2006-09-06 17:53:05 · 17 answers · asked by Evelyn B 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I mean to display wherever they wish and do whatever they want with it.
2006-09-06 17:58:46 · update #1
Of course I am Rob...read her answer please.
2006-09-06 18:00:45 · update #2
Absolutely, as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. The artist should have the right to create their art, galleries have the right to choose which art they will display, and individuals have the right to choose whether or not they wish to see it. The only caveat I add is a content warning; patrons should know they will be seeing material they may find offensive before it is in their faces.
Picking and choosing which art you will support amounts to a proxy form of censorship. That's OK for individuals but inappropriate as a means of determining how public funds are distributed. The government should decide whether or not we are going to support art and implement that decision without filters.
2006-09-07 06:59:07 · answer #1 · answered by Speedo Inspector 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where they display must be determined by the market also. If you are suggesting that they should be allowed to publicly display anything what so ever then of course NOT. What they produce and display in venues they control or galleries that want to show their work is a different story.
Just don't ask me to pay for what you think is art and what I think is offensive. Your right to artistic expression ends outside of my wallet.
2006-09-07 01:05:18 · answer #2 · answered by bigrob 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
sure ... within legal limits.
I have read proposals .. lemme tell ya.
One was a proposal for funding that the audience would watch the subject shoot up heroin and view their transitions through the high.
Another was a man wanted the audience to watch him "be authentic" in his art when he held a live electric wire to his balls, shocking himself.
Our panel said no to both.
Yet, I have seen some stuff that I applaud and still have to acknowledge that the general public might be ... uncomfortable.
I've seen the ink butt-blowing art and the female beet wrestling and the "safe sex is latex" in saran wrap art ... I love all that stuff.
Stories? ... I got stories....
2006-09-07 01:07:38 · answer #3 · answered by wrathofkublakhan 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. During the war, lampshades were crafted out of human skin. Somebody considered that art, but someone else considered that Uncle Herman. I'm pretty open minded, but not so much that my brain falls out.
2006-09-07 00:56:56 · answer #4 · answered by burpolicious 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Do" it, sure. Publicly display it, no. Get federal funding to do it, no. The latter two require limits, in my opinion. (I'm assuming you're referring to some of the horrendously offensive pieces of so-called art that I've read about and seen photos of in controversies that were covered in the national news over the years.)
2006-09-07 00:54:52 · answer #5 · answered by Rvn 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes
2006-09-07 00:54:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. For private display, absolutely.
For public sale, almost absolutely.
2006-09-07 00:55:00 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It's called freedom of press, and is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but the market decides what they will buy.
2006-09-07 00:56:32 · answer #8 · answered by cman 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2006-09-07 02:01:06 · answer #9 · answered by sirawa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art is unlimited as long as it is not against morals and public order.
2006-09-07 00:56:22 · answer #10 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