - in this case, it's a performance that needs an audience. I didn't choose to be part of this audience, so why should I be compelled to participate against my wishes?

By these criteria, I prefer my reading of the situation :)

Elgesh']I think it all boils down to this, doesn't it? :)

I'm guessing we might conceivably be using different meanings of the word 'rights' here... in the same way that 'it is a legal action' and 'it is a moral action' are often confused.

Additionally, we're talking about this as a piece of art (bad art, many seem to say, including myself, but again, that's another debate!), which carries with it certain schemas you need to take into account.

Any art is a performance - in this case, it's a performance that needs an audience. I didn't choose to be part of this audience, so why should I be compelled to participate against my wishes?

By these criteria, I prefer my reading of the situation :)

But this is just a restating of what we keep saying to each other.:)

Your right not to be compelled to be in the audience of a piece of art is protected by your right to free thought and action - meaning you can look away or think of something else. I contend that still, no rights are violated.

I figure though we may have to agree to disagree.

I figure though we may have to agree to disagree.
Agreed!;)

Full article here (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392803,00.html)

So, what do you think of this? Do you think it is art and should therefore be displayed publicly like this? Or do you think that there are limits to art, that it shouldn't violate morals or good taste?
It's art.

It's neither art nor smut, it's political commentary. It should not be displayed on a billboard, however. It could be, and probably has been, sufficiently distracting (especially to tourists) to cause near-accidents. Nor should it be outright censored. There are venues where the statement can be displayed without offense

Well, since they are 2 and 4 they don't really know "all" about it. The 4 year old knows the mechanical stuff of how babies are made, and that adults have sex when they are married, seeing a threesome might not be good for her. I do answer questions that my girls have, and will always be honest, but I don't see the point in letting them see people engaged in sex. I mean if I was really going to be "educational" about it I would let them sit in the room and watch me and my husband right? well, no because I think it would be emotionally damaging to them. So, I could set them down in front of a porn movie right? No, because I would probably get arrested, there is a reason for that, young children can't process such things. There is a big difference between me talking to them, and answering their questions and them being exposed to people having sex.

To be honest, at that age I don't really think that this billboard would even register with them, unless you reacted to it in any extraordinary way.
The majority of kids will at some age walk in on their parents having sex, any way (well, it happened to me, and to many of my friends) and most of them will walk away from the experience without any emotional trauma.

A friend of mine an myself stumbled over some hardcore magazines and a dildo while I helped her cleaning... we were 7, we had a good laugh, and we put the stuff back.
Why would that be emotionally disturbing?

No problem with their Art being made. No problem with their art being sold or shown in exibits/galleries. Big problem with their art being put up for others to view without their consent.

Unless the art in question complies with outdoor advertising guidelines, it should not be allowed - and putting it up is nothing more than graffiti-like vandalisim.
Agreed. Art has no special right to be shown everywhere. I don't mind the posters but if I had young kids I wish they wouldn't have to see those posters.

Depends on if they were good-looking naked bodies beneath those masks... just kidding.

I am not offended by nudity, although it might make me uncomfortable to see it billboard-sized and "in yer face". I think it a valid artistic expression.
I think there's a difference between nudity and indecency. I would allow nude posters to be shown public just like nude statues. But these posters? No. For adults only (to make it clear, I think it's art, not porn)

Mask wearing threesomes are not usually "what goes on between adults" and I don't agree that it's "what sex is about" either (though you may disagree and that's OK).

Agreed. However, it's not that unusual to be outraged about it either, I think.

Reply to my first post, will you? As an art student I think I have an important interest in this matter.

Huh? I didn't see a question in there...

But ok, let's see what I can say about it. Yes, many people tend to view modern and postmodern art as trash. Much in the same way as people in the begining of the 20th century viewed Impressionism as cheap, Expressionism as metally derranged and Cubism or Dadaism as ridiculous.
I agree that these pieces of art are neither very subtle nor tasteful, but I would make subtlety or taste a criterium for evaluating or judging art. Personally, I kind of like the piece with the EU panties, really. The message is kind of nasty and disrespectful, but it does show a certain amount of humour. The one with the threesome is needlessly aggressive and slandering in addition to being tasteless and not even very original.

this may be called art by some, but in my opinion this is compleatly indeasent.
art usualy convays a message of some sorf, this is nothing but people looking for shock value.

It's not like the billboard is being broadcast on a public service announcement on TV that forces everyone to watch it- the billboard can't move, and, if you try, you ARE able to get around seeing it- especially if you're driving, since your eyes should be on the road.
You think it's ok to cover a city with disturbing images because, hey, you don't have to look at them? It's my space as much as it's theirs (who put up the posters) and I have a say on it. And what you mean by tv that forces you to watch it? Is it like in Clockwork Orange or what?

Elgesh']...To avoid looking at something, you need to be aware of it. To be aware of a thing, you need to percieve it. To percieve a silent image, you need to look at it.

Tell me again how it's possible to avoid seeing it? :p Yes, if you commit its placement to memory you can avoid looking in a given direction when you pass by (what a good idea, by the way, limit a driver's field of vision, splendid!), but why should the onus in this case be on the captive, unwilling audience who never chose (and in your example, never wanted) to see this artistic performance (of dubious merit, but still art)?

Someone could, in the course of driving, pay attention solely to their lane and disregard any billboards that pass by. Having driven past some myself I know they're not impossible to miss, and neither is this one. Harder, I concede, but not impossible.

You think it's ok to cover a city with disturbing images because, hey, you don't have to look at them? It's my space as much as it's theirs (who put up the posters) and I have a say on it. And what you mean by tv that forces you to watch it? Is it like in Clockwork Orange or what?

Don't get me wrong, but I can't remember that you have a right not ot see things that might disturb you?

Don't get me wrong, but I can't remember that you have a right not ot see things that might disturb you?
ok, let's be more precise. Someone could say that a lingerie ad is disturbing (well hey, sometimes you can't even see any lingerie on the ads...anyways..) so the line is different for everyone but I think that society can decide what's appropriate and what's not.

I do believe that there should be some regulations about what's allowed in public places. We have laws about ads and I think it's a good thing. Why these posters wouldn't have to face the same criteria? Should I be allowed to piss on people because "it's art". (don't take me too seriously)

You think it's ok to cover a city with disturbing images because, hey, you don't have to look at them? It's my space as much as it's theirs (who put up the posters) and I have a say on it. And what you mean by tv that forces you to watch it? Is it like in Clockwork Orange or what?

You deserve a say, but so do the posters, even if you don't agree with what they're saying. Democracy's all about give and take- we can't have it *all* our way because we've got to be considerate of everyone else. This means that if we're going to hold a value like freedom of speech we have to honour it. We can't just stamp out a poster because we don't agree with it- if that goes, then well, anything else could too. Besides, you can vote out the people who approved the billboards- you're not defenceless.

