When does controversial art 'cross the line'?

[Electric Monk]

more
http://flavorwire.com/173120/controversial-photos-of-kids-reenacting-abu-ghraib-911-and-katrina

[The Straight Story]

1. It does not cross "A" line, it can cross someone's though (nt)

[MineralMan]

2. The adult who set those up is a moron.

Is it art? I don't care. It's moronic and stupid. Those children have no idea what the symbolism they're presenting is about. So, it's a moronic adult who is setting this shit up.

Not worthy of any notice at all, IMO.

[tekisui]

11. How do you know what the children know?

I see the value in these. To me, it shows not only the loss of US 'innocence' from both events depicted, but also how we have so exploited the images that they are nearing cartoon-ish.

[marions ghost]

41. agree

:thumbsup: good point about how it suggests that we have exploited the images to the point of cartoon...

[Lucian]

14. You really don't understand art then.

[tabasco]

28. LOL.

No, Professor, I'm afraid it's you who fails to understand.

Simply calling something "art" doesn't make it so.

[TalkingDog]

33. Actually, yes. It does.

And Yes, I'm both an artist and a professor.

There are 3 criteria for determining whether something is art.

1: Experts Agree. If experts (artists, curators, art historians) agree that something is art, it most likely is.

2: (More importantly) The artist says it is art.

3: Honestly... I can never remember #3.


The artist wouldn't be presenting it as art if it weren't and I think it's art.

So it is art.

[WCGreen]

38. I agree and using the children might be pushing it a bit....

But the children are an integral part of the message of the art.

[markpkessinger]

64. I'll agree it's art. High art? Not so much. n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

15. That's the point....

[TalkingDog]

32. Then don't notice it. Why even comment on it?

A lot of the subjects of art through the ages had no "idea what the symbolism they're presenting is about".

What has that got to do with anything?

[MineralMan]

43. Because I did notice it, and because I can comment on it.

Have a nice day.

[Warpy]

3. It only crosses the line when creating it causes physical harm to living beings.

Plus, what Mineral Man said.

[JitterbugPerfume]

4. words fail me! That is wrong on so many levels,

but on the other hand, censorship is wrong.

[Fire1]

5. Too much candy. The results of a sugar rush. n/t

[July16th-20th]

6. Censorship is never the solution.

Freedom of speech means nothing if it does not mean the freedom to offend. I can't recall at the moment who said that, but s/he nailed it.

[Electric Monk]

8. Welcome to DU. Interesting choice of username, I might add.

You're not planning to stay with us past July 20th?

[greyl]

70. Space Shuttle Atlantis... nt

[personman]

56. There was a Chomsky quote:

Something like "If you aren't in favor of freedom of speech for speech you despise, then you are not in favor of freedom of speech."

This thread actually reminds me of Serj Tankian's (of System of a Down, and Axis of Justice) music video for "Empty Walls," I actually found the symbolism fairly powerful in that case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CxKA1uETxE

Hard to watch and not have some sense of national shame.

[piratefish08]

7. who decides the 'line'?

yeah.

there's the problem.

[Marr]

9. The fine art world is a basically a "cooler than you" collection of

hipsters, and their whole schtick is tweaking the squares.

Of course, there's no line-- they can do whatever they like, so long as it's not physically hurting anyone. But I'm always annoyed at the notion that art must offend or shock. It's such a juvenile idea. I mean, if art depends on "pushing boundaries", then humanity only produced a tiny handful of artistic works before the 20th century rolled around, and almost none of them are in the art history books.

Of course, I'm speaking as a commercial artist of 15 years or so who actually knows how to paint/sculpt/etc., so my opinion doesn't carry any weight with the art crowd. Personally, I think anything a human being does that isn't directly related to their own survival is art. That's everything from mud pies to jewelry to stand up comedy to painting, writing, etc.

[Goblinmonger]

34. You don't think people pushed the boundaries before the 20th century?

I can think of a lot of novels that did.

[Marr]

40. I'd have a hard time naming sculptors or painters before the 20th century

who set out simply to shock or offend. But every hack who can't be bothered to learn his/her craft has been going for shock for decades now. All it takes is a line of bullshit and a big ego-- no sweat, no talent, no nothin'.

Honestly, I'd say the same goes for writing, personally. I can't think of a pre-1900's equivalent of a Chuck Palahniuk, for instance. Not that I don't like his writing-- but you know what I mean?

[Codeine]

62. de Sade? Flaubert? Baudelaire?

Not saying one way or the other, mind -- just suggesting possibilities.

