Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,851   Posts: 1,582,861   Online: 817
      
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 128
  1. #11
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    This promises to be a lively discussion - and *my* PC is down - in a repair facility for a new cooling fan. Amazing how thermal overload and shutdown can be so easily mistaken for some sort of weird virus.

    I'm not really concerned with "pornography" in the ART community. The gallery operators are, generally, far TOO sensitive anyway... and the artists are too close to their work to deny authorship or responsiblity. In fact ... the "press" devoted to "outrageous" / and or "offensive" work seems to be a shortcut to recognition and fame - see Mappelthorpe ad the "Brooklyn Museum" elephant dung exhibitions.

    We start on a terribly slippery slope when we try to eliminate "pornography" -- we cannot even define what "pornography" IS. There is the case of a Processing Lab in Cambridge, Mass., who turned in a woman for photographing her five-year old son in the nude. after a *whole lot* of legal misery, the Attorney General of Suffolk County refused to prosecute - declaring the work was *NOT* pornographic. The Lab was contacted, and asked about their policies ... "Would they report a photograph of a naked six-month old child in the tub, or on a bearskin rug?" Their reply? "Absolutely." In their opinion, ALL nudity, or "semi-nudity" (what the &^$# is THAT?) of anyone of ANY age is "pornography".

    I can think of another controversial example: Grohe - the German Plumbing Fixture manufacturing company, once distributed a brochure with a photograph of a young girl, (8 - 10?? years old?) fully, frontally, naked on the cover - in running shower with water supplied through Grohe fixtures. Naturally - who would take a shower with their clothes ON? - at least in this day and age?

    It may be of help to consider "cause and effect" ... it is possible to compare those countries and societies with "strict" anti-pornography laws and those with very few laws and permissive attitudes. Do I have to spell out which have the lowest incidences of Sexual - and probably related - violent - crimes?

    "Child" pornography is, to me and probably most others, terrible - but it is really the same as a photograph of blood on the sidewalk ... The real focus should be directed at the crime itself ... prevention and bringing those who commit the original crime to justice to prevent further occurences. I have seen photographs of exceedingly gory crime scenes - far beyond "offensive". I do NOT choose to look at them ... although I am sure there are others that would get some sort of twisted "entertainment" from them... yet, as sick as they are - they are legal.

    Come to think of it - there is a video entitled "The 40 Faces of Death" - a compilation of scenes showing actual. accidental - and otherwise - deaths. This tape is not "behind the swinging doors" of the Adult Section - It is out here for any adolescent to rent - and view.
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  2. #12
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,485
    Images
    20
    Civilized and affluent countries support the arts. The U.S. is an affluent country and it should also be a civilized one, so I support the NEA. I support the NEA even to support art that offends me, because I want to live in a society where people are willing to confront challenging ideas.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #13
    bjorke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SF & Surrounding Planet
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,032
    Images
    20
    Up until recent years (and usually including recent years), government arts funding has been directed at art that glorifies and aggrandizes that government. War memorials, the Statue of Liberty, pyramids, WPA murals, etc. Government has shared this role with the Church for a long time. Today corporate advertising follows the same pattern -- fund arts whose purpose is to praise the funder.

    In an ideal society where everyone participates freely, arts subsidization would provide art that enobles all. Yep, and eveyone will be happy and loving too.

    --

    Censorship is a dangerous course. The test for a functioning democracy should be: "in what way does a censorship actually serve the public?" and such a debate needs to be public and waged publicly in the courts and media. This seizure in Edinburg (eerily similar to the FBI's harrassment of Jock Sturges here in SF) sounds like a fine case of how NOT to manage such issues -- secrecy, denial of process, etc. Public discourse on issues so important that we should ever consider suppressing individual liberties (including artistic ones) must be open to all. OPEN. This is messy and inefficient and exactly what the founders of the US had in mind. This is true for any restriction of liberties which a government might impose for any reason -- to protect us or itself from "enemies foreign & domestic," to protect the innocence of the young or the ignorance of the narrow, or just to generate momentarily-popular votes in some individual politician's district. The bureaucracy of a functioning multipartate government is designed as a check to ambitious power over the people, and is deliberately inefficient because it allows multiple opinions.

