|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:50 pm
Various art forms have been highly influencial and controversial throughout history. Paintings, works of literature, music...all mediums have served to inspire, infuriate, or both at some point or another.
Back in the day, the Catholic Church kept a close eye on the art that was being produced. Anything that they didn't like was banned and, if possible, destroyed. They even went so far as to ban the tritone (augmented 4th or diminished 5th) from all music, claiming that it was the "devil's interval."
Even today, although formal banning is far less common and strict (although it does happen), censorship on art is still strongly in place. Ratings on films, warnings for nudity in art galleries, and talk of how "real Christians" shouldn't read certain books, watch certain movies, or listen to certain kinds of music.
So I have to ask myself...what are we afraid of? That listening to Pink Floyd will lead to atheism? That seeing bare breasts in a painting will lead to wild promiscuity? That reading Nietzche will lead to hardcore Nihilism?
Spork-fed Discussion:
-Is banning a work of art, regardless of the form, ever justified?
-Can art really "lead one away from God"?
-The hype with things like Harry Potter anf the Da Vinci Code
-Do you avoid "secular" art and/or think that others should as well? Why or why not?
-As always, anything else.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:42 pm
I think that it's not so much that people are afriad what it'd "do" to them, so much as they're afriad of what other poeple might think. You know, if you're reading Harry Potter than you must be trying to learn how to be a Wizard, and so on and so forth. As to banning books or works of art - it's just stupid. I mean, I could sort of understand it if you didn't want your kids to see nude art or extreme violence, but that's a decision for parents, and not the government to make. All the hype about the Davinci Code or Harry Potter, it's just dumb. Both of them are very clearly works of fiction, and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to actually read the books. rolleyes
Somone should post the list of banned books on here. Maybe I will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Violet_Abyss Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:46 pm
Censorship is a very difficult subject. While I'm strictly against it when it's just concerning us adults, it's a wide field for discussion when it comes to what is good for our children. This is also the reason why I chose the option that I could understand it in some (very special) cases.
For us adults a simple warning now and then, that something might hurt our religious or other feelings is more than enough. It's only needed, when this "danger" isn't obvious and should be given voluntarily and not enforced by law.
A very reasonable "censorship" is needed when "adult stuff" like porn or very violent movies, games etc. might get into the hands of children. I think everybody on this board agrees with me, that 10-year-olds are not capable to cope with certain aspects of sexuality, violence or other things. That doesn't of course mean that they shouldn't know why wars exist or where babies come from. But the information should be taught bit by bit while the child grows up and gets more aware of its' environment.
But still, in a very strict sense, this is censorship, although a very healthy one.
Another question that occurs to me is where the difference between censorship and politeness/respect for the other lies.
Last year a discussion about this rushed for months through the German media:
The subject of the discussion was the planned performance of the opera "Idomeneo" during the cultural season of the last winter in Berlin. The ensemble had invented an own scene for the finish where the chopped off heads of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and - I think - Jupiter where on display.
Not very nice and absolutely unnecessary. But that wasn't the problem. The problem was that someone got the idea that the muslims might feel offended and even threaten the opera of Berlin with acts of terrorism. Of course, nobody had cared until the opera manager had brought up the subject almost by herself. What followed was first an outcry of the large muslim community in Germany and a rather stupid discussion about censorship, freedom of speech and the religious feelings of muslims.
Nobody asked what happened with the religious feelings of Buddhists or us Christians.
So now I ask you: Should've the scene thrown out of the opera or was it right to keep it? Should it been thrown out just for sake of the muslim's feelings or should the Christians and Buddhists feel offended as well?
And were does respect end and censorship start?