[markpkessinger]

65. Really?

Are you familiar with the plays of Pierre Beaumarchais? Specifically, I am referring to Le Barbier de Séville, Le Mariage de Figaro, and La Mère coupable (1773, 1784 and 1792, respectively). Le Mariage de Figaro (from which Mozart created his opera, Le Nozze di Figaro), in particular, was banned by Louis XVI because of the way it poked fun at the absurdities and excesses of the nobility, and portraying that nobility being outsmarted and outwitted at every turn by the servant classes (i.e., Figaro and his betrothed, Susanna). It may seem pretty benign to our own 21st century sensibilities, but in its own cultural context, it was considered extremely controversial and even dangerous.

[TalkingDog]

35. Wrong.

Speaking as an fine artist, you need to stop being such a bigot about real artists and what we do. See what I did with your presumptions there?


Actually most of the work we consider historically "important" is important simply because it pushed boundaries in some fashion.

AND I'm speaking as a Master Artist of over 30 years who does classical oil painting/sculpture/printmaking, along with ceramics/jewelry making and lots of other lowly "crafts". And no, your presumptions about what real artist do don't carry any weight with people like us, as you obviously have no interest in a genuine conversation.

[Marr]

37. I find it odd that you would expect me to sneer at those things as "crafts".

I have respect for those things. I call them art. In my experience, the sort of people who do these shock value pieces would not. I've been around them in more than one city, and found them all to be cut from the same hipster cloth.

As for history, pieces that are noted as historically significant are usually recognized as such for being firsts of some sort, or representative of some new approach or material or movement. They're not just the product of someone trying shock and offend, which is what this "deep" shit is usually about.

[tekisui]

10. IMO, only if there is a victim. A victim in the sense that

someone, or some animal, is hurt, or worse.

[lunatica]

12. I get the message loud and clear

[rucky]

39. +1

Helps to have a child born in 2004.

[cali]

13. This doesn't cross the line as far as I'm concerned but I think it's shitty art

really shitty. and not because it may shock and offend some people.

[saras]

16. Not surprising, not shocking, not good art - so?

I find http://www.ekac.org/transgenicindex.html">this guy to be transgressive in a lot more interesting manner (fluorescent green bio-engineered rabbits, for example).

My own discomfort with these pictures is just at the idea that the kids almost surely don't know what they're doing, or what the art is saying, and so this artist has essentially reduced them to objects. That's sleazy in the way that objectification always is.

I expect artists to explore difficult new cultural material, and hence to regularly offend people. But offending people isn't the purpose, any more than keeping your RPMs above 1000 is your purpose for driving a car. An artist who is deliberately working to offend people is missing the point.

[riderinthestorm]

25. After trying to puzzle why the artist used kids, it hit me that using them as objects WAS the intent

mimicking the terrorists being used as pawns by Al Qaeda for shock value, and the US Army using our soldiers as pawns in providing real life shocks. The objectification is part of the art and part of the message (for me at least). Is that sleazy? I didn't approach the pics as though the artist was intending to offend, I honestly tried to see them as art and see if there was any value in the presentation.

The pics are arresting. And troubling. I wouldn't want them but I never refuse an opportunity to at least look.


Interesting OP and questions.

[lapislzi]

55. Agree and disagree

Yes: objectification is sleazy and demeans the artist, the model, and the viewer.
No: one of the purposes of art is to nudge you out of your comfort zone.

Good related reading: Ways of Seeing by Jon Berger. It changed the way I thought about art and gender relations.

[Forkboy]

17. Trailers for the upcoming documentary Art/Crime, which asks the same question about movies.

In 2009, Rémy Couture, special effects makeup artist was arrested by SPVM right in front of his home and would later be charged with obscenity and corruption of morality. Montreal's Police was responding to a complaint regarding pictures coming from his website Innerdepravity.com which had been freely circulating on the Web.

ART/CRIME discusses violence, fiction, and censorship in movies but also in the loosely regulated environment that the Web still represents. The documentary allows many, like movie directors Nacho Cerdà, Robert Morin and Patrick Senécal as well as former politician Mario Dumont to present their thoughts on the matter.

Warning, some graphic images in the trailers.

Trailer 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGKvX5QBDSE

Trailer 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cO5adw3CKw

[rrneck]

18. There's a line

but you frequently don't know where it is until you've crossed it. Artmaking is cultural R&D.

[Dappleganger]

19. It's a good thing you didn't see our kids' rooms or them play over the past decade...

I don't have a problem with any of this.

[Electric Monk]

20. Why is that? I might have called it art?

:shrug:

[Starry Messenger]

21. Ha!

Well I liked them.

[CJvR]

22. Crappy art...

...is OK, if only because it would be to expensive to lock up all the wannabee artist that produce manure.

Art that require crime to be made is another matter, and - yes I do realize to complications of that point of view.

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. Those are pretty damn good. Art should be interesting. There is no line.

[tekisui]

46. I agree and thought they were great.

[Cid_B]

24. Meh... Like a child who uses curse words for attention...

Best thing is to ignore... Someone didn't get enough hugs as a kid or something.

