I recently saw a news report about a new video that Lady Gaga is doing with Beyonce. I have not watched the video on Youtube, and I would suggest you don’t either. After reading the news article on it, the point is made.
Matt Drudge recently posted on his website this story about nude art figures that artist Antony Gormley is placing around Manhattan.
The argument is that these creations are art, and should be viewed and judged (or not judged) accordingly. I will concede that fact:
I do believe that these pieces qualify as art.
My definition of art: an item or experience created byhumans that engages the viewer, stirs imagination, or creates dialogue
These pieces – the video and the statue – are definitely art. My problem is that I don’t believe they are art that should be allowed to be displayed. “Wait a minute, Marc, what is this – Russia? Don’t you believe in free-speech?” I do. I believe that we are free to do what is right. And I believe that artwork of this nature does more damage to society than good. The beauty of America is that we, the people, decide what is permissible and what is not. Our freedoms of speech and art are not determined by a regime or dictator, but by ourselves.
We can vote for what we feel is permissible. So those of you that disagree with my assertion of this art can vote that way. And those of you that agree with me can vote that way. And whoever has the most votes, wins. So in one way, I’m glad that Lady Gaga is free to produce that video. I’m also glad that I have a vote to, in one way or another, decide that it can’t be played in public.
What is your take on art and freedom?
You’re mixing freedom of expression/speech up with democracy. The moment a majority in society can vote a thought out of everybody’s life, freedom of expression ceases to exist.
Democracy’s usefulness extends only to peace-keeping, not as some kind of moral barometer; most people, objectively, don’t have a clue about ethics, morality, right or wrong. But they think they do, because democracy validates that idea.
Laws should be a science by now, why do we keep getting side-tracked by logically-bereft pseudo-moralists?
What if someone made the claim that child pornography was their art form? Should that be allowed? There has to be a standadard, a law, a restriction on freedom (call it what you will). But I don’t believe this restricts our freedom, as I understand it. As the founding fathers placed it, and as I try to take it, freedom is not our opportunity to do whatever we please, but our option to do whatever is right and just. John Adams said that “our consitution was made for a moral and religious people”. I think without the latter, a democracy becomes difficult to maintain, as evidenced by this post.
Any other thoughts people?
I agree that there need to be restrictions on art form. Without it the innocent will be exploited in the name of “freedom of expression”. We have laws in place to protect us, and no one complains about those. Such as traffic laws, and if you steal you go to jail. Stealing someone’s innocence should be a crime. I would not want my child exposed to this type of art, and I am free to not engage or look at it. I choose not to look at it or support it. At the same time I am glad for the freedoms I have as a Christian. While some in our society want to take down a public display of the Ten Commandments, others want to display nude art. You could use the arguement that the Ten Commandments is a display of art, was not the orginial written with the finger of God? I am glad that I can find Christian progamming on television, like Jack Van Impe, I would not want that to be banned.
At the same time I do not like some of the other channels that are available, but I can just simply choose to block it. God gives us freedom, but with that freedom comes great responsiblity. Use it wisely and in a way that does not bring harm to others.
Thanks for the thoughts Michelle!