DescentBB

....still may be a few years coming. First Pussy Riot(a pretty standard performance art troupe) and now this guy's running for the hills:
http://news.msn.com/world/artist-who-pa ... ?gt1=51501

I would like to see your reaction if someone organized the exhibition in person with you or with the president of the United States in the lead role, where you are shown for example, in women's panties with a bottle of whiskey in the arms of blue prostitutes and with mocking commentary

sigma wrote:I would like to see your reaction if someone organized the exhibition in person with you or with the president of the United States in the lead role, where you are shown for example, in women's panties with a bottle of whiskey in the arms of blue prostitutes and with mocking commentary

Sigma, I've been around the New York City art scene for 40 years. I have a minor on my Bachelor's Degree in fine arts. I have seen MUCH worse. I have see crucifixes in urine vials(with urine in them), anti-government rants, perversions of the most extreme nature, painting of prominent politicians made of feces, on and on. And you know what? Our government, our people and our system tolerated every single one of them.

sigma wrote:I would like to see your reaction if someone organized the exhibition in person with you or with the president of the United States in the lead role, where you are shown for example, in women's panties with a bottle of whiskey in the arms of blue prostitutes and with mocking commentary

I would willingly pose for that, haha. Sigma, you might have a hard time understanding the amount of artistic freedom we have here. If there were an exhibit of our president in panties, no one would raise an eyebrow. We have a website dedicated to news satire which makes fun of politicians on a daily basis:

Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness'

Political speech is protected and so is artistic expression and the marriage of the two. It happens every day.

Mine would be disdain. It probably does his image damage, but in America you can't legally help that unless they insist you posed for it. Once upon a time you could challenge them to a duel, though, I believe.

The most offensive thing about that paining of Putin is that the quality is bad and rather crude. I could paint a much better one.

callmeslick wrote:

sigma wrote:I would like to see your reaction if someone organized the exhibition in person with you or with the president of the United States in the lead role, where you are shown for example, in women's panties with a bottle of whiskey in the arms of blue prostitutes and with mocking commentary

Sigma, I've been around the New York City art scene for 40 years. I have a minor on my Bachelor's Degree in fine arts. I have seen MUCH worse. I have see crucifixes in urine vials(with urine in them), anti-government rants, perversions of the most extreme nature, painting of prominent politicians made of feces, on and on. And you know what? Our government, our people and our system tolerated every single one of them.

I would not want to see that kind of freedom of expression of creative people. It is monstrous, what you're saying. I can hardly believe it. To put it mildly, I believe that there is no relationship to art is creativity has not, in my opinion.

sigma wrote:I would like to see your reaction if someone organized the exhibition in person with you or with the president of the United States in the lead role, where you are shown for example, in women's panties with a bottle of whiskey in the arms of blue prostitutes and with mocking commentary

We call that "Tuesday" in the US. I've seen worse in the editorial cartoons of major newspapers.

Seriously, sigma, there's no defending some of your country's policies. Putin is nothing short of a despot.

sigma wrote:I would not want to see that kind of freedom of expression of creative people. It is monstrous, what you're saying. I can hardly believe it. To put it mildly, I believe that there is no relationship to art is creativity has not, in my opinion.

We agree there. Freedom is best used for good, not foolish, rebellious, or perverted ends.

The only measure of true "freedom" is if it encompasses speech or expression that you yourself find repugnant. There's a good reason why so many quote Voltaire.

sigma wrote: I would not want to see that kind of freedom of expression of creative people. It is monstrous, what you're saying. I can hardly believe it. To put it mildly, I believe that there is no relationship to art is creativity has not, in my opinion.

each to their own......I, for one, couldn't live in a place that didn't tolerate extremes of expression. No one is forcing me to watch, listen or approve of the message or means of expression. They are merely free to produce the work, without fear of reprisal. Monstrous? No, free, and freedom is a concept we Americans hold dear, though we lose sight of which freedoms are the critical core, at times. What it boils down to, Sigma, is this: it is not for me, nor you, nor anyone else, especially those in positions of authority, to determine what is 'art' or 'creative'. Anything that violates that premise, is to me, the monstrosity.

Callmeslick wrote:Sigma, is this: it is not for me, nor you, nor anyone else, especially those in positions of authority, to determine what is 'art' or 'creative'.

I actually reserve the right to determine what is art.