As far as the TV example goes- the government CAN intrude on the TV signal to send a public message from time to time. I meant that if the posters did the same thing only then would they be forcing their views on people.

You deserve a say, but so do the posters, even if you don't agree with what they're saying. Democracy's all about give and take- we can't have it *all* our way because we've got to be considerate of everyone else. This means that if we're going to hold a value like freedom of speech we have to honour it. We can't just stamp out a poster because we don't agree with it- if that goes, then well, anything else could too. Besides, you can vote out the people who approved the billboards- you're not defenceless.

As far as the TV example goes- the government CAN intrude on the TV signal to send a public message from time to time. I meant that if the posters did the same thing only then would they be forcing their views on people.
But still you don't have to watch it (TV). I don't see how it's different to your point that you don't have to look at the poster.

Yes, freedom of speech is important but it's limited (everywhere, as far as I know). You can't e.g. insult people without consequences. We have hate speech laws around here and advertising agencies have actually quite strict rules about what they can show on their ads (In a way, those rules are against freedom of speech too.)

I don't think this is about not agreeing with the message, it's about how the message is shown. The artist has a right to show his message but only by the rules. I do realise there might not be such rules in Austria in which case let them keep the posters on billboards as long as they want to (or as long as they have the money to do that.)

I'm just slightly worried about our public places in general. Almost everything is allowed if you can pay for it. Almost everybody seems to think that graffitis are really bad but butt-ugly ads are not. Why? What's the actual difference?

ok, let's be more precise. Someone could say that a lingerie ad is disturbing (well hey, sometimes you can't even see any lingerie on the ads...anyways..) so the line is different for everyone but I think that society can decide what's appropriate and what's not.

I do believe that there should be some regulations about what's allowed in public places. We have laws about ads and I think it's a good thing. Why these posters wouldn't have to face the same criteria? Should I be allowed to piss on people because "it's art". (don't take me too seriously)

As far as I understand, they ARE subject to the same regulations and laws as all other billboards and advertising.
I don't know the specifics of Austrian law in that respect, but German law would allow for those posters without problem. They are largely about visibility, and all that really IS visible in the posters are the boobs of one of the women. That's clearly allowed by law.

If I remember correctly, it is no offense anywhere in Austria to be topless on a beach or at a pool...

As far as I understand, they ARE subject to the same regulations and laws as all other billboards and advertising.
I don't know the specifics of Austrian law in that respect, but German law would allow for those posters without problem. They are largely about visibility, and all that really IS visible in the posters are the boobs of one of the women. That's clearly allowed by law.

If I remember correctly, it is no offense anywhere in Austria to be topless on a beach or at a pool...
Why don't you get that it's not about nudity? In that case half of the statues and 25% of classic paintings (just a little exaggerated :) ) around Europe should be transferred from public places. Do you really think that nudity is the problem here?

ok that's not what you meant, sorry. I won't delete it anyway, maybe someone else want to argue on that.

ok that's not what you meant, sorry. I won't delete it anyway, maybe someone else want to argue on that.

No, I was talking about the laws here ;)
And they are not concerned with the position the nudes in question are in, only with what parts of their body are visible (at least that is the case in Germany and - I think - Austria)

No, I was talking about the laws here ;)
And they are not concerned with the position the nudes in question are in, only with what parts of their body are visible (at least that is the case in Germany and - I think - Austria)
ok, like I wrote before :"The artist has a right to show his message but only by the rules. I do realise there might not be such rules in Austria in which case let them keep the posters on billboards as long as they want to (or as long as they have the money to do that.) "

So they haven't really thought it through before they wrote the law. No surprise. Anyway it's only positive that we (or in this case, Austria as a society) have this kind of discussion every now and then.

Porn. The public shouldn't be confronted with images like that. Also as a British citizen I find it offencive to our monarch

ok, like I wrote before :"The artist has a right to show his message but only by the rules. I do realise there might not be such rules in Austria in which case let them keep the posters on billboards as long as they want to (or as long as they have the money to do that.) "

So they haven't really thought it through before they wrote the law. No surprise. Anyway it's only positive that we (or in this case, Austria as a society) have this kind of discussion every now and then.

I somehow doubt that this campaign will result in a change of law. There are commercial billboards out there that are far more revealing and erotic than this.
I get a feeling that all this fuss is less about what is shown but more about the fact that it is not shown in a very aesthetic way...

----> Art. http://dalearts.com/portfolios/still-life/images/bowl-of-fruit-36x24-water-6.jpg

Anyway, my answer to the original question: who cares?

----> Art. http://dalearts.com/portfolios/still-life/images/bowl-of-fruit-36x24-water-6.jpg

Anyway, my answer to the original question: who cares?
That's definitely porn. No clothes, big pointy objects and pears...

That's definitely porn. No clothes, big pointy objects and pears...

And the bananas!!! Oh, the dirty symbolism. How can you call that art, you filthy pig???

:eek:

And the bananas!!! Oh, the dirty symbolism. How can you call that art, you filthy pig???

:eek: It is indeed a bit... fruity.

It is indeed a bit... fruity.

Indeed it is. I wouldn't want kids to see it. I mean, look at it, it even has grapes!
And what on earth is that red, glistening thing behind the bowl there?

And the bananas!!! Oh, the dirty symbolism. How can you call that art, you filthy pig???

:eek:
You see some other big pointy objects there? You're kinkier than I thought :D

Indeed it is. I wouldn't want kids to see it. I mean, look at it, it even has grapes!
And what on earth is that red, glistening thing behind the bowl there?

The cursed fruit from the tree of knowledge that doomed us to recognize our own nudity!!! Evil, phallic fruit!

Full article here (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392803,00.html)

So, what do you think of this? Do you think it is art and should therefore be displayed publicly like this? Or do you think that there are limits to art, that it shouldn't violate morals or good taste?
It's clearly art that states a message, those damn Puritans shouldn't be so uptight about it! :rolleyes:
Geez, this is Vienna and not the prude US, it's a damn *shame* that people get agitated over this! :mad:

It seems to me that people can get away with putting whatever they want up by just saying the word 'Art'. It's like it's a magic word and when anybody says it, it gives them the right to do whatever the hell they want. Obscenity laws should apply for everyone exactly the same. I don't see why somebody should be able to hide from the law just by calling something art. What makes art so special?

It's clearly art that states a message, those damn Puritans shouldn't be so uptight about it! :rolleyes:
Geez, this is Vienna and not the prude US, it's a damn *shame* that people get agitated over this! :mad:

Art - fine. Message - fine. Context of the artistic performance = the problem. It's analogous to showing a 15+ film - that's fine too, it can just as easily be a piece of art with a message, but you respect that it has implicit limitations on who is deemed mature enough to appreciated its content (not its message, neccessarily). Informed consent should be sought before one agrees to be part of an audience for potentially 'risque' performances, and I don't see how that's possible with a billboard.

