Art vs Obscenity-- When is Censorhip valid?

Wonderfully said!

Very well said. I don't personally believe this particular piece falls into the category of "art" or "statement". It's a blatant obscenity. (again, that's my opinion). And I feel that the failure of people as a whole to any longer recognize the potential and existence of obscenity is a very sad statement as to the state of our society. It would seem that morality and ethics have become nothing more than lip-service concepts without any real foundation, cast aside in the name of "art". (Tell me, how is "art" so important that we are willing to cast aside all concepts of moral humanity in its support? I mean, art is important yes... but at the cost of all concept of even remote decency?)

Let me ask all a question or two: some claim this work isn't bad, because it is a fairy (thus fantasy) instead of a portrayal of a real woman. What if it was a portrayal of a real woman... would it be more or less acceptable then? Or as one user pointed out, since artistic depiction of child molestation apparently is not illegal, what if it depicted a child being joyously and homicidally raped in such a manner? Is that still acceptable "art"?

What kind of monsters have people become.

But that's not what happened, so this is either an attempt to transfer an adverse emotional reaction from a fictional situation to the situation at hand in order to justify your own moral high ground, or it is pontification for pontification's sake.

The reality is that the user posted a depiction of a lewd act with a fantasy creature and you were offended by it. Just as you have to tune in to Howard Stern to be offended by it, you have to go to the gallery to be offended by the picture. True, you can stumble upon either by accident- but once you do, you learn your lesson and avoid it in the future.

A valid path of argument would be to claim that the artist should include an advisory warning before entering his building.

An invalid path of argumentation would be to engage in claims making while willfully ignoring the separation between fantasy and reality, to assume a false knowledge of artistic denotation, to ignore real evidence to the contrary of your claims in favor of personal opinion, and to ignore the basis of social law when requesting recompense. Most law that governs society is about ownership and repayment of debt. A debt without evidence is one that cannot be payed. You cannot claim harm without evidence, and cannot expect punishment as payment for a victimless crime. If you are owed anything, a fitting repayment of debt for the imagined harm (or "opinion" of harm, if that euphemism serves your tastes better) would be to issue only the strictest imaginary punishment.

Ouch! I'm mortally wounded by your rapier wit! Has to be one of those two negatively-presented options, eh? Mabey I should respond in in equal manner, something like oh, "Hey, it wouldn't take much morality to be on a moral high ground with you." Nah. That would be just plain rude.

Come on. Maybe I presented this to find out what you actually think... or even to make you think about your stance. Because although that's not what happened... it certainly could happen. I question where the claim of "censorship is wrong" would wind up then. And I still think it a valid question. I didn't posit a scenario that is unlikely or impossible; I asked a question about a very real possibility... and asked what the anti-censorship section's position would be in such an instance.

If that causes a bit of unease and pause to reflect, maybe that's a good thing.

Why did you assume child porn? The images could just as easy represent a large country taking advantage of a small one or a large company doing a smaller one. I have a small figure and ask people what they see. About half of the people think she is giving them the finger. About half of them think she is pointing at herself. In other worlds art can act as a mirror.

We dont always see what the artist intends sometimes we see our true selfs.

That's a valid point and holds true with some pieces of art. I think it would be rationalization in the case of the one described. If the artist made such a claim to my face, I'd have to assume he was lying to either save his tail or because he enjoys trying to fool people. Rather than buying such a claim, in this instance I'd point out to him that his work lacks any artistic merit or decency and leave him with his garbage.

I have seen artists at shows present works that I'd give a student a D- for trying to turn in as a project. And he'd get an F if it hadn't been nicely framed. It doesn't have to do with opinion-- it has to do with actual talent and presentation of subject or concept.

If I se a pile of dung on a canvas, I call it a pile of dung, no matter what the "artist" may try to claim. People shouldn't be that easy.

A pile of dung named, oh let's just pick a title... "Industrial Visions of the Worker in Post-humanist Society" is no longer a pile of dung, but a concept.

Maybe, if a concept lacks all ambiguity or all clarity, the concept is not particularly interesting. Nonetheless, conceptual art can make use of all kinds of images, even scatalogical ones. Again, I don't have to like the art. Just because I don't want to hang it in my living room doesn't mean it isn't art.

Honestly Wayfarer and you know I respect and like you, it sounds to be like the same kind of reaction that once greeted Maplethorpe and his art work. I feel your discomfort but think you need to step back and look at this from a removed POV. Perhaps there is a valid conceptual statment being made.

Was not the problem with his work the use of tax money?

I have not seen the "art" and would not like it from description. However the repressive goverments of the past started with art work. They labeled offensive work with different titles. The art work was destroyed and artists jailed. Next they went after offensive books, etc. In Japan baseball was banned becaused it did not support the value system.

We need to learn from the past or we are bound to forever repeat it.

I understand what you're saying Boliver. And in some cases and some instances, it is valid. The problem arises when people fail to be able to discern the common-sense difference between such an instance, and a presentation of offensive trash.