[riderinthestorm]

26. There is no line. Interesting OP. K and R for thought provoking

(and not Casey Anthony!)

[NightWatcher]

27. I thought those were great, reminded me of Empty Walls by Serj Tankian

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CxKA1uETxE

[jberryhill]

29. When Performance Art Like Fox News Is Widely Misunderstood As News Programming

[TheWraith]

30. What "line" exactly are you talking about?

There's a line between having a point and pure shock value. I think those are both on the shock value side. There's a line between comfortable and uncomfortable. There's a line between art for expressing a positive and art as a critique.

[Electric Monk]

31. Mona Lisa's smile

[Gregorian]

36. Like this?

[Electric Monk]

42. ew

[babydollhead]

44. the adult who posed these has a head full of snakes.

leave the children alone. They weren't even born when 9/11 happened.

[tekisui]

47. Which is part of the point.

[WatsonT]

45. For art there is none, but if we're talking about federally funded art

I could see a line of decency being required.

[Electric Monk]

48. Do you know how many dollars go to war machines compared to how many go to funding art?

I'm not worried about art bankrupting America anytime soon.

[WatsonT]

49. If that's the standard logic then there is no reason to cut waste anywhere in government

ever.


If someone is getting paid to do nothing they could always retort with: cheaper than the war.

If simple errors in accounting mean billions are lost through waste and inefficiency: meh, cheaper than Iraq.

[Electric Monk]

50. Wrong. It's an excellent reason to stop wasting money waging stupid wars.

[WatsonT]

66. O . . . k . . ..

but that argues against not wasting money on other things . . . how exactly?

[Forkboy]

69. Who decides what's decent for us? You? Me?

[WatsonT]

74. If it's publicly funded then the public decides

If it's privately funded then whoever is putting up the money decides.

[nomb]

51. A moment ago I would have thought nothing of using children, then ...

I saw this on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1512902&mesg_id=1512902


And no, it is not the same.


BUT, one should consider their actions before using children as props. Just saying.

[Motown_Johnny]

52. Other, there is more than one line and using children for shock effect is just one of them

to me that isn't art, it is child abuse

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

53. Other - those are "art"?

:wtf:

[semillama]

54. Spoon

But these are damn good pieces of politically-charged art. Very effective -just look at this thread. Good art can cause self-reflection in the observer, and these certainly do.

[uppityperson]

58. Exactly. Very effective politically charged art. Did you see this one "Dear Leader"?

[Electric Monk]

67. I thought the garbage strewn around and the overflowing toy chest (?) was a nice touch.

Could've done more with the hair. The glasses were perfect, imho.

[dawg]

57. I voted "Spoon".

I like those pictures of dogs playing poker. But most people don't think they are art. (The doberman cheats.)

[Throd]

59. That isn't shocking or controversial. It's just lame.

[uppityperson]

60. Went to the link and there are so many ironically funny ones. VERY good stuff

Combining the innocence of children with the idiocies of adults

[Codeine]

61. There is no line.

Art cannot be limited, else it ceases to be art.

[NashVegas]

63. I Don't Find These Photos Shocking or Disturbing. I Find Them Boring

Tell me, where's the insight here?

Just a bunch of super-posed, super-staged shots. If the photographer is trying to say something other than, "look how cool and controversial I am," it's not coming through.

Still it will grab them some gigs in the advertising business, they seem to have a good grasp on lighting.

[SoDesuKa]

68. The Banality of Horror

Abu Ghraib is a part of children's experience whether we want to admit it or not. They accept it matter-of-factly because they don't know any other context. The fact that these horrifying images have become routine is a comment on the legacy we're leaving to them.

Incidentally, instead of a direct quote from the original picture of a naked prisoner being menaced by a vicious dog, the second picture shows a child being humped by Pedobear. That's pretty edgy.


Two animals - an attack dog . . . and Pedobear

[Withywindle]

71. I voted "there is no line", and I really like these pieces.

When I was a kid, in my elementary school office, there was a sappy sign that said "Children Learn What They Live..."

Children learn what they see their elders doing, way more than what their elders tell them. To me, these images are about children learning from what they see.


(When I was 8 or so, the big news story of the year was the Jonestown massacre/mass suicide. My parents tried to shelter me from it. FAIL. I squirrelled their TIME magazine with all the bodies on the cover away and read the article again and again at night. I wanted all the information I could get about it.)

I relate to these pieces, because children are inevitably tasked with improving the flawed world their parents left them. And even small children have way greater awareness of world events than their elders give them credit for.

I don't think these pieces cross a "line" at all. I think that's one of the things art ought to do: really ask the question about what kind of world we're leaving for the next generation, and what today's children will do with the limited knowledge the're allowed to have.

[Withywindle]

72. and also...

Pretty much all the real people involved in these real atrocities were a decade or less away from childhood themselves.

[Matariki]

73. WOW!

Those are great!