Smut.

Art is something you could take your Grandma to without being embarrassed by what you see.

I still don't see an issue with the nudity bit. What I see an issue with is the faces put on those bodies. It's not like the only way to get your point across is to have Bush and [the French guy] screwing Queen Elizabeth.

Besides, is ANYONE actually clear on WHAT the point was, aside from the obvious "It's a political statement" bit?

I still don't see an issue with the nudity bit. What I see an issue with is the faces put on those bodies. It's not like the only way to get your point across is to have Bush and [the French guy] screwing Queen Elizabeth.

Besides, is ANYONE actually clear on WHAT the point was, aside from the obvious "It's a political statement" bit?

No - doesn't communicate its message at all well.

Full article here (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,392803,00.html)

So, what do you think of this? Do you think it is art and should therefore be displayed publicly like this? Or do you think that there are limits to art, that it shouldn't violate morals or good taste?
The human body is not dirty, obscene, or "in bad taste." Sex is not dirty, obscene or "in bad taste." A culture which teaches that the human body is dirty, that sex is obscene, or that human sexuality should be kept to the shaddows...now THAT is "in bad taste."

Elgesh']Art - fine. Message - fine. Context of the artistic performance = the problem. It's analogous to showing a 15+ film - that's fine too, it can just as easily be a piece of art with a message, but you respect that it has implicit limitations on who is deemed mature enough to appreciated its content (not its message, neccessarily). Informed consent should be sought before one agrees to be part of an audience for potentially 'risque' performances, and I don't see how that's possible with a billboard.

First, Austria doesn't have 15+ ratings, I think they have the same system as Germany, with ratings for 6+, 12+, 16+ and 18+
And secondly, I don't think that picture would be rated 16+, really.

The human body is not dirty, obscene, or "in bad taste." Sex is not dirty, obscene or "in bad taste." A culture which teaches that the human body is dirty, that sex is obscene, or that human sexuality should be kept to the shaddows...now THAT is "in bad taste."
well, until those snotty restruants will allow doggie style as well as the Puritian "Missionary" style on thier nice linen tableclothes after dessert (house dressing anyone?), or allow Homeowners to properly test the beds on the department Store floor(No Shoes, No Shirts, but lots of service), or even doing it right outside in the Elementary Playground (oh, the things to be done on the seesaw) I guess sex has to be limited to private areas like homes, apartments, hotel/motel rooms...

well, until those snotty restruants will allow doggie style as well as the Puritian "Missionary" style on thier nice linen tableclothes after dessert (house dressing anyone?), or allow Homeowners to properly test the beds on the department Store floor(No Shoes, No Shirts, but lots of service), or even doing it right outside in the Elementary Playground (oh, the things to be done on the seesaw) I guess sex has to be limited to private areas like homes, apartments, hotel/motel rooms...
That's a lovely straw man you've got there. Did it take you long to fashion it, or did you purchase it ready-made from the religious right-wing fear machine?

well, until those snotty restruants will allow doggie style as well as the Puritian "Missionary" style on thier nice linen tableclothes after dessert (house dressing anyone?), or allow Homeowners to properly test the beds on the department Store floor(No Shoes, No Shirts, but lots of service), or even doing it right outside in the Elementary Playground (oh, the things to be done on the seesaw) I guess sex has to be limited to private areas like homes, apartments, hotel/motel rooms...

*laugh* What an eloquent way to put it.

I don't know about europeans, but I don't have sex in front of my kids, and I don't want my kids watching anyone else having sex either. Or seeing pictures of other people having sex. My two-year old whenever she sees people kissing on tv says "mommy, daddy!" because in her world, only mommy and daddy kiss like that. I would prefer to keep it that way for a while, and not disillusion her. Does that make me a prude? Well then I'd rather be a prude, thank you.

(I don't mind the point, but if you want to make in, put them in bed together, just lying there, with their masks on... it implies the same thing, just without the porn side of it.)

First, Austria doesn't have 15+ ratings, I think they have the same system as Germany, with ratings for 6+, 12+, 16+ and 18+
And secondly, I don't think that picture would be rated 16+, really.

I'm sorry, I could only argue what I know - the specifics of a rating system aren't important, it's the fact that you acknowledge a need for one that's the pertinent point!

Furthermore, any rating above the Austrian equivilent of the UK's 'Universal - suitable for all' marker would suggest that the poster shouldn't be displayed where it is.

That's a lovely straw man you've got there. Did it take you long to fashion it, or did you purchase it ready-made from the religious right-wing fear machine?
well, you're the one saying it shouldn't be kept in the shadows. so you want it out in the open right?
The human body is not dirty, obscene, or "in bad taste." Sex is not dirty, obscene or "in bad taste." A culture which teaches that the human body is dirty, that sex is obscene, or that human sexuality should be kept to the shadows...now THAT is "in bad taste."

since you think it's not Dirty, Obscene or... well taste is personal preference anyway. and I agree that sex isn't dirty, nor obscene unless portrayed as such. but there is a time and place for sex. Just as there is a time and place for everything else.

big companies put their opinions up on bill boards and stuff without consent.... so why should't these artists... not sure about them being funded... everyone knows artistsare poor. lol.

----> Art. http://dalearts.com/portfolios/still-life/images/bowl-of-fruit-36x24-water-6.jpg

Anyway, my answer to the original question: who cares?
Even from a purely technical perspective, that's not a very good painting.

But still you don't have to watch it (TV). I don't see how it's different to your point that you don't have to look at the poster.

If a public service announcement comes on, you have no way of avoiding at least the start of it. The billboard can still be avoided, although it is extremely difficult.

Yes, freedom of speech is important but it's limited (everywhere, as far as I know). You can't e.g. insult people without consequences. We have hate speech laws around here and advertising agencies have actually quite strict rules about what they can show on their ads (In a way, those rules are against freedom of speech too.)

Actually, I can insult anyone I want in a legal framework- I just can't be too forceful with it. I can utter one insult but if I repeat it to the person (prank calling them even), mark up their property or actually physically injure them it becomes a problem. The billboard does not *require* viewing so in no way is it forceful.

I don't think this is about not agreeing with the message, it's about how the message is shown. The artist has a right to show his message but only by the rules. I do realise there might not be such rules in Austria in which case let them keep the posters on billboards as long as they want to (or as long as they have the money to do that.)

I'm just slightly worried about our public places in general. Almost everything is allowed if you can pay for it. Almost everybody seems to think that graffitis are really bad but butt-ugly ads are not. Why? What's the actual difference?

I believe the difference with graffiti is that it's drawings that were not "previously approved" by anyone on their space- the billboard people at least had to go through someone. I'm neutral on the issue of graffiti- I believe it can serve a purpose but too much of it can be harmful.