Oh... You mean authoritatively. My bad.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

sigma wrote:I would not want to see that kind of freedom of expression of creative people. It is monstrous, what you're saying. I can hardly believe it. To put it mildly, I believe that there is no relationship to art is creativity has not, in my opinion.

We agree there. Freedom is best used for good, not foolish, rebellious, or perverted ends.

who are you, or I, or anyone to determine 'good', 'foolish', or 'perverted'? And rebellious ends? Isn't that one of the core freedoms upon the founding of this nation came to be? That men were, indeed, free to gather together and revolt against oppression? Now, would that be successful today? Perhaps not, but then again, it might prove interesting if you got the pluralities that the Colonists eventually reached.

callmeslick wrote:who are you, or I, or anyone to determine 'good', 'foolish', or 'perverted'?

I feel quite confident in my not only my right, but my responsibility to decide between that which is good and that which is not. Everyone has that responsibility. How we choose to lead our lives impacts others.

callmeslick wrote:And rebellious ends? Isn't that one of the core freedoms upon the founding of this nation came to be?

Rebellion is the purposeful undermining of legitimate authority. The signers of the declaration of independence had a long list of reasons as to why they felt the crown's authority was illegitimized by King George's actions. I've had first-hand experience with the results of rebellion in my life, and it's nothing to take lightly. Rebellion = Evil, plain and simple. It's destructive. Now to "rebel" against illegitimate authority is a good thing, but the truth is that's a misuse of the word.

I finally found a definition of art that I think is proper. I'm probably not getting it exactly but the meaning is there:

'Anything someone does with the intention of causing any person to think about experiencing it, is art. And any attempt to narrow the definition is to let art escape you'

Sigma, you need to come to America! I'm buying the drinks and you can stay at my home. You would enjoy it I think.

Come to think of it, I did meet Soviet who didn't.
He married my friends sister when she worked as a translator in the US embassy in Moscow.
He moved here with her and after a year or so they divorced and he moved back to his homeland. He was a respected artist in Moscow and earned a good living restoring ancient Russian artworks. Here he was just another artist....and boy do we have a lot of them! He said he hated it.

The invitation stands however, come decide for yourself!

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I feel quite confident in my not only my right, but my responsibility to decide between that which is good and that which is not. Everyone has that responsibility. How we choose to lead our lives impacts others.

for yourself, that's fine. When it becomes telling others to think the same way, we have a problem, and a big one.

callmeslick wrote:And rebellious ends? Isn't that one of the core freedoms upon the founding of this nation came to be?

Rebellion is the purposeful undermining of legitimate authority. The signers of the declaration of independence had a long list of reasons as to why they felt the crown's authority was illegitimized by King George's actions. I've had first-hand experience with the results of rebellion in my life, and it's nothing to take lightly. Rebellion = Evil, plain and simple. It's destructive. Now to "rebel" against illegitimate authority is a good thing, but the truth is that's a misuse of the word.[/quote]
once again, others did not agree with the Colonists view of legitimacy. We like to think our side was right, but rebellious art or expression bad? Never.

Will Robinson wrote:I finally found a definition of art that I think is proper. I'm probably not getting it exactly but the meaning is there:

'Anything someone does with the intention of causing any person to think about experiencing it, is art. And any attempt to narrow the definition is to let art escape you'

Sigma, you need to come to America! I'm buying the drinks and you can stay at my home. You would enjoy it I think.

Come to think of it, I did meet Soviet who didn't.
He married my friends sister when she worked as a translator in the US embassy in Moscow.
He moved here with her and after a year or so they divorced and he moved back to his homeland. He was a respected artist in Moscow and earned a good living restoring ancient Russian artworks. Here he was just another artist....and boy do we have a lot of them! He said he hated it.

The invitation stands however, come decide for yourself!

heck, he could come up and visit me at the shore placeafterwards for a few days, or come with me for a weekend in lower Manhattan......that latter option would likely require I invest in defibrillator paddles, but I'll pick up the tab.

Get a visa and a passport, Sigma, it's road trip time!! By the way, were you to actually come and visit Will(South Carolina??) and me(Mid-Atlantic), you would, no doubt, grasp as few foreigners seem to, the absolute diversity of American thought, and approaches to life. I suspect your days with Will would be a mite different than any with me.

callmeslick, it is not in the repression here against the crappy art creativity. I'll tell you a secret, we are queues of Russians in the Museum of Fine Arts Pushkin and the Hermitage, the Tretyakov Gallery, Central House of Artists, Moscow Kremlin. And you never will see people in second-grade art galleries. It isn't good and it isn't bad that we have such different values. Simply at us different ideas of beauty, maybe.

