Text 14554, 59 rader
Skriven 2007-05-14 19:10:30 av Carl (966.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries
============================================================
lizardgirl wrote:
> On May 13, 9:26 am, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>  lizardgirl <gab...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>  [Art] may help preserve the cultural identity of a people.  or
>>> in the case, I believe anyway, of American, it can create one.
>>
>> Can America create a culture anymore?  I doubt it. It seems as
>> though the whole "melting pot" idea is obsolete.
>
> a myth really.  chopping a few syllables off of a last name hardly
> qualifies as culture building.
>
>> These days the current PC view is to promote
>> multiculturalism... which is at
>> odds with the idea of creating a common culture of our own.
>
> it seems a bit of a contradiction.  american has been 'multi-ethnic'
> from day one.  any collective, distinctly american culture then, needs
> to be based on something else.   perhaps, our ideas regarding freedom
> - both personal and civic?
>
> the ideas that find their way into controversial art are usually the
> ones that seem to divide us.  take the chocolate jesus sculpture that
> was taken down after folks started running around with their arms on
> fire.  i can't tell you how many times i've heard people thank 'sweet
> jesus' for this or that.  the piece was a literal interpretation of an
> everyday remark.  would people have been less offended if the artist
> had provided him with a comfit loincloth to cover the holy push pop?
> what exactly was offensive and to whom?  i think this is a
> conversation worth having.  while it may on the surface seem to burn
> bridges it can actually build them.

As with many things, I think intent is (or should be) the key.

I've heard people claim that art *must* be controversial.  I always 
considered
that statement manure, but not considering myself an artist I hold a part of
my opinion back as unqualified.

That attitude though, has caused artists to go out of their way to
create something that was intenionally offensive so that they
could benefit from the publicity.  (I am not discussing the chocolate
Jesus right now).  If you go out of your way to offend someone, things will
immediately divide into those that are offended, and those that don't care
(much) if the others are offended.  The crucifix in urine is an example of 
this.
I don't find it a surprise that such art is divisive.  Get one set of people
emotionally charged and lines are going to be drawn.

Since it seems that so many people are willing to offend, many people
assume that offense is always intended.  That doesn't seem to be
the healthiest atmosphere to objectively judge art in.

Carl
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)