Unless you know about the billboard and purposely don't drive on the road it's on, in the direction it's facing, it's going to catch your eye and you're going to look at it. The first time you drive by a new billboard, can YOU ignore it entirely?

In that sense, it IS forceful. Unless someone told you about it and told you to avoid it, if your daily commute (or some trip you're taking) takes you by it, you're going to see it. That's the whole point of a billboard: to catch your eye so you see it and it sticks there in your head.

Elgesh']sigh... this isn't about sexuality and freedom of expression, and you know it! Your right to swing your fist stops at my face, your right to depict whatever you want to depict stops when I can't _avoid_ seeing it.

Put it somewhere where one must make a conscious and informed effortto view it, and all is well. Risque internet sites of all sorts typically have a 'warning - adult themes' page before you make the _conscious, informed_ effort to view them; it doesn't hurt expression in real life either.
I agree that the poster is question is needlessly coarse. I don't think it's art. I think it's a political statement and as such, should be subject to the same guidelines as advertising, namely, don't turn off your target audience.

But I want to challenge this idea that art or other kinds of expression are somehow an imposition on your (theoretical, generic "you") rights.

If a person is offended by nudity, does that mean that a city can't have a nude statue in a public square, even if that statue is Michelangelo's David? He's naked, you know. And really big. No way to miss that winkie. And his big butt. So is that offensive, or what?

How about ancient sites that are still decorated with the original good luck architectural decorations of big stone penises and vulvas? Should they be closed to the public? In Sicily there is a typical classical fountain full of writing naked mer-people and gods on which all of the penises were knocked off by the prudish Muslims who ruled that city in the Middle Ages. Were they right to do that? (Today, the locals call it the Fountain of Shame ;) )

It's one thing to say this poster is in bad taste or that you're offended by its message. But censorship is not about protecting people's rights.

Well of course there is a freedom of expression issue here, and these 'artists' should be able do this kind of art if they want. But people also have the right in public not to have to be spammed with it on the road of all places. with this kind of controverisal content, it must be restricted to private viewing galleries, for people who want to see it.
Please be careful about relegating "controversial" content to private viewing areas only. Some people used to get horribly offended by any mention of the Holocaust or American segregation and the civil rights movment. Should art about those things be kept private to avoid shocking public opinion?

Controversy is in the eye of the beholder. Austria clearly has a more accepting attitude towards nudity and sexuality in public images than America does. These people probably didn't think they were pushing the envelope all that far with this poster. In fact, I'm most surprised (or depressed?) that the controversy is more about the sex than the context (that's a pretty big, coarse insult against those political figures).

It seems to me that people can get away with putting whatever they want up by just saying the word 'Art'. It's like it's a magic word and when anybody says it, it gives them the right to do whatever the hell they want. Obscenity laws should apply for everyone exactly the same. I don't see why somebody should be able to hide from the law just by calling something art. What makes art so special?
I don't see how you can argue the law on this one if you're not talking about Austrian law. The poster is in Austria, not the UK or my country, the US. In the US, this billboard would never have been put up. In other countries, who's to say what's obscene? Here in the US, we didn't have trouble with offensive obscenities when we stuck with the combined guidelines of artist's intent, redeeming social value, community standards, and you-know-what?-free-speech-means-you-might-experience-something-you-don't-like-once-in-a-while. Now that everyone is screaming about morals and decency and claiming they have a right never to be offended by anything anywhere, the country is going down the crapper.

[...In Sicily there is a typical classical fountain full of writing naked mer-people and gods on which all of the penises were knocked off by the prudish Muslims who ruled that city in the Middle Ages. Were they right to do that? (Today, the locals call it the Fountain of Shame ;) )]

It's one thing to say this poster is in bad taste or that you're offended by its message. But censorship is not about protecting people's rights.

I don't think nudity is the primary problem - you could argue all day about _that_! - but rather the context the (partial) nudity's used in.

I think calling 'censorship' is something of a crude, blunt instrument, here. I wouldn't call for this image to be banned or changed in any way, only that it's not appropriate for general display in the same way that society concedes limitations on films, or even video games - they use a rating system, I propose something like this requires informed consent before it forces its audience to participate in its performance. I go to a theatre, I might expect audience participation - it was my choice to go, I gave informed consent. Where's the 'reasonable expectation' of participation in this artistic performance here?

P.S. Interested by the fountain of shame! I'm surprised the penis defacing was by muslims - they'd be more likely to erase the figures altogether, it being sinful to show a representation of someone in islam. Penectomies more likely to be by the 11th C. Normans in Sicily, surely? Got a link or anything? :) As for the 'rightness' of the act, I don't know. Without being totally anachronistic, I can't think myself into the mindset of an 11th C. viking~frenchman in Sicily, or a 9th C. arab/moor!

Smut.

Art is something you could take your Grandma to without being embarrassed by what you see.
Big Thomas Kincaid fan, huh? :rolleyes:

Question 1: Is Impressionism art? If the answer is yes, then:

Question 2: If art is inoffensive, why did the first Impressionist shows inspire fist fights between gallery visitors who thought they were brilliant and others who thought they were offensive trash? (And don't try that we're-more-sophisticated-now line; it just isn't true.)

Question 3: If art is inoffensive, and nudity and sex are offensive (therefore, not art), then are Impressionist paintings of nudes art or smut? What about classical paintings of the Greek and Roman gods that do have sexual content to go with their nudity -- all those Venus & Mars and Leda & the Swan paintings? Are they art or smut? What about Egon Schiele's nude paintings? What about Grosch's satirical paintings and drawings that depict German prostitutes?

Is content really the only criteria to use in deciding if a thing is art or smut?

Unless you know about the billboard and purposely don't drive on the road it's on, in the direction it's facing, it's going to catch your eye and you're going to look at it. The first time you drive by a new billboard, can YOU ignore it entirely?

In that sense, it IS forceful. Unless someone told you about it and told you to avoid it, if your daily commute (or some trip you're taking) takes you by it, you're going to see it. That's the whole point of a billboard: to catch your eye so you see it and it sticks there in your head.

I have, on numerous occassions, avoided many billboards. When your eye's focused on the road you're going to be missing some. I do agree that it's next to impossible to miss a billboard, but it's not impossible. It doesn't move nor flashes (no pun intended) itself on your windshield every five seconds so it is possible to miss it, even if it's slight.

In fact, I'm most surprised (or depressed?) that the controversy is more about the sex than the context (that's a pretty big, coarse insult against those political figures).

I think that's what's causing the controversy in Austria- that the posters are making an extreme statement about George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Jacques Chirac and the European Union. If the posters just had three regular people engaging in a menage-a-trois the Austrians probably wouldn't think twice about it, but since they're depictions of well-known leaders and symbols, they get a reaction because they're denigrating their characters, and the Austrian Government- allies with all three of the politicians and in the European Union- doesn't want those countries to believe they're criticizing them, so they're attacking the posters. Regardless, the posters got what they wanted- a reaction, and a big one at that.