Add: Thanks for the invite guys! There is something to think about. It's a good idea to visit the United States. I've never been there. Especially since two of my classmates live in the United States. Not without pride I can say that one of them works at NASA. If they can not help me with an invitation for any reason, I will keep in mind your offer!

Art is always in the eye of the beholder. One person's art can be another person's garbage. If a society always destroyed what it thought was garbage, some art would never be created to be seen. That's the way that free expression works. That's the difference between your country and ours. We are free to express what we think is art, no matter what others think of it. In your country, if art is deemed deviant or blasphemous, it is destroyed and lost forever. There is no freedom of expression, only submission to what the state deems proper. Think very long and hard about that. The state tells you what is art. You're not making your own determination about that art.

Your country does make some very fine art. I even own some of it. If your country's leaders destroy what they think is NOT art, they are being your artist's critics by proxy. It's no longer the individual's choice and it's your country's loss for the posterity and history in the world's historical art heritage. No one outside your country will ever see it to even critique it, or be able to decide whether they like it or not. Too bad for Russia.

callmeslick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I feel quite confident in my not only my right, but my responsibility to decide between that which is good and that which is not. Everyone has that responsibility. How we choose to lead our lives impacts others.

for yourself, that's fine. When it becomes telling others to think the same way, we have a problem, and a big one.

Slick, people the world over try to call people over to their point of view by arguing for the legitimacy of their opinions on just about everything. When did this become some sort of evil? How does this "telling others to think the same way" work, anyway? What does it look like in real life? *whips out a pistol and brings the barrel to rest between slick's eyes* "I painted this, and it's ART, isn't it?!" The only reason I have ever shied away from insisting on the legitimacy of my determinations is when I acknowledge--that is specifically recognize--my own imperfections, shortcomings, short-sightedness, and general lack of knowing absolutely everything. Aside from that I call it exactly like I see it and I am not ashamed of that.

callmeslick wrote:once again, others did not agree with the Colonists view of legitimacy. We like to think our side was right, but rebellious art or expression bad? Never.

Whether anyone agreed with them is not important. Were their arguments true or were they fallacy? The truth is out there, slick, even if you don't believe in it. Rebellion is very bad. As I said, it's destructive. Authority exists for a reason. We can start a topic about it sometime and I will try to explain in more detail (and you will acknowledge that I am right!).

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I finally found a definition of art that I think is proper. I'm probably not getting it exactly but the meaning is there:

'Anything someone does with the intention of causing any person to think about experiencing it, is art. And any attempt to narrow the definition is to let art escape you'

Sigma, you need to come to America! I'm buying the drinks and you can stay at my home. You would enjoy it I think.

Come to think of it, I did meet Soviet who didn't.
He married my friends sister when she worked as a translator in the US embassy in Moscow.
He moved here with her and after a year or so they divorced and he moved back to his homeland. He was a respected artist in Moscow and earned a good living restoring ancient Russian artworks. Here he was just another artist....and boy do we have a lot of them! He said he hated it.

The invitation stands however, come decide for yourself!

heck, he could come up and visit me at the shore placeafterwards for a few days, or come with me for a weekend in lower Manhattan......that latter option would likely require I invest in defibrillator paddles, but I'll pick up the tab.

Get a visa and a passport, Sigma, it's road trip time!! By the way, were you to actually come and visit Will(South Carolina??) and me(Mid-Atlantic), you would, no doubt, grasp as few foreigners seem to, the absolute diversity of American thought, and approaches to life. I suspect your days with Will would be a mite different than any with me.

we have a huge Russia population here in Portland

This..

callmeslick wrote: it is not for me, (...), nor anyone else, especially those in positions of authority, to determine what is 'art' or 'creative'.(...)

...and this..

tunnelcat wrote:Art is always in the eye of the beholder. One person's art can be another person's garbage

...I cannot understand. Doesn't that mean the concept 'art' is meaningless? If everything can be art, then art has no countervailing contrast, and nothing can determine whether something is art or not.

Though I of course agree with the freedom to make and express what one see fit.

