I am intrigued. If I ever make it through the stack of books I'm working on now, I may get a copy.
I think I've got it. We stop censorship of the arts by:
1. Censoring everything evil
C. non urbanites
D. all religions
2. Barring censorship we just run off any dissention
Oh yeah I kicked humpty dumpty off the wall. After all I am evil incarnate
That's ok, after all you have stated that you don't understand my post*S*
Originally Posted by jdef
I suggest checking the Pledge of Allegiance:
Originally Posted by mark
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands ....
I hope all this is spelled OK ... for some reason. on this borrowed machine, spell check DOES NOT work...
Ed Sukach, FFP.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
"Pledge of Allegiance" is almost contemporary - 1st written 1892, modified 1920s, & "under god" added in 1950s. The author's intent in using term Republic didn't have anything to do with form of government, rather
For more info, see http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove.
van Huyck Photo
"Progress is only a direction, and it's often the wrong direction"
Thanks for that one Ed, thought I was just having lousy luck with my computer...I think it may be due to the upcoming upgrade...Sean???
Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
Here goes - new system...
I am not sure of the difference between "Quick Reply" and Plan old vanilla "Post Reply" ... so here goes with "Post Reply"...
The key here is, "That SOME find offensive." Just who are the "some"? There is an old saying that illustrates an unavoidable position that MUST be taken by anyone who wishes to be a censor ... "There are two kinds of people (substitute "art" if you wish) in this world: The `good' ones and the `bad' ones; and *I*, being one of the `good' ones, will decide which is which."
In this world, I would submit that there will be someone who will find ANY photograph / work of art "offensive" in one way or another. How do we decide which of us will have the ultimate authority to pass judgement on "offensiveness? - And de facto, in theory, set our own standards of morality??
Magritte painted a landmark image he titled "This Is Not A Pipe". It wasn't - it was an IMAGE of a pipe - and he admonished the viewer to never forget the reality ... It was, in fact, paint on canvas - not a pipe.
It is a terrible, HORRIBLE, completely unconscionable CRIME to force, or entice - children - or anyone else - into situations capable of being photographed for the end purpose of producing "pornography" -- and that is exactly where we should - MUST direct our attentions and resources.... to the PRIMARY CRIME. The images are NOT the crime.
I personally, am FAR more offended by images suggesting cruelty and physical harm - torture - protracted, slow death .. to human beings - or animals.
There is a widely accepted image of just that... a death by one of the most tortuous, cruel, inhuman methods ever conceived by man... And there a *millions* of those images - all over the world.
We call them "Crucifixes".
Ed Sukach, FFP.
i'm too stupid to do a quick reply, but I am smart enough to know that Ed's post is right on the money.
One fault with Ed's assumption that it is not the act but a representation. It holds if it is a medium such as oil painting, but in photography it is not. What are we photographing? Is it not the scene we focus on? So where it is just a photograph, it was taken of the event/scene. Yes go at the perpetrators, but who is photographing them?