Is content really the only criteria to use in deciding if a thing is art or smut?

It's old but true, 'I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it'. This is not porn, it's just third rate, juvenile art. Let it be displayed, but let people make the choice whether or not they wish to participate in its performance.

Elgesh']I don't think nudity is the primary problem - you could argue all day about _that_! - but rather the context the (partial) nudity's used in.

I think calling 'censorship' is something of a crude, blunt instrument, here. I wouldn't call for this image to be banned or changed in any way, only that it's not appropriate for general display in the same way that society concedes limitations on films, or even video games - they use a rating system, I propose something like this requires informed consent before it forces its audience to participate in its performance. I go to a theatre, I might expect audience participation - it was my choice to go, I gave informed consent. Where's the 'reasonable expectation' of participation in this artistic performance here?

P.S. Interested by the fountain of shame! I'm surprised the penis defacing was by muslims - they'd be more likely to erase the figures altogether, it being sinful to show a representation of someone in islam. Penectomies more likely to be by the 11th C. Normans in Sicily, surely? Got a link or anything? :) As for the 'rightness' of the act, I don't know. Without being totally anachronistic, I can't think myself into the mindset of an 11th C. viking~frenchman in Sicily, or a 9th C. arab/moor!
Sorry no link at the moment re the fountain. I saw it in a travelogue program on television, but I can't remember which one. It was on the Travel Channel. Might have been Anthony Bourdain: No Reservations. According to his guide, it was Muslims from North Africa during one of the periods they controlled Sicily.

I think some people on this thread may not realize that they are actually arguing for censorship. You have to be very careful when putting limits on what kind of art gets shown in public and what can only be shown in private. "Controversial," "too adult," "nudity," and "sex" are not strict enough as criteria. Here in the US, we see all kinds of short falls and over-uses of all those, with the result that our public arts make no sense at all and end up offending everyone and representing no one.

Personally, I think the poster is inappropriate for the highway billboard venue, too, but not because that's no place for adult art. Rather because it's a badly executed political statement in a place where it can't be examined and its meaning will be entirely lost behind the visual shock. Therefore, it has no effect but to shock. The creators of the poster should have taken this into account and either edited the poster or picked a different venue for it.

This poster is much more statement than art. Its placement and content have to be appropriate to its message in order to get the message across. In this case they weren't. This image would have worked better in a magazine, or on smaller posters at street level where people could stop, look at it, comment on it, argue about it, etc. Driving by on a highway, all you get is a vague awareness of nookie and you may not even understand why it's there.

But I reject the blanket argument that sexual imagery shouldn't be shown in public. That's too broad a rule. It should be judged case by case.

Elgesh']It's old but true, 'I cannot define pornography, but I know it when I see it'. This is not porn, it's just third rate, juvenile art. Let it be displayed, but let people make the choice whether or not they wish to participate in its performance.
But how will you know it when you see it if you never see it?

The display of a image is not a performance, and your interaction with it is not participation. It's just a thing that's there, like road-kill, and you will not know whether it will offend you until you look at it. How, then, can the displayers anticipate that it will offend you and know in advance where they should display it?

Your suggestion would require displayers to guess at what will offend you. In the US we have already seen that fear of offending people (and getting sued by them) has caused a kind of de facto censorship in which all art that is not abstract or a landscape is kept out of publicly visible spaces by the owners of the spaces (even if they are privately owned).

Hell, it's not just art that's affected by this ack-my-eyes-my-eyes offendedness response. Every few years somebody tries to sue their neighbor for lewdness because they catch sight of them sunbathing nude in their own back yards, and the courts throw these cases out and have to remind everyone that people can live however they like on their own properties and tough shit if you have a view of it.

Each individual's taste cannot set the standard of taste for an entire society.

I think some people on this thread may not realize that they are actually arguing for censorship. You have to be very careful when putting limits on what kind of art gets shown in public and what can only be shown in private. "Controversial," "too adult," "nudity," and "sex" are not strict enough as criteria. Here in the US, we see all kinds of short falls and over-uses of all those, with the result that our public arts make no sense at all and end up offending everyone and representing no one.

But I reject the blanket argument that sexual imagery shouldn't be shown in public. That's too broad a rule. It should be judged case by case.
Good, so do I! In this case, I think it fails. But I take issue with your thinking of what constitutes private/public display. Maybe we're just using the terms differently!

Put it in a magazine with a readership that might expect such images (politics, art, porn, other vaguely grown-up ideas you start thinking about in your early youth), or as part of a display in any sort of art installation (where you might expect to be challanged by images, and tacitly give _consent_ to be so, where you _chose_ to go), and there's no problem. There're a load of other e.g.s along those lines where the viewer participating in the artistic performance gives his informed consent to participate, and you as artist follow the not unreasonable expectations of, say, film ratings as regards guidelines for who-sees-what as part of ftheir daily lives.

I think that's what's causing the controversy in Austria- that the posters are making an extreme statement about George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Jacques Chirac and the European Union. If the posters just had three regular people engaging in a menage-a-trois the Austrians probably wouldn't think twice about it, but since they're depictions of well-known leaders and symbols, they get a reaction because they're denigrating their characters, and the Austrian Government- allies with all three of the politicians and in the European Union- doesn't want those countries to believe they're criticizing them, so they're attacking the posters. Regardless, the posters got what they wanted- a reaction, and a big one at that.
Oh, well, at least the Austrians get it, then. ;)

Well, I'm not aware of anyone wanking to the billboard, so I'm not sure how it's porn. I would say it's art. Not particularly good art, but certainly art.

Elgesh']Good, so do I! In this case, I think it fails. But I take issue with your thinking of what constitutes private/public display. Maybe we're just using the terms differently!

Put it in a magazine with a readership that might expect such images (politics, art, porn, other vaguely grown-up ideas you start thinking about in your early youth), or as part of a display in any sort of art installation (where you might expect to be challanged by images, and tacitly give _consent_ to be so, where you _chose_ to go), and there's no problem. There're a load of other e.g.s along those lines where the viewer participating in the artistic performance gives his informed consent to participate, and you as artist follow the not unreasonable expectations of, say, film ratings as regards guidelines for who-sees-what as part of ftheir daily lives.
Nope, sorry, I disagree.

For the record I should state that I am an artist, so I guess you can expect me to be anti-limitation on the arts pretty much across the board. I'm a surrealist collage artist and sculptor, and my work doesn't emphasize sex, but I do use nude figures -- mostly dissected ones -- anatomical engravings, that is ;) -- and many people do find my stuff emotionally disturbing and challenging. That's how they're supposed to feel about it. It's my goal to crack open their brains and see what spills out.