Now admitted, that is a point of judgement. As one user aptly pointed out, one person's trash is another person's treasure. But as thinking, rational human beings, we each are capable-- if we so choose-- of discerning a line between what is right and what is wrong, what is good and bad, what is art-- and what is obscenity.

I will agree and admit that throughout history there are those who have used that "discernment" excessively. There are always extremes on both sides of an issue. But being so afraid of crossing that line of "undue censorship" that we are afraid to make ANY judgement call... that is the pendulum swinging to the other side.

There is a central, balanced point of view, the one in which a person is able to look at something and state, "This is dispicable from any viewpoint." Failure to be able to make that judgement indicates a loss of one of our primary defensive mechanisms: the ability to discern danger before it strikes. We each need to be able to look at something and determine whether it is potentially dangerous or not. To ignore the potential of danger opens oneself up to be overrun and overtaken by it.

In no place in these posts have I presented the concept that this person should be arrested, jailed or executed for his display (just the opposite in fact. I stated pretty clearly that I question such responses). But do we have the right to look at something and say, "This really goes beyond all sense of decency and should not be here"? OF COURSE we do. Unless of course, the concept of "no censorship" and "freedom of speech" only applies to those who agree with our personal opinions.

There is a general tendency among some people to view censorship as "bad". This is not the case. Abuse of censorship is bad, certainly. But censorship is a protective concept to insure the safety of society in general. We as a society censor things every day... and are glad of it. There is nothing wrong with censorship as a concept. The problem is that there are people-- on both sides of the issue-- who go to extremes in either its support or denial. There are both Victorian prudes-- and there are those who believe anything should be allowed. Both positions are unbalanced and unhealthy.

To acknowledge and validate your advice, I have stepped back from my point of view. I've closely read every post here and considered its merit-- as some of my replies have reflected. Just because I still maintain my view that this piece is jut plain wrong doesn't mean I'm tunnel-visioned.

Any time a person who is against censorship tries to silence the person who speaks out in the name of decency -- he has already broken his own rules (and in honesty, we've seen some of that attitude here, both in "outrage" against the initial post and in the form of personal verbal attacks... which were so apparent that one person was even moved to comment on such). Under the strict interpretation of no-censorship, we do not have the right to censor the censor. By that definition, I am rightfully voicing my opposition to an abhorrent presentation and stating that it is blatant obscenity rather than art.

Everyone here takes such positions every day, probably without even realizing it. That is part of what makes us different from witless animals. When that ceases to be the case-- I would suggest that we will be no different. Perhaps our society has already passed that point. Show me any animal on the planet that has been stupid enough to endanger all life on earth. It would seem that homo sapien in general is not all that smart. If we lack the ability to look at a piece of "artwork" and say, "This is just plain wrong"... how are we to have the wisdom to run a planet?

Wow, this topic even brings me back down from the rafters. You have an opinion Way, and you have expressed it. Your opinion that the picture in question is obscenity and not art, is fine. But its only an opinion.

The line between art and obscenity is not bright and at times it is very difficult to draw. Much of the time it is focused on judicial interpretation of the community standards of decency, which raises issues of what is a community and what is decency. Certainly the christian community has a very different standard than the National Endowment of the Arts. In some definitions of community, this fairey rape picture might offend, as it does in yours, still others might find the depiction of fairy at all as being satanic. Other communities find tolkien offensive and satanic and an assault on the common moral. Harry Potter comes under attack regulary.

Thus the notion of what is art is a shifting target, and to be fair, the commnuity standards must be relfective of the entire community. In this case, if we define the communbity as SL, well then it seems that enough members of the community have spoken out in favor of the work as being art, that probably it would stand. Remember to be obscenity the work musty appeal only to the purient interest and must be otehrwise liking in artistic merit. The fact that the work produces an shocking reaction does not make it obscene.

The entire point of the first amendment is to protect the dissenting voice, to protect those works which make the majority uncomfortable. I am sorry for you if you find that you live in a world of degenerating self indulgent morals. This is not the world I live in. In my world people can see the difference between a depiction desinged to provoke and an action of injury. In my world people can be provoked and critically evalute works that they do not like without reporting them as abuse.

My own take on the work is that it may well be a commentary on the victim, a shocking destruction of an artisitic representation of peaceful beauty. It is disturbing, but then it is clear that the artist intends this to be disturbing. I do not see this as some work that appeals only to some psycho sexual rape fanatsy, I think it is clearly intented to provoke an emotional repsonse on several levels.

Much like the rape scene in Accused, the offensive provokation is necessary to make the viewer look deeper at themselves. You may end up being more offended by the work on further relfection, but the work did make you look within.

The very fact that work provokes this sort of discussion, and makes us debate here in the forums the artists intent, validates it as art. Clearly the work has gone beyone mere appeal to the purient interest. You may not like the art, but it is art.

Ok, for the sake of argument we in SL agree with censorship. Who standards are you going to use? Are American laws going to be enforced on residents of other countries? Will the standard be stricter than American Law? Are the private islands going to be open for inspection? Who is going to check for "wrong" art, pictures, etc?

Wayfinder Wishbringer of course.

Or on the other hand, Kendra Bancroft could enforce her personal views on others, which of course would be better.

