Debate Info

No way. Absolutely.
Debate Score:16
Total Votes:16
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 No way. (8)
 Absolutely. (2)

Debate Creator

Mint_tea(3498) pic

Can art push boundaries too far?

Taste in art aside, do you believe that some artists push their artistic interpretations too far?  Or do you think that is the point to it. 
Another question would be, do you think some people call themselves artists and their work art as a way to get around doing something distasteful or shocking?
Examples of controversial art are:
and of course Trumps severed head.

No way.

Side Score: 12


Side Score: 4
2 points

I've spent a lifetime emerged in the arts and associate with artists daily ; my own work is realist and along the way i have attempted to comprehend the motivation behind the art produced by all sorts of artists as in minimalist ,expressionist , abstract etc , etc .

I define art as anything that gets a reaction which the people you cite certainly get in bucketfuls .

Duchamp who your piece referenced was a very intelligent guy and a chess grandmaster , his famous piece I read was first entered as a piece in an artists show after he had several pieces rejected , his piece allegedly was a form of protest at the pompous suoerior attitudes of galleries and art committees .

All the other pieces have pretty interesting back stories , regards pushing boundaries is that not a good thing ? It gets people talking and interacting about such things which has to be good .

The impressionists were seen as outrageous and their art intolerable and should have no place in civilised society , a lot of impressionist shows had the art being hung high up on the walls to stop possible attacks on the paintings .

Maybe some people merely do such things for commercial gain , infamy and media attention but I have no hassle with boundaries being pushed

Side: No way.
1 point

I sometimes wonder just how far someone can go to use the excuse "it's for art!!". Like....if someone streaks through a children's park butt naked, and yells "THIS IS MY ART" is he going to get away with that or get all huffy if people taser his cheeks together?

There is certainly some art I find distasteful, such as the urinating on Jesus, but if art is anything that gets a reaction I still can't see that as art. I see it more as a way to piss (no pun intended...or was it) people off and using art as a scapegoat. But that's just me.

I think pushing boundaries could be a good thing, and I do believe art can be a great way to do it, I just wonder where a line is drawn on how far a boundary can be pushed through art.

Side: No way.
Dermot(5460) Clarified
1 point

Well if someone did what you suggested they will quickly realise what the true meaning of the term ' suffering for his /her art ' means as such actions have consequences.

If huffiness results maybe he /she will turn that into part of their art ☺️

If pissing on an image of Jesus annoys you that's fine ,but to say the artist is trying to piss off people is not the way I see it as it's asking so many questions regarding Jesus ,the interpretation of his words and the way Jesus is perceived by different people .

The piece you're talking about ( I think ) is Serranos crucifix in urine the work is not meant to mock religion but is about the commercialising of Christian icons in contemporary culture .

Can a line ever be drawn ?

Side: No way.

Did you know their are artist out their that use their skills to make art of naked children. The art made looks real enough that is could be considered child porn. It looks exactly like a real image taken of a real person. That is where I draw the line. The line should be drawn where the law draws it.

Spend many sometimes to many hours exploring the dark side of the web. And their are to many real looking but fake children naked. I find it to be awesome how someone can do such a thing and make art look so real, but on the other hand I find it wrong as it is being used by sex predators to turn them on.

Side: No way.
Mint_tea(3498) Clarified
1 point

Actually let me ask you something that came up in another conversation, which started this one.

Say someone is dying of a disease where their is no cure. He/she wants their life to end sooner and contracts with an artist to assist with their death or wait for their death then have their body arranged, either in whole or in parts, as art. Could that be seen as art?

WAY off the wall question, I know but I'm curious about what it would take to push the boundary too far for most people.

Side: No way.
Dermot(5460) Clarified
1 point

Well we all have our limits don't we ?

If someone is dying and such a thing as you suggest happens why wouldn't it be seen as art what and who defines what art is ?

There's an Italian artist Piero Manzoni who famously sold his own shit in a tin it's deemed a work of art and appreciated by many as such .

Side: No way.
1 point

Interesting the amount of Americans who got very upset at the image of Donald's severed head , they sound exactly like Muslims who got very upset at cartoons of Muhammad

Side: No way.
2 points

There is a time and place for everything.

Let people make whatever art they want to make. But the choice of where it gets displayed and to what audience it is directed is still a factor. I don't mind people painting nudes, violence, or horror, but I'm also not going to put it up in my toddlers' room. And if those themes are on display in a museum I think that's fine, but then it's up to me to not take my kids up to that particular display.

I personally painted, quite a lot, for about an 8 year period. Family and friends were always asking to see pictures of what I had done so I made a conscious decision to never do projects which would require warning people in advance about what they were about to see. That was my choice. I had a right to make other kinds of art and declined to. I don't mind that other people do. But then if they offered to show their work to my family I'd expect some sort of warning first if it included rabbits getting disemboweled.

Side: Absolutely.