    --

    The US is currently reviewing a federal law that would make it a crime photograph people "in a situation in which a reasonable person would be justified in that expectation [that the 'improper' image would not be made]." There is a year prison term involved. Amazingly, this law has been working its way up the chain quite silently.

    http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr2405.html

    Maybe they will extend its scope to cover photography of foreign detainees.

    "What Would Zeus Do?"
    KBPhotoRantPhotoPermitAPUG flickr Robot

  4. #14
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,048
    I agree with most everyone on the censorship issue. However the fact of tax dollars supporting the arts is a bit dicey.

    Are not symphonies and local theater supported by the NEA and other organizations. I think as a civilized society we should have an allotment of government money going to various art programs and programs to get children interested in the various forms of artistic expression. We see countless programs on television about people who have gone into ghettos and turned kids lives around by sponsoring their artistic expression. It should be expected, in a so called advanced society, to have the arts as a mainstay of our lives.

    Billions of dollars of government money goes to all sorts of powerful lobby groups for their grand schemes, and I think the arts should have a small piece of the pie. Perpetuating artistic expression in any culture is a win-win situation even when we occasionally disagree on what the money is being spent on.



    Michael McBlane
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    84
    I might be wrong here but there seems to be a slight misunderstanding of how the NEA operates. The "Government" does not choose the individuals or groups that receive this money. It is a group of peers within the various art fields that select the grantees. Yes there are the usual political, inner circle art, etc. problems with the process. I know that most of us are concerned with the visual arts when discussing this issue but the largest sums of government dollars goes to the performing arts (dance, theater) and education programs that bring these arts to communities that could not afford to do it on their own. Creating a larger audience for the arts in the process.
    Cutting and slicing government funding to the arts (as has been the case in recent years) only serves to dumbs down our society to its understanding of the value of the arts in everyday life and eventually creates an elitist and smaller audience.
    I canget my dander up when discussing Arts Funding. Its another area of our society that has been stolen by certain politicians through misinformation and fear. Pointing to the worst mistakes this inperfect process creates rather than to its incredible successes. I was director of an arts school a while back and spent a great deal of time at the state capitol lobbying for more money for our and others orginizations. The one factor that most politicos had a hard time grasping was how much return they were receiving on their invested dollars in the arts. Most just saw this as giving money away or at best throwing good money after bad. But the facts and figures show that for each dollar granted to the arts by the state, the community would realize, on average, four in return. Bottom line is that funding for the arts is good business.

  6. #16
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by mvjim
    But the facts and figures show that for each dollar granted to the arts by the state, the community would realize, on average, four in return. Bottom line is that funding for the arts is good business.
    I've seen similar studies.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,652
    Cutting off Governmental funding for the arts is a form of censorship. Artists would have to rely more heavily on corporate sponsors who are all too willing to use their funds to ensure their point of view is received by the public, ie Disney unwillingness to show Michael Moore's latest film.

    The highpoint of gov't funding was during the 30's when many now well-known photographers, writers, etc. received valuable support. And the community as a whole is so much richer for that minimal investment.

    On the downside, can you imagine if George W. appointed a Secretary of Culture - Charlton Heston & NRA would have heroic murals of their armed militia groups on every public building in America.
    van Huyck Photo
    "Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"

  8. #18
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    Back on the topic of censorship, I fully expected to not be agreed with. That is why i said what I said. When it comes to censorship we by our own tastes censor what we want to see or be subjected too. I am not talking a we as in a group but as an individual. As for group censorship it becomes the result of more a politics/religion/morales/peer pressure/etc of that group. As for governments it becomes what the controlling group thinks the public should see. Each stage can be lessor or greater than the next.