Two people can play the snide game Kendra. It doesn't take any particular wit or effort.

Jake, I found your post, although in opposition to my position, to be very intelligent and well-stated, probably the best presented counter-point I've read here thus far. Yours is one of the few posts I've seen here that actually presents the non-censorship argument in a reasonable, non-censoring format. Not that I agree of course... I wouldnt' be expected to. But I had to at least acknowledge your respect and artfulness of presentation.

Actually, that's a pretty valid question. In most societies there is a body assigned to make such decisions. When an individual finds something objectionable, they appeal to that body (such as I did in the AR... I found something here offensive; I brought attention to the designated body in the only manner available). I then brought the matter here to the forums for examination by the society itself. I never expected the majority to agree with me; the general attitude here on SL is pretty obvious and predictable. The purpose was simply to bring the matter to the attention of the public and if it assists even one individual to take a stand in such matters, whether publicly or within his/her own mind, that is sufficient.

The alternatives may be for individuals to take it upon themselves to handle the matter in vigilante fashion (one extreme) or for people to insist we have no right to censor and take it upon themselves to attack censors in vigilante fashion (the other extreme).

There's a difference between our approaches, Wayfinder.

You seek to deny people the opportunity to see things you find objectionable through means of censorship.

I don't.

Not once have I said you must be silent, or that your view shouldn't be heard. All I am doing is presenting my opinion that you're a self-styled church-lady in thought police riot gear.

Wayfinder,

You might have found it a snide comment; to me it was a valid commentary on some of the things you have said.

That is the problem when we try to argue about where the line should be drawn. Someone then has to draw the line - and those who take the moral high ground often seem to be putting themselves forward as just the person to carry out this task.

Actually, I don't think you're really doing that. I think you're trying to cop a quick chuckle at the expense of others and your viewpoint is neither presented in an honest nor respectful manner. That's my opinion.

If you look back through all these pages of posts, I don't believe I one time stated that this work had to be removed. I simply brought the matter to your attention. Further, I didn't attack you personally for your opinions. You have however, attacked me several times.

So who here, is actually being the censor in police riot gear?

Methinks in truth, you be the preacher.

Be careful when proclaiming all censorship is wrong. You may be expected to live by that claim.

Jake,

To me this is a really weird definition of art. If enough sl members call it art it is art, otherwise it isn't?

I believe that art is very simple to define, as I said in the previous posting. If the creator calls it art, then it is art. There is no argument - at least until such time as we have developed our telepathic skills.

People tend to claim that something is not art if they feel very strongly that they do not like it. Many of the great artists have had this charge levelled against their works.

To me, if you say something is not art, all this shows is that your knowledge and understanding of art is limited. If you don't like something and can argue against it on the basis of its intrinsic artistic qualities, which, as has been pointed out, might include the conceptual ones, then I will respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it. But if you dismiss something by saying it is not art, then I can only respond by saying that you are not a critic.

BTW - all the 'your's in this posting were not directed at you personally, but were general comments inspired by your posting.

Valid comment Selador. Can't argue with that. However, on the other side of the issue, are we to proclaim that no one has the right to draw the line somewhere?

Although both positions are undesirable, I would predict that in the long run, we will discover that being too tolerant is just as bad (if not worse) than not being tolerant enough.

That's your opinion, and not a well informed one. I'm deadly serious in my posts, though I'll cop to using snarkiness as a stylistic choice.

I'm not attacking you personally, I don't even know you. I am however, attacking your "message", as I find it to be horribly offensive and indicative of a particular brand of small minded "holier than thou" peevishness that often seeks to knock down and obliterate anything it finds naughty.

Even your judgement of my methods of posting smacks of censoring my writing style, because YOU happen to find it offensive (or as you put it dishonest and dispespectful.)

Well isn't that special.

This actually had to be posted twice for it to really sink in and make me consider this statement on its own merit. It gets back to the ancient and undecided argument: what is art?

There are several established areas of thought in this matter. I'm of the school that states you can call an apple an apple all you want, that doesn't make an orange an apple just because one claims it is. But I will at the same time admit that there is a work at our local museum that I wouldn't call art in a million years, so it is a very subjective concept. And maybe by that very fact, your statement has some validity.

But I'm also of the "old school" that believes the simple statement: art ends where obscenity begins. The question there becomes: what does society consider to be obscene? Which brings on further questions: is society right just because the majority claim such a thing? I think history has proven that the majority is quite often very, very wrong. And sometimes it has taken one single individual or group of individuals to make society stop and think about what it's doing.

I know it's unpopular these days, but I believe there are things that are by their very nature good and bad, obscene or acceptable. That brings us back to the question of "who is to decide"? The fact is, if individuals refuse to recognize the right and authority of anyone else to make that decision, then society has entered into a phase of anarchy that historically has lead to chaos and collapse. That is why such warning signs are important... and ignoring those signs potentially cataclysmic.

I keep thinking of the people who claimed Mt. St Helens was perfectly safe and derrided those who told them it was dangerous. Big mistake. Unfortunately, it's a mistake that humankind as a whole seems to make over and over again.