It's wednesday....class was good
Hi all--
Today was an excellent class--Mr. I even compared you to college freshmen, which I find quite apt. I am quite pleased with this group--you are intelligent and you bring diverse perpectives, which is important for good conversation. I have included a link to an article which shows some paintings and photographs that are widely considered sacreligious (there is some nudity, so beware), with a comparison to their high art counterparts: (http://www.almalopez.net/ORnews2/040500.html).
Just food for thought regarding our conversation today.
The previous posting really says all that I wanted to get across today, though I am happy that we were able to preview some of the problematic things that we have to discuss. The question as to how we countenance morally quesitonable (or repugnant) art is critical, I think, to being a responsible adult in this day and age--the world you inherit and its attendant responsibilities has changed considerably from the one your parents inherited....
But I am getting ahead of myself here. Viewing media in its function as art is crucial, I hope you see, because this perspective allows that media can be judged on its merits. Rather than get pulled into whether (the) media generally constitutes a Good or an Evil--a debate that is nonsensical at best (why?)--we (you and I) allow that it is art and we can strive together to answer the question as to what is and is not good art (and by what standards!).
So there we go....I look forward to your postings.
posted by IamHarrell @ 8:56 PM
4 Comments:
hello all, i guess the pictures could be taken as offensive. especially with titles such as "Piss Christ" and also "Yo Mama's last supper".as far as, what looks like the depiction of the traditional work, both "pieta" and "our lady" look fine to me and i would not consider them offensive.but thats just my opinion. and lastly the offensive virgin mary pic..hmm...i cant evn see it well, so no comment....
I personally find that those so called pieces of art are very offensive. These are religious artworks that are not only mimicked but done in such a way that it would stir up controversy within the religious groups. I don't think of those pictures as art as I think of it being a failed artist last attempt to be recognized. It's one thing to re-create the Salvador Dali in one's own interpretation, but to put the painting in a jar of piss!? What is that!? That is not art. To me that is a betrayal to the original artist's work and to God.
Good! So, if this is not art, does that mean that we can censor it? Or is it enough for you to avoid it? Or is there some middle ground to be found here? Should you picket to make sure others avoid it?
I like your point about the intent of the art--it is clearly intended to provoke your response. So is that what disqualifies this as art? Or does it just make it bad art (which is where I tend to come down on this).
Just some things for you to think about Kristin...you have the right perception, says me, but what's the upshot?
i didnt get to see them the url wasnt loading. so perhaps ((this is a complete guess on behalf becasue i didn't get to see them for myself)) they were truely offensive enough to have the website taken down?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home