LEON, think of it like this: the definition of beauty and indeed art itself changes with the times. At one point, Impressionist painting was considered hideous, now it is revered for it's beauty. The whole idea of 'anything can be, and is, art' goes back to the early 20th century, and one can do worse than focusing on the works and writings of Marcel Duchamp.

callmeslick wrote:LEON, think of it like this: the definition of beauty and indeed art itself changes with the times. At one point, Impressionist painting was considered hideous, now it is revered for it's beauty. The whole idea of 'anything can be, and is, art' goes back to the early 20th century, and one can do worse than focusing on the works and writings of Marcel Duchamp.

Yes, I understand that. But; "Impressionist painting was considered hideous, now it is revered for it's beauty" I will claim that is not a differ based on art, but on taste. To elaborate; Arnold Schwarzenegger is a bad actor, but that doesn't mean nobody likes him on the screen. In fact, quite the opposite i would say. If Arnold Schwarzenegger is bad, and let's say Kevin Spacey is good, then that is a fact no matter when in time. Maybe Arnold is more popular one year, and Kevin next year, but that doesn't change the fact about their acting skills.

The art world moves on. They leave for instance Picasso behind, and consider him passé, but I think we will never anytime consider him to be a bad artist.

To like funk music and not rock, is a matter of taste. On the other hand what's good funk music and not, is a matter of understanding. But, again, one can like some bad funk songs. I for instance, since funk is my genre of music, I like some really bad songs, but I like them for all other reason than the intrinsic quality of the song, e.g. entertainment, memories, etc.

What I try to say here; I think one often mistake 'art' with 'taste', when one talking about these things.

but, you seem to agree, LEON, that anyone should be free to make whatever they deem to be their 'art', correct?

callmeslick wrote:but, you seem to agree, LEON, that anyone should be free to make whatever they deem to be their 'art', correct?

No, not quite. Not if you mean that everybody can make what ever and claim it's art.

One can like Arnold, but to say his a good actor is different. I believe it's the same thing with art. One knows what one like, but to say it's art require understanding of art.

But, of course, one is free to chose between genres.

LEON, I support your opinion is that too many creative mediocrity received undeserved, in my opinion, fame and material wealth. While many are very talented creative works are not recognized. It is truly a shame. I conclude that creative people do not need to focus their attention to the views of the majority or perceived authority. Artists need to realize their abilities, no matter whose opinion. Believe me, these works somebody someday will appreciate. Time is much more honest.

This also applies to the way computer games. I think Descent greatest creation, while most gamers are playing in what is nonsense. It's a matter of tastes and preferences.

I'm glad someone mentioned the Ethics and Commentary forum and I decided to take a look. Good discussions here. Forgive me for catching up by replying to older posts.

sigma wrote:would like to see your reaction if someone organized the exhibition in person with you or with the president of the United States in the lead role, where you are shown for example, in women's panties with a bottle of whiskey in the arms of blue prostitutes and with mocking commentary

I for one would take it in good humor. Letting the opposition's insults anger you is a sign of weakness.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It probably does his image damage.

I can't think of how one might do damage to an image that looked like horse ★■◆● from day one.

sigma wrote:I would not want to see that kind of freedom of expression of creative people. It is monstrous, what you're saying. I can hardly believe it.

It's monsterous to you, it's extreme and pushes the limits (for the better) to me. You are brainwashed to believe that what is determined good is good and that all change is evil. You can hardly believe it because you haven't been exposed to it to even the same order as an American citizen has. We freely creative folk are believers.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I actually reserve the right to determine what is art.

Power to you, my friend. And I as well.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Rebellion = Evil, plain and simple. It's destructive. Now to "rebel" against illegitimate authority is a good thing, but the truth is that's a misuse of the word.

I'm afraid that is simply a mis-definition. Rebellion is against any authority, legitimate or not. Don't let your personal distaste for the word twist its definition.

sigma wrote:callmeslick, it is not in the repression here against the crappy art creativity. I'll tell you a secret, we are queues of Russians in the Museum of Fine Arts Pushkin and the Hermitage, the Tretyakov Gallery, Central House of Artists, Moscow Kremlin. And you never will see people in second-grade art galleries. It isn't good and it isn't bad that we have such different values. Simply at us different ideas of beauty, maybe.

