On 5/16/07, Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
shiv sastry wrote: [ on 09:23 PM 5/16/2007 ]
>Art can mean a lot of things, but a picture of Jesus Christ's dick >or the cunt >of a Hindu goddess is pushing the definition of art to areas where some >people may be a little unhappy.
So?
Y'know, all the discussion around "what is art?", while fascinating and important, isn't the real issue being discussed here.
The issue it seems is not "what is art" but "what are appropriate responses to offensive art?" Specifically when (if ever) is forcibly removing art from display an appropriate response? When it offends any one person? When it offends a politically powerful person? When it offends a violent goon? When it offends a religious official? When it offends many members of a powerful religion? Being one of those hard-line civil libertarian free expression advocates I'm afraid my answer is simple, possibly even simplistic. There will always be art that offends people. In a free society, the expression of offensive opinions should be protected. The appropriate response to offensive speech is more speech, not an attempt to silence the speaker. -- Charles