The idea that art should be rated and hidden away and shown only to pre-filtered audiences pushes one of my red buttons. I actually know people who think nudity itself is obscene and who believe the David and other classical works should not be shown publicly. That kind of thinking offends me mightily. I know people who have never set foot inside a gallery or museum -- they've been culturally trained to think they don't belong there. Should their lives be stripped of art, of ideas, of intellectual challenge just because some prude doesn't like to see winkies, or some complacent sot doesn't like to be forced to think? You may not be that kind of person, but do you really want a system that would inevitably let them influence what our cities look like and what we get to see around us?

Back in the 80s, in New York City, there was an anonymous grafitti artist. I never did find out who he was. He used to paint shadows on the walls, just rough black silhouettes of vaguely shaped men with hats shading their faces. He placed them at the openings of allies and dark doorways where they would just catch the corner of your eye. They were kind of terrifying because they reminded us of the dangers we feared in the streets all around us. They weren't pretty or decorative. They were challenging and disturbing. They were designed to ambush us, to force our "participation" whether we liked it or not. Should they have been allowed on those streets? Where else could they have delivered the artist's message so clearly? If you had forced him to display these images on canvas in a gallery, you would have been castrating his work.

But how will you know it when you see it if you never see it?

The display of a image is not a performance, and your interaction with it is not participation. It's just a thing that's there, like road-kill, and you will not know whether it will offend you until you look at it. How, then, can the displayers anticipate that it will offend you and know in advance where they should display it?

Your suggestion would require displayers to guess at what will offend you...

If the underlined is true, I've wasted many years of my life displaying my drawings!:D Of course the display of an image is a performance.

And of course the reaction to a display can be broadly guessed. I've never had a huge problem tailoring my displays to the right audience; and similarly, where I've been rejected in some applications due to it 'not being right' for the audience, 'their loss', I thought, and reapplied elsewhere. Doesn't hurt my expression a bit :)

I'm sorry to off subject here, but I feel it's kinda related...

...and I want your opinion.

Is this picture offensive, moving, good, crap etc.

http://www.banksy.co.uk/manifesto/images/holocaustic.jpg

Then also read this...

Story that goes with the picture. (http://www.banksy.co.uk/manifesto/)

Nope, sorry, I disagree.

For the record I should state that I am an artist, so I guess you can expect me to be anti-limitation on the arts pretty much across the board. I'm a surrealist collage artist and sculptor, and my work doesn't emphasize sex, but I do use nude figures -- mostly dissected ones -- anatomical engravings, that is ;) -- and many people do find my stuff emotionally disturbing and challenging. That's how they're supposed to feel about it. It's my goal to crack open their brains and see what spills out.

The idea that art should be rated and hidden away and shown only to pre-filtered audiences pushes one of my red buttons. I actually know people who think nudity itself is obscene and who believe the David and other classical works should not be shown publicly. That kind of thinking offends me mightily. I know people who have never set foot inside a gallery or museum -- they've been culturally trained to think they don't belong there. Should their lives be stripped of art, of ideas, of intellectual challenge just because some prude doesn't like to see winkies, or some complacent sot doesn't like to be forced to think? You may not be that kind of person, but do you really want a system that would inevitably let them influence what our cities look like and what we get to see around us?

Back in the 80s, in New York City, there was an anonymous grafitti artist. I never did find out who he was. He used to paint shadows on the walls, just rough black silhouettes of vaguely shaped men with hats shading their faces. He placed them at the openings of allies and dark doorways where they would just catch the corner of your eye. They were kind of terrifying because they reminded us of the dangers we feared in the streets all around us. They weren't pretty or decorative. They were challenging and disturbing. They were designed to ambush us, to force our "participation" whether we liked it or not. Should they have been allowed on those streets? Where else could they have delivered the artist's message so clearly? If you had forced him to display these images on canvas in a gallery, you would have been castrating his work.

graffiti's a trickier matter to talk about intelligently, because it combines art, politics, illegality, and morality. We've wrapped ourselves in enough knots as it is!

I do think you're overreacting, but I can see it comes from an honestly held belief, so I can respect it. Underlined passage in particular made for happy, intelligent-thought moment for me, thank you for it :) Who decides how our cities look, what we see... I'm sorry to say 'we do', I think, and usually that doesn't say a lot for us. We get the sort of places we deserve as a people. Conspiracy (which I know _you're_ not talking about, but I'm including it out of a sense of completeness!), them and us, etc etc - it's the sort of fiction we need to act as 'rational' humans instead of truth-seeing lunatics, but those delusions of powerlessness don't reflect the reality of how cultures and societies change and are moulded by the mass of people within them. Society is an interactive performance, not a piece of roadkill we just see! :p

edit: oops, see you're away - I should knock off an' all, hope to see you again! Nice talking with you :)

oh I wanna post pictures too!

http://alexgrey.net/a-gallery/8-24/cpltng.jpg

art or smut? :p

Free expression is not truly free unless you are free to express it anywhere and at any time. Anything else is simply censorship.

I don't see what the problem with the subjects is. The problem is more likely either the message (portraying the EU as a wench, for instance, with the US, France, and the UK engaging in the venereal act together, as a means of insulting the actors), or the medium. I doubt there would be so much huffing and puffing over the images if they were oil on canvas, instead of film.

That being said, I wouldn't call it art, any more than I would call a political cartoon art. Prior to (one of) the French Revolution(s), the Queen of France was depicted in many papers in a similar way. I don't see the difference here.

If art were allowed to be posted on street signs, they might achieve their intended effects: working to an end to poverty, war, &c. As it is, such images are only ever seen in galleries (where the public dares not tread) or on occasion in newspapers and news magazines (where the editors are careful to select those images likely to offend the fewest subscribers).

Now, about the images themselves. They are, as we can see, highly effective at getting people to talk about them. The problem is that no one is talking about the issues that they raise, which is, perhaps, the more disturbing thing. Would the images be as effective with less shock value? No. They need shock value. There are somethings that will just be ignored with out shock value, and in today's world, that means that an awful lot has to be shocking.

As I started out saying: freedom of expression means being able to say what you want, where you want, and when you want. On your own property, you can censor whatever you want, but off of it, you need to know that anything goes. When you go out onto the streets you don't have the right to not be bombarded by images that make you uncomfortable, but you can certainly keep your eyes glued to the sidewalk.

oh I wanna post pictures too!

http://alexgrey.net/a-gallery/8-24/cpltng.jpg

art or smut? :p

THAT is art.
And what is more, it's aesthetic. I really like it, it's beautiful.

I'm sorry to off subject here, but I feel it's kinda related...

...and I want your opinion.

Is this picture offensive, moving, good, crap etc.

http://www.banksy.co.uk/manifesto/images/holocaustic.jpg

Then also read this...