Putin wearing panties, while maybe passing for art, isn't quality art in my opinion. The whole issue of artistic freedom, however, does not merely encompass nor target the perverse and rebellious. In particular, I find that it enables progressive art.

callmesick wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I feel quite confident in my not only my right, but my responsibility to decide between that which is good and that which is not. Everyone has that responsibility. How we choose to lead our lives impacts others.

for yourself, that's fine. When it becomes telling others to think the same way, we have a problem, and a big one.

here's where I sort of agree with Sergeant Thorne, to the extent that I think everyone is responsible for thinking independently and if someone succumbs to a belief by being told it is true, it's their own damn fault.

sigma wrote:LEON, I support your opinion is that too many creative mediocrity received undeserved, in my opinion, fame and material wealth. While many are very talented creative works are not recognized. It is truly a shame. I conclude that creative people do not need to focus their attention to the views of the majority or perceived authority. Artists need to realize their abilities, no matter whose opinion. Believe me, these works somebody someday will appreciate. Time is much more honest.

This also applies to the way computer games. I think Descent greatest creation, while most gamers are playing in what is nonsense. It's a matter of tastes and preferences.

I absolutely concur with every single word of this post, and +10pts for wording it so eloquently.

What I don't understand is how you don't seem to understand how artistic freedom enables the talented and progressive. It enables the banal too, of course. That's just the garbage that you have to deal wit...er...ignore. It must enable one if it enables the other. That's the whole idea of freedom. Freedom to be brilliant. Freedom to be a ★■◆● face and make a fool of yourself. Freedom to whatever.

DoTheGeek wrote:

sigma wrote:I would not want to see that kind of freedom of expression of creative people. It is monstrous, what you're saying. I can hardly believe it.

It's monsterous to you, it's extreme and pushes the limits (for the better) to me. You are brainwashed to believe that what is determined good is good and that all change is evil. You can hardly believe it because you haven't been exposed to it to even the same order as an American citizen has. We freely creative folk are believers

as regards beauty of art, I've always just have my opinion on this matter. I do not care what the critics are of the view, gallery owners, experts Sotheby's and Christie's, when I see something really beautiful, in my opinion.

sigma wrote:LEON, I support your opinion is that too many creative mediocrity received undeserved, in my opinion, fame and material wealth. While many are very talented creative works are not recognized. It is truly a shame. I conclude that creative people do not need to focus their attention to the views of the majority or perceived authority. Artists need to realize their abilities, no matter whose opinion. Believe me, these works somebody someday will appreciate. Time is much more honest.

This also applies to the way computer games. I think Descent greatest creation, while most gamers are playing in what is nonsense. It's a matter of tastes and preferences.

Yes, I agree mostly, except for the 'shame' part. It take 10 or 20 years to recognize something genuine.

Today, there's too much 'free from rules' nonsense. Like my students; every new generation wanna be creative and break the rules, and every new generation have the exact same ideas. They try for some time, but, at some point they understand they must go back and learn everything from scratch again. One cannot free oneself from a rule if one don't know the rule. Like me, English is for me a foreign language. Does that mean I'm more free to express myself because I'm not restricted by the rules I don't know? Can I create more and better poems, novels, etc because I don't know all the grammar, punctuation and sentence building rules? No, it's opposite. The more one knows these rules, the more one can create poems, etc, and, the more one can free oneself from the rules. I cannot play with words and grammar like a native.

Like this analogy; A bird who enjoyed flying, but wanted to fly faster. If it only wasn't for the air resistance. He wish there was no air resistance so he could fly faster. God heard his wishes, and decided to make the birds wishes come true. God removed the air resistance, and the bird - the bird fell to the ground like a stone.

Rules is not necessary resistance for one's creativity. Be careful for what you remove

I believe real art is the expression of a form or idea through a medium that requires some skill to manipulate. If it's pretentious, random, or unimaginative, they may call it "art", but I don't accept it.

EDIT: Good stuff, Leon. Agreed.

DoTheGeek wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'm afraid that is simply a mis-definition. Rebellion is against anyRebellion = Evil, plain and simple. It's destructive. Now to "rebel" against illegitimate authority is a good thing, but the truth is that's a misuse of the word.

authority, legitimate or not. Don't let your personal distaste for the word twist its definition.

