August 20, 2008
While creating, recreating or redesigning art as you like is an ability in some art realms, the exact opposite is happening to photographers who document the “wrong” thing. Censorship is the opposite of artistic creation. A recent New York Times article “4000 U.S. Deaths, and a Handful of Images’ by Michael Kamber and Tim Arango cover some of the problems photographers have had publishing their work on the Iraq war. The images of Zoriah Miller are captivating, thought-provoking, and extremely well-crafted but when the body of a dead marine is central to the image, questions of respect for the dead and sensitivity for family members are raised. Miller questions the amount of information getting out to the public. “The fact that the images I took of the suicide bombing — which are just photographs of something that happens every day all across the country — the fact that these photos have been so incredibly shocking to people, says that whatever they are doing to limit this type of photo getting out, it is working,”
Censorship is not new to art but what is amazing is its constantly changing face.
China has restrictive internet access not only for its population but also for the international media now covering the Olympics. In a podcast, (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0808/S00067.htm) Paul Deady interviews Margaret Taylor on www.scoop.co about these restrictions. While the people of China are accustomed to these limitations, the foreign press is outraged.
But where does censorship stop? Even my own art class has its “limitations”. Students may not offend others though their art. It is not the creation that is limited but the display may be. What is needed is more tolerance by all.
10 comments:
oiy86g8o8ybpb8
This gives me a more logical reason now on why artists have to have limitations on their artwork. When I was in class I had some doubts on why it was a big and stick issue the fact that art in the classroom had to be no harm to others. The example of the pictures that photographers take of the dead people seems just like a total disrespect to all those families who are suffering for their loved ones in war. The pictures show lots of blood and truly awful scenes of men that lost their lives and by which means deserve some respect. Seeing these pictures gave me a whole new perspective to art limitations and the meaning of censorship.
These days art in any shape or form will always find a way to disrespect people, my point of view is always going to be different from the observers point of view, I think just because the of the fact that someone might find your art nasty or unethical does not mean you should be censored. Many people through out history have spoken up, even when there are millions wanting to shut him up, but those people that are not afraid to show how they think, are the ones who manage to change the world, for better or for worse, and they are the ones who are remembered for ever, they are remembered as rebels or as genius, that depends on how far you push the limit.
When I read this post it helped me to better understand why there has to exist some form of censorship in art. I now understand that, while I may not take offense in a certain artwork, someone else might. I realize that artists create what they want to express with no mean to offend, but that does not keep them from doing so and this is why some sort of censorship has to exist. I also believe that people should be more tolerant about others work and know the story and the reason behind it before they take any offense. We can create absolutely anything we want but we can´t always display it, this is what I find the most reasonable in our class.
I agree with paulina's opinion. I really think it is unethical that photographers have the nerves to take pictures to those who are dead and publish it. It's really disrespecful to those families who see their deceased relatives. So now I understand that artists does have limitation to their work.
Zoriah Miller has shown world wide her ability and professionalism through the photographs taken in the Iraq war. She puts her life in jeopardy every moment she takes a photo however I believe after taking a look at some of her photographs that she sets out the cruelty of the war through her art work. Her photographs are open to the public that may criticize her values and principles with respect to the human pain. The Internet as an instant mead of world wide communication allows without censorship, the publication of crude images and puts herself in conflict between her artistic and her professional intentions. This is awkward to me because I thought that every artist created their art not only for money.
I agree with Paulina because things in life should always have limitations to show each other respect for peoples lifes. To live in harmony is not only a wish for me, it should be a principle and the way of living.
I have always understand that you have to have a certain type of censorship when you do art or any or type of activities. I never thought about the painting in the way that paulina did it and i believe she is right because it is a disrespect to the family of the dead people. I disagree with jose m. becuase when he said that just because art is nasty or unethical is means it should not be censored. i believe it is not like that because when you say that you censor an art it is because you do it to respect other people´s culture or point of view it is not becuase it is nasty or unethical it is becuase you should respect others opinion.
I totally disagree with the idea of censoring art…if it insults you, look away! The expression of a persons feelings and especially the expression of REALITY (as demonstrated by the New York Times Article) are very important. Why should you hide reality? These are things people need to learn to cope with, because life is not fair. Reality is everywhere, if you do not want to see it in an art work, then just go ahead and walk through the city, which will be even worse. Freedom of expression is one of the main pillars of the art world, and that can be seen if one looks into the history of art, all these movements were created to express something particular of that moment, as crude as it may be.
Censorship is an issue that is viewed everyday not only in visual arts but in performing arts such as movies and music but in movies they are censored by its rating for example rated R for adults or too much violence, rated G for minors indicating that the contents of the movie is suitable for minors. In music there is a label on the front of the cover that says "Advisory..." So why can't in visual arts be such a thing? After reading some of the article I came to the understanding that it wasn't really because of the pictures that the U.S. Marine was upset, it states clearly that it was because they have showed the U.S. in a way of "failure". Also it says that these pictures that were taken was like an answer to the Suicidal Attack that took place, giving the opponent satisfaction and accomplishment. I understand that there has to be a certain limit of what you can or can't do in art but also I think that the people viewing this certain type of art has to understand that what may be offensive to one person can be perfectly normal to others. The truth (in this case war) has got to be showed and images just seem to do the work! an image speaks for its self and creates a much more impact because you actually get to see it and experience it and that is the beauty of art, freedom of speech in words.
Post a Comment