Story that goes with the picture. (http://www.banksy.co.uk/manifesto/)

It's art in any case, with or without the story, I would say.
Without the story, it does come across as disrespectful of course, but it's open to a lot more interpretation than it is once you know the story.

THAT is art.
And what is more, it's aesthetic. I really like it, it's beautiful.

I think so too. Alex Grey is one of my favorite artists of our time.

Elgesh']graffiti's a trickier matter to talk about intelligently, because it combines art, politics, illegality, and morality. We've wrapped ourselves in enough knots as it is!

I do think you're overreacting, but I can see it comes from an honestly held belief, so I can respect it. Underlined passage in particular made for happy, intelligent-thought moment for me, thank you for it :) Who decides how our cities look, what we see... I'm sorry to say 'we do', I think, and usually that doesn't say a lot for us. We get the sort of places we deserve as a people. Conspiracy (which I know _you're_ not talking about, but I'm including it out of a sense of completeness!), them and us, etc etc - it's the sort of fiction we need to act as 'rational' humans instead of truth-seeing lunatics, but those delusions of powerlessness don't reflect the reality of how cultures and societies change and are moulded by the mass of people within them. Society is an interactive performance, not a piece of roadkill we just see! :p

edit: oops, see you're away - I should knock off an' all, hope to see you again! Nice talking with you :)
Yeah, I had to take off or I would have been at the office all night. :eek:

I think our different opinions of whether image displays are performance and whether society can be considered performance are merely a matter of art-jargon, so let’s get past that.

By pure coincidence, I found the following research blog today, by an academic working on game theory and risk-taking behaviors. The linked page quotes from and comments on a book I’ll have to read: Man’s Rage for Chaos: Biology, Behavior & the Arts, by Morse Peckham. New York, Schocken, 1969.

Link: http://cultureraven.typepad.com/roll_the_bones/

Here are excerpts that struck me particularly in re this discussion (I’ve re-ordered them to underscore what I think is relevant to this discussion [square brackets are my comments within the quotes]):

Regarding the free public display of art and/or statements that are designed to be upsetting:

“… to anything that disorients him, anything that requires him to experience cognitive tension he ascribes negative value. Only in protected situations, characterized by high walls of psychic insulation [i.e. gallery, museum, etc. – muravyets], can he afford to let himself be aware of the disparity between his interests, that is, his expectancy or set or orientation, and the data his interaction with the environment actually produces.”

“Art is rehearsal for those real situations in which it is vital for our survival to endure cognitive tension, to refuse the comforts of validation by affective congruence when such validation is inappropriate because too vital interests are at stake; art is the reinforcement of the capacity to endure disorientation so that a real and significant problem may emerge. Art is the exposure to the tensions and problems of a false world so that man may endure exposing himself to the tensions and problems of the real world.”

“The role of the artist, then, demands that he create external discontinuity by offering the perceiver implicit, internal, and modal discontinuity. The various arts are related not because they offer signs of orientations, but because the decisions for external discontinuity, for non-functional stylistic dynamism, create historically concurrent non-functional stylistic continua, since those decisions are in response to the demands made upon the artist not by any defining attribute of his art but by the extra-artistic demands of his cultural level.” [Or in other words, the artist responds to the demands of his culture and helps to define his culture precisely by going against its grain in a manner that upsets the complacency of the viewer in some way. – muravyets.]

Regarding my objection to the idea that art should be rated like movies (I have some issues with movie ratings, too, btw) and audiences should be guided away from inappropriate content:

“Cultural gatekeepers [teachers, critics, curators, arbiters of taste, censors, etc. – muravyets] say: you must have such and such cultural capital to be permitted entrance into the garden. But behind the gates there are “savage beasts,” “booby traps,” and “swamps of decaying and rotten values.” … To be sure, there are many works that will not be enjoyed unless one acquires knowledge of the meaningful conventions, allusions, and references of which the work in question has been composed. Gatekeepers can make sure that you are prepared for what you will encounter in the garden. Yet how often does the exclusion take place because of the gatekeeper’s anxieties about himself and not out of concern for the person who would enter? Gatekeepers can practice exclusion out of the fear that some interloper might experience the deconstruction and disorientation that takes place inside the garden of art and attempt to reinvent that kind of disorientation and deconstruction in other areas, such as politics.”

So, if one of the functions of art is to destroy complacency by making people look at things they might prefer to ignore, then the argument that the billboard should not be shown because it is controversial doesn’t stand. It should be shown precisely because it is controversial.

However, this does not affect the question of whether this particular statement would have been better served with a different image or different venue. For instance, I would still want it on the street, but in a pedestrian area where people have the freedom to stop and respond to it rather than just get a drive-by shock.

Nope, sorry, I disagree.

For the record I should state that I am an artist, so I guess you can expect me to be anti-limitation on the arts pretty much across the board. I'm a surrealist collage artist and sculptor, and my work doesn't emphasize sex, but I do use nude figures -- mostly dissected ones -- anatomical engravings, that is ;) -- and many people do find my stuff emotionally disturbing and challenging. That's how they're supposed to feel about it. It's my goal to crack open their brains and see what spills out.

The idea that art should be rated and hidden away and shown only to pre-filtered audiences pushes one of my red buttons. I actually know people who think nudity itself is obscene and who believe the David and other classical works should not be shown publicly. That kind of thinking offends me mightily. I know people who have never set foot inside a gallery or museum -- they've been culturally trained to think they don't belong there. Should their lives be stripped of art, of ideas, of intellectual challenge just because some prude doesn't like to see winkies, or some complacent sot doesn't like to be forced to think? You may not be that kind of person, but do you really want a system that would inevitably let them influence what our cities look like and what we get to see around us?

Back in the 80s, in New York City, there was an anonymous grafitti artist. I never did find out who he was. He used to paint shadows on the walls, just rough black silhouettes of vaguely shaped men with hats shading their faces. He placed them at the openings of allies and dark doorways where they would just catch the corner of your eye. They were kind of terrifying because they reminded us of the dangers we feared in the streets all around us. They weren't pretty or decorative. They were challenging and disturbing. They were designed to ambush us, to force our "participation" whether we liked it or not. Should they have been allowed on those streets? Where else could they have delivered the artist's message so clearly? If you had forced him to display these images on canvas in a gallery, you would have been castrating his work.
I think you're seriously overestimating the importance of art. And I find it laughable that people get so worked up over such irrelevant things. For the vast majority of people I know, art is just pictures. Something that you take a quick look at and then forget about it after a few seconds and get on with your life just like you always have. Of course, then you get the occasional 'artist' who fancies grabbing headlines and making a name for himself. So he tries to gross out and offend as many people as possible, and when asked to explain himself about why the hell he did it, he comes out with all the usual rot about about how it represents one thing or another and if we can't understand it then we have to be a bunch of uneducated philistines.

And regarding the example of the New York graffiti artist, he's a vandal and a criminal. There's no god given right to use other people's property as your own personal canvas without the owner's permission. But I know these types don't have any respect for anybody else's property, so that's irrelevant to them. But you say that forcing him to put his works in a gallery would be 'castrating' it. Well that's just tough on him. I think it would teach the 'artist' a valuble lesson that you can't have everything your own way in life.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=bizarre&id=3782864

art or darwin award? :D

well, you're the one saying it shouldn't be kept in the shadows. so you want it out in the open right?

I'm the one saying there is nothing wrong with the human body, or with sex.
From that, you immediately leap into the hysterical rantings of the sex-terrified. Gosh, if we admit there's nothing wrong with nude paintings then we'll have to let people do it doggie-style on tables in public restaurants!!! THINK OF TEH CHILDREN!!11!!!

It's okay that you carry some hangups around. Everybody does. But you can work through them. You don't have to live in fear of your own body, or of sex. You can learn to accept the human body, and human sexual intercourse, as natural rather than merely tittilating. You can also learn to grasp something called "reason."

See, it's kind of like how going to the bathroom isn't obscene, but we still don't do it on the tables in restaurants...can you see how that works? How reasonable adults can show what we sometimes call "maturity," even when pee-pees and hoo-hoos are involved?


since you think it's not Dirty, Obscene or... well taste is personal preference anyway. and I agree that sex isn't dirty, nor obscene unless portrayed as such. but there is a time and place for sex. Just as there is a time and place for everything else.
There are many times and places for sex, just as there are many times and places for eating, sleeping, drinking, coughing, and going to the bathroom. We restrict some of these other behaviors in public areas because of safety or health concerns, and we most certainly should do the same for sex, but there is no reason why sex should be treated any differently than these other behaviors. Indeed, in terms of public health and safety, there is a much stronger case for restricting public urination than for restricting public sex.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=bizarre&id=3782864

art or darwin award? :D

Can't be a Darwin Award...he didn't die...but that is hilarious.

Can't be a Darwin Award...he didn't die...but that is hilarious.


yeah - hmmmm maybe Darwin Award wannabe runner up award?

What would ahve been worse is if he found the key in his pocket after he arrived at the gas station 12 hours later and was on the phone askign for help...

I wouldn't consider that pornography, but nor would I consider it tastefull or suitable for public display (there's nothing 'wrong' about farting in an elevator, but it's still considered rude). Keep the art in the gallerys where people who want to see it can go to see it, why force your (opinionated, political) art on everyone?

Also, the "message" behind the EU panties seems a bit vague. The EU should sell panties? The EU are panties? The EU are currently covering someone's pussy/ass (that seems like too witty a message for the artists to have come up with themselves, given their complete lack of subtlty on their other work)? The EU are sluts (considering that a 2-piece is the norm for swimming in most countries that one seems a bit far-fetched, but given the nature of the other image that seems to be the only appropriate message)?

Maybe it's part of a new EU Economic push to get people to buy EU-made panties. That's what I think.

yeah - hmmmm maybe Darwin Award wannabe runner up award?

What would ahve been worse is if he found the key in his pocket after he arrived at the gas station 12 hours later and was on the phone askign for help...

Maybe an honourable mention...maybe.

As far as the key...that would be a bummer.

two things...

and i don't know if they've been brought up before.


1. That picture is not safe for work.
2. Hince it's not safe for work, i didn't think it's legal here to link to nudity.

Guess i'm wrong on point 2, but please, in the future, label the link nsfw if it has nudity.

Thanks.

I think you're seriously overestimating the importance of art. And I find it laughable that people get so worked up over such irrelevant things. For the vast majority of people I know, art is just pictures. Something that you take a quick look at and then forget about it after a few seconds and get on with your life just like you always have. Of course, then you get the occasional 'artist' who fancies grabbing headlines and making a name for himself. So he tries to gross out and offend as many people as possible, and when asked to explain himself about why the hell he did it, he comes out with all the usual rot about about how it represents one thing or another and if we can't understand it then we have to be a bunch of uneducated philistines.

And regarding the example of the New York graffiti artist, he's a vandal and a criminal. There's no god given right to use other people's property as your own personal canvas without the owner's permission. But I know these types don't have any respect for anybody else's property, so that's irrelevant to them. But you say that forcing him to put his works in a gallery would be 'castrating' it. Well that's just tough on him. I think it would teach the 'artist' a valuble lesson that you can't have everything your own way in life.
Wow, what a lot of anger. Did an artist steal your milk money once?

You may not be aware that you are attacking me -- if you're not aware that I'm an artist -- so I'm going to respond to this only once, just to defend my profession. I'm not going to get into a war over it. But here goes:

From the first cave paintings, carved figurines, and portrait engravings made 18,000 years ago, art has been a part of human public life. It was developed right along with clothing and cooking and, imo, it is just as important, just as vital to our existence, as those things. It is an exercise of the brain. It stimulates thought and imagination, and there is nothing more important to our evolution. Even if you decide the piece of art is crap, you had to use your brain to reach that conclusion. That's what art does. That's what it's for. Art, games, music, all those supposedly useless things are the very things that make us human beings. A world without them is a repressive lie.

If you really hate things that make you think that much, then tough luck on you, because I'm here, baby, and this artist has no problem at all defining my life's work as something that pisses off a person called Somewhere. :cool:

EDIT: PS: my website should be up by the middle of this month. I'll tg you the link -- but only if it will piss you off. :p

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!


personally i think that the billboards are hilarious and i dont think people should be offended by sex or nudity.

I do not classfy playboy as porn
whats so bad about seeing the female body at perfection

Your freedom of speech doesn't just mean you can say whatever you want so long as other people can avoid hearing you. It also doesn't mean people can't avoid listening to you. Some people are better at not being ignored than others, and if someone is in a position to make themselves unavoidable that's their perogative. That still doesn't mean you can't ignore them.

If you want good art again. stop governments subsidising it.
All the real good stuff was private or Vatican
Michelangelo, Da Vinci, etc.

If you want good art again. stop governments subsidising it.
All the real good stuff was private or Vatican
Michelangelo, Da Vinci, etc.
I kind of agree with you, although back in the Renaissance, those supposedly private patrons actually were the government of the city states as well as the leaders of big business, so, in modern terms, the Renaissance masters worked as government and corporate PR contractors.

But I agree that government money makes artists lazy. Back in the days of the great masters, art was a highly skilled profession and artists worked like dogs to make their living. The Medicis didn't keep Da Vinci like a pet on a monthly stipend so he could just be "creative." He ran a business and they were his biggest clients. This idea that artists don't work for money and that art is some kind of social charity is false, and it weakens both artists and the arts.

I never apply for grants, either public or private. I get paid by sales of my work, and if I don't earn enough in a quarter, I get a temporary day job. Just like other independent professionals trying to run small businesses.