My personal opinion is that the scene shouldn't be played. Not because I fear an act of terrorism. But because it's polite to think before you offend someone's feelings without matter which religion this person worships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:10 pm
For the record, I'm referring mostly to adults for the purpose of this discussion. I agree that parents should be able to keep their children from seeing/reading certain things if they don't think it's appropriate. While I may not agree with some of it (like parents who won't let their teenage children read something like Harry Potter), it's still the parents' decision until their children reach legal age. Kittie2038 So now I ask you: Should've the scene thrown out of the opera or was it right to keep it? Should it been thrown out just for sake of the muslim's feelings or should the Christians and Buddhists feel offended as well? And were does respect end and censorship start? My personal opinion is that the scene shouldn't be played. Not because I fear an act of terrorism. But because it's polite to think before you offend someone's feelings without matter which religion this person worships. Honestly, I don't think the scene should have been cut out. I think that if you're going to perform a work, you should perform the work. I'm not familiar with that opera, so I can't really say what part that particular scene plays in the whole of the opera, but the odds are that it was written for a purpose. People don't just throw things like that into operas because they think it will be groovy. There's usually some greater purpose to it, and I think that purpose should be honoured. If someone is offended by that, then they don't have to attend a performance. To me, art does not need to be polite and respectful. Indeed, some of the most famous and widely acclaimed art got the fame it has today because people found that it wasn't polite and respectful. If a performance offends you, nobody is making you spend the time and money to attend. If a movie offends you, you don't have to watch it. If a painting offends you, you don't have to look at it. If a book offends you, you don't have to read it. I think that self-censorship, if you will, is what should be exercised far more than censorship on a higher level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:11 pm
SinfulGuillotine Various art forms have been highly influencial and controversial throughout history. Paintings, works of literature, music...all mediums have served to inspire, infuriate, or both at some point or another. Back in the day, the Catholic Church kept a close eye on the art that was being produced. Anything that they didn't like was banned and, if possible, destroyed. They even went so far as to ban the tritone (augmented 4th or diminished 5th) from all music, claiming that it was the "devil's interval." Even today, although formal banning is far less common and strict (although it does happen), censorship on art is still strongly in place. Ratings on films, warnings for nudity in art galleries, and talk of how "real Christians" shouldn't read certain books, watch certain movies, or listen to certain kinds of music. So I have to ask myself...what are we afraid of? That listening to Pink Floyd will lead to atheism? That seeing bare breasts in a painting will lead to wild promiscuity? That reading Nietzche will lead to hardcore Nihilism? Spork-fed Discussion: -Is banning a work of art, regardless of the form, ever justified? If done by parents? Sure. I don't mind ratings on things so that parents may more easily censor what the child has access to, and so that they might themselves avoid something if they do not wish to see it. However by others? No. The movie theaters should allow anyone able to pay to watch a movie (unless it is a seven year old kid as they shouldn't be alone anywhere). Leave the parenting to the parents. Quote: -Can art really "lead one away from God"? Possibly. It may be able to influence children at least, but not necessarily away from God. Let the parents make that call. Quote: -The hype with things like Harry Potter anf the Da Vinci CodeIdiotic. Trying to ban it from schools due to religious reasons. I see nothing wrong with the books themselves, but if the parent does not wish for the child to read them, the parent may make this known to both the child and the faculty. Quote: -Do you avoid "secular" art and/or think that others should as well? Why or why not? Erm...no. I'm 'secular'. sweatdrop Quote: -As always, anything else. I'm feeling REALLY childish right now and I want to go do something and I'm giggling and junks. .... Yeah... EDIT: I'm referring mainly to children as I don't believe adults should be censored in the least. EDIT II: Unless one considers ratings to be censorship. That is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:14 pm
Kittie2038 Censorship is a very difficult subject. While I'm strictly against it when it's just concerning us adults, it's a wide field for discussion when it comes to what is good for our children. This is also the reason why I chose the option that I could understand it in some (very special) cases. For us adults a simple warning now and then, that something might hurt our religious or other feelings is more than enough. It's only needed, when this "danger" isn't obvious and should be given voluntarily and not enforced by law. A very reasonable "censorship" is needed when "adult stuff" like porn or very violent movies, games etc. might get into the hands of children. I think everybody on this board agrees with me, that 10-year-olds are not capable to cope with certain aspects of sexuality, violence or other things. That doesn't of course mean that they shouldn't know why wars exist or where babies come from. But the information should be taught bit by bit while the child grows up and gets more aware of its' environment. But still, in a very strict sense, this is censorship, although a very healthy one. Another question that occurs to me is where the difference between