    Art in itself is censorship. It is what you decide to put into or leave out of a performance/image (picture for Sean)/sculpture that makes it what it is. What was left out, could be more provacative than what is put in. It just depends on what is produced. Does the government have to censor it? it again depends on variables of what that government wants. Is it going to be censored by some group (Hayes commission comes to mind) again it depends on what that group deems censorable. Do you censor it? It again depends on what you want to view. Ed you choose not to look at violent material. that is personal censorship. The Hayes commission censored what we could see via movies. that was group censorship. As for Government We seem to be well versed as to what they will censor.

    My comment about child pornography is just that. I think that is wrong and yes I would report it to the authorities if i came across it. I am not one to think a snapshot of a mother with her child nude is offensive. I do not consider naked children photographed as wrong. i am against the blatant sexual crimes committed on children and then photographed for perverse pleasure. I should not have to clarify that further. Wasn't it last year that a couple in Texas had their children taken away because of a photo of the mother breast feeding? I do not consider that vulgar. Notice also I did not get into pornography across the board. I was only concerned with children. what an adult does is their own business. I can choose to self censor that.

    Then this brings up the matter of the recent pictures taken in Iraq. Should they have been censored? Where they any different from what we say should not be censored? Yet that brought up a firestorm of what should not be allowed. Which one is right?
    Non Digital Diva

  9. #19
    blansky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Wine country in Northern California
    Posts
    5,048
    doughawh said:

    Artists would have to rely more heavily on corporate sponsors who are all too willing to use their funds to ensure their point of view is received by the public,
    What do we think of the Catholic Church being such a large sponsor of artists a few hundred years ago to spread their dogma.

    Saddam Hussein employing all of Iraqs artists to make images of himself to display all over the country.

    Is this a form of censorship or a form of benevolent employment of artists.

    Is this good, bad or indifferent.


    The problem with Aggies child pornography example, as I have stated before is that Jock Sturges and Sally Mann photographs are I'm sure in the hands of pedophiles. Just as the Sears catalog lingerie section and National Geographic African editions were in the hands of adolescent boys 50 years ago. There are probably members of the Taliban masturbating over pictures of a womans calf or knee.

    One cannot control or censor material just because some people use it as pornography. Obviously if the children are photographed for that purpose and exploited in that way then that is a different story.

    However the fact remains that Sally Manns children had no control over their images that are throughout the world. They received no compensation, and had no say in their usage. The case could be made that since they no longer look like that ( grown up) then they are not really victimized. It's a tough question.


    Michael McBlane
    I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.

  10. #20
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    Then this brings up the matter of the recent pictures taken in Iraq. Should they have been censored? Where they any different from what we say should not be censored? Yet that brought up a firestorm of what should not be allowed. Which one is right?
    Aggie,
    I don't think anyone disagrees that child pornography is bad or thinks it should be legal. Nor, would I imagine, that anyone would think it is art or an expression of free speech.

    What constitutes pornography might be a little more problematic.

    I do think that the images from Iraq need to be displayed. An interesting aspect of the images is that the US networks edited the genitalia and the BBC left the genitals alone and edited the faces of the prisoners.

    What do we think of the Catholic Church... Saddam Hussein... (etc.)employment of artists
    I don't know what the rest think but I call it propaganda, and it can be art. It doesn't make it right or justify the means. I have a fabulous book on textiles and dry goods (patterns printed on bolts of cloth, china silverware etc..) of revolution era USSR. Complete propaganda and beautiful stuff.

    I don't think that the NEA falls into that description. The artists are not ordered to produce for the government and the government is only indirectly involved in who is picked.
    However the fact remains that Sally Manns children had no control over their images that are throughout the world. They received no compensation, and had no say in their usage. The case could be made that since they no longer look like that ( grown up) then they are not really victimized. It's a tough question.
    Excellent point. I guess, as the parent decided for the children the children don't have a say.

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin