(no subject)
1/9/2006
We are always asked to keep an open heart and an open mind, in America, if you are blessed with just one, you are considered golden. But, I ask you, when is art not considered art anymore?
I’m only asking because in my Advanced Drama class, we are studying Shakespeare, and some of the lines that I am to memorize and use are quite dirty. I learned today that there was one man that would not allow certain parts of Shakespeare’s works to be read aloud due to the fact that his stories tend to lean a way opposite of “Family Friendly.”
Don’t get me wrong, I am completely opposed to censorship when it comes to most things, I mean, I don’t believe that you should be allowing seven year olds to watch pornographic videos or anything, but I also don’t think that you should keep them from hearing great literary works in their natural context because some people find them disgraceful.
I’m sure that Shakespeare’s works were the cause of many a raised eyebrow or two due to some of their content, but who was the person that decided that somewhere along the way, Shakespeare was a genius? Who decided that no, his writing was no longer considered offensive? I love Shakespeare, I like what literature I have read of his thus far, but I don’t understand when someone made the choice that since he was dead, he should be respected.
I only use him as an example, but he was just one among many that were censored due to content. John Steinbeck is another example, but his character’s and novels are wonderful. I know that the words, “artist” and “art” can cover a broad range of subjects, such as dance, singing, instrumental music, writing, etc, etc.
Yet, I am left to wonder if there is a line that may be crossed as an author writes a sexual scene into a book, if an actor is told to be slightly promiscuous onstage or on camera, when art includes nude portraits. If all of this is considered art, then what is the difference between and artistic nude painting, and a pornographic picture? Is it the reason behind the purchase of each? Is it the natural attitude that we as humans seem to have when we see nude pictures?
I am not coming to any conclusions by writing all of these things out, and usually once my thoughts are out in the open, such as this I can see clearly what point I am trying to make. That is not happening today.
On that note, I will say that my hypothesis and not my conclusion, is that the reason that some things are considered art and others are considered unmentionable items, is the reason behind the purchase of each, and the natural guilt complex that people have. You may feel guilty if you look at a pornographic picture with the desire of personal pleasure, and lust. And it is very easy to look down on someone in a situation like that. But this is one of those double-edged sword instances. Because the person that buys the painting buys it for the sake of art, feels no guilt, and is considered well rounded. It’s one of those odd double-standard issues.
We are always asked to keep an open heart and an open mind, in America, if you are blessed with just one, you are considered golden. But, I ask you, when is art not considered art anymore?
I’m only asking because in my Advanced Drama class, we are studying Shakespeare, and some of the lines that I am to memorize and use are quite dirty. I learned today that there was one man that would not allow certain parts of Shakespeare’s works to be read aloud due to the fact that his stories tend to lean a way opposite of “Family Friendly.”
Don’t get me wrong, I am completely opposed to censorship when it comes to most things, I mean, I don’t believe that you should be allowing seven year olds to watch pornographic videos or anything, but I also don’t think that you should keep them from hearing great literary works in their natural context because some people find them disgraceful.
I’m sure that Shakespeare’s works were the cause of many a raised eyebrow or two due to some of their content, but who was the person that decided that somewhere along the way, Shakespeare was a genius? Who decided that no, his writing was no longer considered offensive? I love Shakespeare, I like what literature I have read of his thus far, but I don’t understand when someone made the choice that since he was dead, he should be respected.
I only use him as an example, but he was just one among many that were censored due to content. John Steinbeck is another example, but his character’s and novels are wonderful. I know that the words, “artist” and “art” can cover a broad range of subjects, such as dance, singing, instrumental music, writing, etc, etc.
Yet, I am left to wonder if there is a line that may be crossed as an author writes a sexual scene into a book, if an actor is told to be slightly promiscuous onstage or on camera, when art includes nude portraits. If all of this is considered art, then what is the difference between and artistic nude painting, and a pornographic picture? Is it the reason behind the purchase of each? Is it the natural attitude that we as humans seem to have when we see nude pictures?
I am not coming to any conclusions by writing all of these things out, and usually once my thoughts are out in the open, such as this I can see clearly what point I am trying to make. That is not happening today.
On that note, I will say that my hypothesis and not my conclusion, is that the reason that some things are considered art and others are considered unmentionable items, is the reason behind the purchase of each, and the natural guilt complex that people have. You may feel guilty if you look at a pornographic picture with the desire of personal pleasure, and lust. And it is very easy to look down on someone in a situation like that. But this is one of those double-edged sword instances. Because the person that buys the painting buys it for the sake of art, feels no guilt, and is considered well rounded. It’s one of those odd double-standard issues.