censorship and politeness/respect for the other lies. Last year a discussion about this rushed for months through the German media: The subject of the discussion was the planned performance of the opera "Idomeneo" during the cultural season of the last winter in Berlin. The ensemble had invented an own scene for the finish where the chopped off heads of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and - I think - Jupiter where on display. Not very nice and absolutely unnecessary. But that wasn't the problem. The problem was that someone got the idea that the muslims might feel offended and even threaten the opera of Berlin with acts of terrorism. Of course, nobody had cared until the opera manager had brought up the subject almost by herself. What followed was first an outcry of the large muslim community in Germany and a rather stupid discussion about censorship, freedom of speech and the religious feelings of muslims. Nobody asked what happened with the religious feelings of Buddhists or us Christians. So now I ask you: Should've the scene thrown out of the opera or was it right to keep it? Should it been thrown out just for sake of the muslim's feelings or should the Christians and Buddhists feel offended as well? And were does respect end and censorship start? My personal opinion is that the scene shouldn't be played. Not because I fear an act of terrorism. But because it's polite to think before you offend someone's feelings without matter which religion this person worships. If the intent of that piece was to offend, then I think it should've been kept (unless there was a real threat of terrorism). Freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom to offend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Violet_Abyss Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 4:23 pm
SinfulGuillotine For the record, I'm referring mostly to adults for the purpose of this discussion. I agree that parents should be able to keep their children from seeing/reading certain things if they don't think it's appropriate. While I may not agree with some of it (like parents who won't let their teenage children read something like Harry Potter), it's still the parents' decision until their children reach legal age. Kittie2038 So now I ask you: Should've the scene thrown out of the opera or was it right to keep it? Should it been thrown out just for sake of the muslim's feelings or should the Christians and Buddhists feel offended as well? And were does respect end and censorship start? My personal opinion is that the scene shouldn't be played. Not because I fear an act of terrorism. But because it's polite to think before you offend someone's feelings without matter which religion this person worships. Honestly, I don't think the scene should have been cut out. I think that if you're going to perform a work, you should perform the work. I'm not familiar with that opera, so I can't really say what part that particular scene plays in the whole of the opera, but the odds are that it was written for a purpose. People don't just throw things like that into operas because they think it will be groovy. There's usually some greater purpose to it, and I think that purpose should be honoured. If someone is offended by that, then they don't have to attend a performance. To me, art does not need to be polite and respectful. Indeed, some of the most famous and widely acclaimed art got the fame it has today because people found that it wasn't polite and respectful. If a performance offends you, nobody is making you spend the time and money to attend. If a movie offends you, you don't have to watch it. If a painting offends you, you don't have to look at it. If a book offends you, you don't have to read it. I think that self-censorship, if you will, is what should be exercised far more than censorship on a higher level. Quote: ensemble had invented an own scene for the finish where the chopped off heads of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and - I think - Jupiter where on display. I would agree with you normally, except for this, where they put it in themselves. It seems unnecessary in my opinion, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:18 am
This kind of Art is what entirely defines Modern Art for me (I know, this is somewhat wrong, but nontheless I think so). Provocation for provocations sake... It was this Saturday, when I have seen parts of Elfriede Jelinek's "Ulrike Maria Stuart"... Yes the 2004s Nobel price laureate.
I have to admit, I have only seen excerpt of this play which deals with the terror of the infamous RAF. There where some actors jumping on the stage wearing nothing but pig masks as a jockstrap... They were shouting obscenities and then I switched as fast as I could...
Sometimes it is not art but just crap... But that's my personal opinion...
Yes thinks like this should be shown, but I want to be warned of it. When the author or whoever is responsible for an offending idea has not the decency to let it out, then I want to be warned. I simply do not like this things. And I will never understand how someone yould find this great.
I read Nietzsche's Zarathustra... I came to page five then it was too boring for me. I think this works only gets people to Nihilism which are already on their way.
I love Harry Potter and play mages in RPGs (besides the well known: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp). This doesn't make me think I could learn magic...
Yes, I think the world would be spicier with magic, but I do well without it. I also think, that our God would be sometimes a little bit more spicier, if we had this nicely looking Ganesha statues or something. But I do not believe into Ganesha, but into God, and I understand, why idols are so dangerous. So I have to accept it, and I do and am feeling well with this.
Some things just afford some thinking, and if we censor these thing, our ability to be adult and selfresponsible will find it's end. Some people are quiete the opposite, but the people who are not need constant training...
I want to see Harry Potter and Nietzsche and DaVinci Code and think: Who yould ever take this serious. It's nice entertainment (Except of boring Nietzsche, and the fact, that DaVinci code is just a spiced up version of Illuminati)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:43 pm
Violet_Abyss I would agree with you normally, except for this, where they put it in themselves. It seems unnecessary in my opinion, really. Ah, I missed that bit. But even so, I still don't think they should have taken it out. Like Aino said, freedom of expression also means freedom to offend. Although I must say, I don't think that it's such a bad idea to attach warnings to some of these things. (Story time!) I remember this past summer (I think) when my partner and I took a trip to New York City, and I picked out some plays to see while we were there. I chose one that was really only described as being a black comedy about an IRA terrorist who was obsessed with his cat, and I thought it sounded amusing. It had a warning for "mature content," but gave no indication as to what that content might be, and the same warning was given for musicals like, say, Rent, so I figured that at most, it would be some rude language and possible sexual references. As it turned out, this play was bloodier and more violent than most movies I've seen, inclusing one unforgettablly graphic scene of the main characters dismembering a number of bloody corpses on stage. Now, luckilly, both of us are adults and neither of us are all that squicked by that sort of thing (and it was pretty funny, in a twisted sort of way), and we both enjoyed the play a great deal. However, I can't help but think that there were probably people in the audience who wished that they'd spent their time and money on something else, and that they probably wouldn't have attended that play if they'd known some of what it contained. So, point of all this is: freedom of expression for the win and down with censorship, but people should have a heads up for possibly offensive/disturbing material so that they have the opportunity to avoid it if it's not their can of fish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:56 pm
SinfulGuillotine Violet_Abyss I would agree with you normally, except for this, where they put it in themselves. It seems unnecessary in my opinion, really. Ah, I missed that bit. But even so, I still don't think they should have taken it out. Like Aino said, freedom of expression also means freedom to offend. Although I must say, I don't think that it's such a bad idea to attach warnings to some of these things. (Story time!) I remember this past summer (I think) when my partner and I took a trip to New York City, and I picked out some plays to see while we were there. I chose one that was really only described as being a black comedy about an IRA terrorist who was obsessed with his cat, and I thought it sounded amusing. It had a warning for "mature content," but gave no indication as to what that content might be, and the same warning was given for musicals like, say, Rent, so I figured that at most, it would be some rude language and possible sexual references. As it turned out, this play was bloodier and more violent than most movies I've seen, inclusing one unforgettablly graphic scene of the main characters dismembering a number of bloody corpses on stage. Now, luckilly, both of us are adults and neither of us are all that squicked by that sort of thing (and it was pretty funny, in a twisted sort of way), and we both enjoyed the play a great deal. However, I can't help but think that there were probably people in the audience who wished that they'd spent their time and money on something else, and that they probably wouldn't have attended that play if they'd known some of what it contained. So, point of all this is: freedom of expression for the win and down with censorship, but people should have a heads up for possibly offensive/disturbing material so that they have the opportunity to avoid it if it's not their can of fish. That is my stance as well. And I want to see RENT soo badly. emo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:12 am
This is the reason I am not a fan of the Catholic Faith...
Catholics have to be the at the top, thus the reason why they attempted to make cinema not even exist!
For Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code, works of fiction to a point.
Harry Potter is a mocking to the Wiccan Faith, I would know, I used to be one.
The Da Vinci Code, I believe has more truth then fiction, we have bibical evdience that Jesus and Mary did have some sort of relationship.
Jesus Christ did not plan to be the savior of all, he thought he was a man, with views the public needed to see.
Again, cenorship was made to make SURE The Church had more power than its government, but after a league of debates and court showings, we made "The Seperation of Church-State".
I am a strong Christian, but I liked when I saw this guild because, everyone needs to shut up and sit down, talk with people, and learn that Christianity has links with the outside world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 2:46 pm
Harry Potter = Witchcraft manual! DaVinchi Code = Truth! If you a) think these things are true and b) obsess about them then you c) have a problem and need to get back in touch with the Lord. Would God really want you making such a big deal over things that are meant for our entertainment? The way people react to this is ridiculous. I could understand them getting upset if Harry Potter was like this: Quote: Harry stroked the pentagram that hung around his neck and uttered the arcane words of the spell. To complete the ritual he pulled a sacrificial dagger from his robe and pricked his hand, letting the blood drip into the center of the pentagram that he had drawn on the ground. The earth shook and then split open, yielding a mighty demon from the depths of the underworld. "Kill" Harry commanded. The demon roared in response, then spread its bat-like wings and flew off into the darkness, eager to fulfill his masters dark wishes. Blood would be spilled this night. (I just pulled that from my as...er...hat) Anyway, if a book like that becomes mainstream and all the kids are reading it, then you have something to worry about. As it stands, these things are meant for entertainment, not to warp the minds of our youth. Sorry, bit of a rant there. To answer your question, no. I don't think art should be banned. I don't think that Christians have to listen to a certain type of music or read a certain type of book. The Christian books and music can almost always bring some much needed inspiration or lift your faith in a time of need, but they aren't a requirement. Use them when you need to, and sometimes when you don't. I think that's a good way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Violet_Abyss Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:05 pm
LRD_nick This is the reason I am not a fan of the Catholic Faith... It's not just the Catholics, by any means. Quote: Catholics have to be the at the top, thus the reason why they attempted to make cinema not even exist! Huh? That really doesn't make sense. If anyone is like that it's the Mormons! (Haha, that was a joke. In case you can't read sarcasm.) Quote: For Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code, works of fiction to a point. Harry Potter is a mocking to the Wiccan Faith, I would know, I used to be one. Mocking? What? It's not mocking, it's just a work of fiction. The Wiccan faith has nothing to do with it. Quote: The Da Vinci Code, I believe has more truth then fiction, we have bibical evdience that Jesus and Mary did have some sort of relationship. Jesus Christ did not plan to be the savior of all, he thought he was a man, with views the public needed to see. Boy, I need to read the Bible again. How about you provide some quotes and refresh my memory? Quote: Again, cenorship was made to make SURE The Church had more power than its government, but after a league of debates and court showings, we made "The Seperation of Church-State". Censorship has had many, many reasons over the years, although power may have been one of many, I don't think it's one of the more recent ones. Why the separation of church and state in quotes? I don't understand what you're saying there. Quote: I am a strong Christian, but I liked when I saw this guild because, everyone needs to shut up and sit down, talk with people, and learn that Christianity has links with the outside world. This... doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, but we're certainly glad to have you too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 3:26 pm
LRD_nick This is the reason I am not a fan of the Catholic Faith... Nowhere in Catholic teachings does it say "Censor freely!" I'm Catholic. I am strongly against censorship. Quote: Catholics have to be the at the top, thus the reason why they attempted to make cinema not even exist! Say what? Quote: For Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code, works of fiction to a point. Harry Potter is a mocking to the Wiccan Faith, I would know, I used to be one. As far as I know, Catholicism doesn't really care much about Harry Potter and the only reason why care about the Da Vinci Code is that it contains a lot of false information about the Catholic Church. And I seriously doubt Harry Potter is mocking the Wiccan faith. Rowling gets her stuff from a lot of difference sources. Quote: The Da Vinci Code, I believe has more truth then fiction, we have bibical evdience that Jesus and Mary did have some sort of relationship. Jesus Christ did not plan to be the savior of all, he thought he was a man, with views the public needed to see. Debatable, at best. Quote: Again, cenorship was made to make SURE The Church had more power than its government, but after a league of debates and court showings, we made "The Seperation of Church-State". I am a strong Christian, but I liked when I saw this guild because, everyone needs to shut up and sit down, talk with people, and learn that Christianity has links with the outside world. Uhm...yes? And perhaps you should learn more about Catholicism before you start ragging on it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:13 pm
To finish everything I wanted to say about the opera: The thing that offended me most was that it's okay in my country to offend/bash/abuse Christians but when it comes to muslims or other faiths, everybody says "Oh no, we have to be respectful!" It's the inequality of measures that offends me.
Now for something completely different:
Harry Potter - I know many Catholics, priests among them, who think that Harry Potter is a great story, because it teaches children about friendship, loyalty and such stuff. Here in Germany almost every Catholic community has an own library for its' members. And believe me in 99% of those libraries you'll find the Harry Potter Books.
And why should it be a mockery of the Wiccan faith? Is there any evidence?
The DaVinci Code - Whatever it is, the movie was crap. It was so stupid and ridiculous. In my eyes it was just a piece of "Hey, there's this conspiracy theory against the catholics, let's make a movie out of it!"
I myself am anything but a fan of the Opus Dei, because they're so fraggin' conservative, but that doesn't mean that I think that they're a group raving lunatics who want to punish everybody with fire and sword who doesn't believe the usual doctrine of the church.
Anyway, what does it matter, if Jesus had a relationship with Mary Magdalene? The Bible says that he was equal to man except for sin. Now define sin. It was 2000 years ago, so nobody really knows what happened. And as long as the message of Jesus' death and resurrection doesn't change it doesn't matter if he had a relationship or not.
And for the separation of religion and state - Censorship wasn't an invention of the Catholic Church, it's much older. Since the dawning of man governments wanted to make sure that their subjects thought what they should.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
