CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
7
Yes No
Debate Score:13
Arguments:10
Total Votes:14
Ended:07/27/08
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (6)
 
 No (4)

Debate Creator

Bradf0rd(1428) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Should art be censurable?

music, film, photography, etc.

Yes

Side Score: 6
VS.

No

Side Score: 7
Winning Side!
1 point

What do you mean by censorship? If you’re talking about taking provocative art out of the public arena and making sure that nobody that can be negatively affected, such as children, is the audience, then yes, art should be censored. If you mean censoring art in a selective forum that has a mature audience only, or an audience that is fully aware of the subject matter and will not be offended, then no, that would be awful. For example, I damn well appreciate it when a sleazy scene in a movie is left out of family entertainment on television. People who want to see it in full can rent the DVD or subscribe to an adult channel and view it in private.

Side: Selective audience please
Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed
1 point

What difference does it make how old they are?

What art could be detrimental to a child's safety or health if they brought up well? Hearing "fuck" in a song on the radio? I think not. Seeing grotesque depictions of sexual activity?

When I was a freshman in high school I watched a documentary on NAZI prison camps. Just because I saw it doesn't mean I agreed, and I was fairly young at that point, or especially not mature.

I think the only thing that keeps a taboo a taboo is the fact that it is a taboo. Saying fuck, for instance, is only taboo because people refrain from using it... and we all know they do. It reinforced the taboo... but if art is embracing taboo, why? It's part of humanity that we're holding our children from, doesn't that seem a little anti-productive?

(All of this for the sake of the argument)

Side: Freedom of Expression
1 point

Yes, I quite agree with your controversial stance. Raising your kids to know the difference between right wrong is better than protecting them indefinitely. But since I’d rather ignore obnoxious people who are selfish enough to do what they please without respecting the common space between people, I’d appreciate it if they kept it private. For example, if you’re one of those people who likes to get obscene in front of kids, I’d rather someone puts you away than having to go out of my way to avoid you.

Side: Selective audience please
1 point

The problem with art is it is the expression of the imagination. Therefore anything can be claimed as art even if it is some scheme for money,political or religious complaint,or doing something immoral. Most art should not be censored except adult themed art should be in display for only adults. The only art that should be censored are art that is clearly out of bounds. I do believe there should be restrictions on displaying that type of "art".

Side: Yes

I believe art should be censurable in certain contexts:

1. Government funding is discretionary and can act as a form of censure by refusing to fund or defunding projects and institutions that do not agree with the public's will. The government has a duty to, within the context of public scrutiny and approval, promote the arts that further our education and improve our culture.

For example: I believe the government is perfectly fine to, and should, refuse to fund or reduce funding to an institution (such as an art museum) that displays art of a graphic, disgusting, or arrogant nature.

Graphic meaning overly sexual given the common more's of a society.

Disgusting meaning the average tolerance for violence, gore, and the macabre.

And arrogant meaning an exclusion of common art for the sake of art crafted only by those with advanced artistic degrees, connections within the artistic hierarchy, or art otherwise removed from the common people and placed on a culturally isolated pedestal.

I also believe the government should be able to censor art conveyed through public mediums or displayed in public areas (under the guidelines mentioned above).

This includes television and radio programs as well as commercial art (advertisement).

Television, radio, public squares, streets, and art/academic institutions should fall under censurable guidelines.

On private property and through private cable and satellite I see no problem with expressing any and all forms of taboo; no matter how explicit or horrifying it may seem to the general public.

Side: Yes
0 points

I hope I pushed the right "view".

There's not a single screen around, you see?

Art. Censorship.

Well, it's like we're going to war, right?

I really don't get those weirdos.

And those rich people should donate instead.

I sure hope this means manson the second is going down, too.

Oh! I heard those blinding porn movies actually have directors and editors.

It's a violation of what?

What the fuck?!

They can have art.myspace.com if they want. It's not like you won't see them on the streets.

How dare you? This statue is our state's history.

History is a another CLASS. Did you even hear the question?

I'm more than willing to sacrifice that, and stop testing me.

Have you ever even sat more than, say, an hour, next to those channels?

I went to my neighbor's birthday, last week, his kid was ordered to take me on a little tour. At first, his room looked like a shire for Captain American with the exact date of his home cometh. And he seemed a bit queer.

I'm really through with you, cause it's not you talking out of that mouth.

Get your hands off me, boy! And listen to me.

If you never wondered what those pricks are actually doing to feed they're friends, you should try it, yea, you know, before you ask any questions.

Those little bustards!

They've breached the huricanwall!

They did what?

A breach in the system?!

Send everything we've got!

Side: Yes
Bradf0rd(1428) Disputed
1 point

I <3 Art

I <3 Art

I <3 Art

I <3 Art

I <3 Art

I <3 Art

I <3 Art

Side: Freedom of Expression
3 points

no, but on certain conditions.

obviously, we have censorship based on who's watching and listening. same should be for art. i don't think you can stop someone's creative juices, and even if it's something tasteless (and retarded IMO), like the Virgin Mary covered in crap, it's still freedom of speech and should not be hidden from the public eye, but for safety measures, people should be warned of offensive material (the virgin covered in crap is offensive on many levels).

as for muzik and movies and tv, we censor it on cable in a certain time zone, and, of course, for advertisement. the FCC says that from 6 - 10, you can't say dirty shit on television. primetime basically. same for radio (on a different scale).

most people find it offensive to hear bad language or violent things (language and images) when kids are around. i swear a lot, but i hate it when people swear or talk violent just cause they think it's cool, it's obnoxious and annoying.

as for the mainstreaming of foul language, takes away the impact of the words. if you hear "fuck" everywhere you go, it's not that powerful of a word. you say fuck when you're pissed off, and you wanna say something that just expresses how angry you are. the thing is, it doesn't help me much, and i often resort to more offensive language when i'm pissed (such as racial or rape references). if i ever said such things in front of anyone, they would be offended... yes, even you (whoever's reading this).

but art, especially offensive art, should be treated like every other piece of art (muzik and movies). we warn the public so they're ready for it. actually, that's better than how we treat others.

Side: No
2 points

As I understand it, art is the expression of imagination. In part, this is why we have freedom of speech, right? I don't think organizations like the FCC have the right to limit what expressions of ones imagination can be communicated to you or the general public, and what can. As an example, if in a song there is a word that they don't want to broadcast, they will bleep it out or have a remix made that doesn't have the word and in some cases, the word is important to the meaning of the song. It seems like an infringement on freedom of speech to me.

If it's a question of human rights over societal convention, if these things are showing up in art who's to say societal convention isn't changing to allow these kinds of things to be acceptable?

Side: Freedom of Expression
1 point

if we had cencorship we wouldnt have awesome songs like i wanna have sex on the beach by t spoon, or the bad touch by the bloodhound gang. if we r talkin about the same cencorship...

Side: No