When I looked into the definition of "rebellion" in a couple of online dictionaries I found that it did not necessarily always apply to authority. I accept these variances as a sort of slang. Regardless of whether that's the case or not, I am speaking in regard to rebellion against authority. And when we're talking about illegitimate authority, I would say the truth is that illegitimate authority is not a type of authority, but rather no authority posing as authority. SO when we're speaking of rebellion against authority it follows that you cannot rebel against authority that is not authority, and rebellion then has a different definition. Also, all authority here on earth has limits, as well as responsibilities, and where these are transgressed I would call the validity of the authority into question based on that.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:When I looked into the definition of "rebellion" in a couple of online dictionaries I found that it did not necessarily always apply to authority. I accept these variances as a sort of slang. Regardless of whether that's the case or not, I am speaking in regard to rebellion against authority. And when we're talking about illegitimate authority, I would say the truth is that illegitimate authority is not a type of authority, but rather no authority posing as authority. SO when we're speaking of rebellion against authority it follows that you cannot rebel against authority that is not authority, and rebellion then has a different definition. Also, all authority here on earth has limits, as well as responsibilities, and where these are transgressed I would call the validity of the authority into question based on that.

Ah! Now I see where we, and surely many others, depart. We are using two different senses of the word "authority", and its a shame that they mean such different things, as I can see lots of misunderstanding coming from it. The first definition that comes to mind when I hear "authority" is the power in place, legitimate or otherwise. Your definition, on the other hand, is in the sense of an "authority of art" or authority of a discipline. That is, the entity that knows all and fronts all regarding a particular subject matter--an omniscience of a certain discipline or subject, of sorts--an entity that rightfully speaks for and in regards to something.

long known that our world is the power of extroverts. They achieve their goals, money and personal well-being only by force, blunt psychological persuasion, intrigue, oppression of people with a weak social status, from their point of view. But creative people are much more talented and stronger their natural talents in the field of science and of creative ideas. In true creative people, the energy is not aimed at achieving material benefits for themselves,but to achieve the goals that will be useful to the progress of mankind. I do not envy their life, but I admire them.

sigma wrote:long known that our world is the power of extroverts. They achieve their goals, money and personal well-being only by force, blunt psychological persuasion, intrigue, oppression of people with a weak social status, from their point of view. But creative people are much more talented and stronger their natural talents in the field of science and of creative ideas. In true creative people, the energy is not aimed at achieving material benefits for themselves,but to achieve the goals that will be useful to the progress of mankind. I do not envy their life, but I admire them.

Beautifully stated. I must admit that my first thought when I read your first few posts was that you are an idiot. But I'm starting to see where your words are coming from.

sigma wrote:(...) But creative people are much more talented and stronger their natural talents in the field of science and of creative ideas. In true creative people, the energy is not aimed at achieving material benefits for themselves,but to achieve the goals that will be useful to the progress of mankind. I do not envy their life, but I admire them.

Like Steve Jobs?

LEON wrote:This..

callmeslick wrote: it is not for me, (...), nor anyone else, especially those in positions of authority, to determine what is 'art' or 'creative'.(...)

...and this..

tunnelcat wrote:Art is always in the eye of the beholder. One person's art can be another person's garbage

...I cannot understand. Doesn't that mean the concept 'art' is meaningless? If everything can be art, then art has no countervailing contrast, and nothing can determine whether something is art or not.

Though I of course agree with the freedom to make and express what one see fit.

Here's one definition for word Art:

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Notice the last words of the definition, emotional power. Some art is created and meant to be viewed for it's shock value to the observer. That doesn't mean everyone will appreciate it or like it. That wasn't the artist's purpose when he meant to create something to shock people. He meant it as a discussion piece to promote thought about a subject. Art as shock value will always be controversial in that aspect. Some people will understand it and appreciate what the artist was trying to convey, others will abhor it as filth. But that doesn't mean it should be censored. Free expression is free speech.

DoTheGeek wrote:Beautifully stated. I must admit that my first thought when I read your first few posts was that you are an idiot. But I'm starting to see where your words are coming from.

Thank you for your candor.

Add: I sometimes difficult to immediately understand the meaning of your statements because of the difficulty of translation, sorry.

Add2: by the way, style your posts also leaves no doubt in your belonging to a well-defined group

If I go out to my barn and nail some sticks together, bring the creation into my house and say it’s a chair….it’s a chair…period, it may not be a very good chair, but it is still a chair.

The person that creates something has the absolute right to define what it is…not you.

“You” have every right to like or dislike it, but “you” do not have the right to define it.