Lifestyle > Train of Thought

The Assassination of Barack Obama: Freedom of expression or racism?

<< < (2/3) > >>

virtuoso:

Word, notice the obvious attempt at formulating your opinion for you also
The artist thought his racist views were protected under the Constitution because he was expressing himself through his art. Wrong.

It was of Hilary and Obama and yet that makes him a racist, ah anything negative or perceived to be negative which involves Obama and you are racist.

I guess my fuck Obama he is just a globalist puppet scumbag opinion means I am an evil racist then!

Australian Bastard:

--- Quote from: Teddy Roosevelt on June 07, 2008, 10:21:26 AM ---
--- Quote from: Legend of the Liquid Overfiend on June 07, 2008, 06:53:52 AM ---If you are a good artist you should be able to successfully tackle the most confronting and controversial subjects in a clever manner.
These people got their exhibits shut down because their art is crude.

a clever assassin stays hidden
-Sick Jacken 'The Praying Mantis'.


I'd call it a political opinion piece, not art.
Alot of these people are simply fame chasing-attention seeking whores of Babylon, not genuine artists. 

--- End quote ---
True, but either way your should be free to express yourself. That's what the 1st Amendment is suppose to protect.

--- End quote ---

I agree and concerning this particular exhibit, I believe it should have been allowed to stand even if it is a shit exhibit.
However that is not to say that I don't agree with the principle that there should be subjective limitations concerning racism, hate, sexual orientation and degrees of ultra violence for public viewing. If there wasn't you would have shit like political opinion pieces in the form of child torture snuff porn being passed off as public displays of art.

Just recently here in Melbourne police closed down an exhibition because it featured naked children. The artist said "blah blah blah its expression of the beauty of humanity and how children have been sidelined by society". Well, I agreed with her message, but you can portray that message in a rich variety of ways without crudely slamming a blown-up photo of a naked child on a canvas.

As like I said, throughout history artists have always managed to convey their desired message through their work to the public; despite and while often courting and even using the conventions of the time (which today, concerning freedom of expression, compared to history are very good and as it should be don't get me wrong im as libertarian as the next man). If you are good artist you can portray the most subversive content in a seemingly acceptable and conventional manner, there is an art to it (pardon the pun) and art like that is ually the best because it converges polarised views into the present with the audience. Im not saying art should adhere to the mainstream convention, but an artist engaging in political/social commentary who is oblivious to the context in which their work is going to be set isn't a very good artist if they haven't even thought that far ahead.

Australian Bastard:

--- Quote from: virtuoso on June 07, 2008, 10:35:47 AM ---I guess my fuck Obama he is just a globalist puppet scumbag opinion means I am an evil racist then!

--- End quote ---

Beside the particulars, in general:
some of the time we need to work with what we have and that can require, to a degree, playing the part of the puppet inorder to be rewarded with some slack upon the leash. This goes for alot of what we do in life.

M Dogg™:
the 1st amendment does not protect your right to yell fire in a theater and it does not protect your right to cause a riot and it does not protect your right to slander someone. in  the end, the 1st amendment protects your right to post porn, curse and say whatever you want to say about others, unless it does harm to someone which this art exhibit could do. If it was done right, then it would not be taken down.

virtuoso:

Hurting others means? 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page