What’s Your Preference?

TheDarkReaver · #1 (**permalink**) 07-15-2010, 06:22 PM

As some of you might know, there has been a bit of controversy over in this weeks assignment thread. It concerns the image of the baby in a pot by T.R.R. Of course, any image of this nature is going to face some criticism from certain people. It may offend. One particular comment was very...outspoken against the image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlieJ

It's NOT censorship to recognize something that is CLEARLY an offense to human beings. Your liberalism is supposedly about tolerance... but tolerance isn't the same as accepting everything and allowing it. So, how about being tolerant of common sense? Depicting COOKING a human being, much less a CHILD, is offensive. It's not art.

If the child was Photoshopped into a pot sitting on a counter, that would be a little different. However, showing the pot on a lit stove implies the child is being cooked - cannibalism is not art. It's offensive and you should see it for what it is - disgusting.

Now, I find this comment to be completely absurd. It seems to suggest that art is a literal thing and that because an image is depicting something that in reality is quite unsavoury the image itself only has that literal interpretation. How can something be simply and offence and not art if other people do not consider it offensive?

I'm in real danger of rambling on here and losing my thread of conciousness. Basically I want this thread to be a continuation to whatever arguments and discussion was starting to brew over in the original thread, so that it doesn't go further off topic there.

So a question just to kick this off:

Does/should morality define art?

P.s Keep it civil!

BEGM83 · #2 (**permalink**) 07-15-2010, 06:25 PM

Hmmm having been to the 'Exposed' exhibition at the Tate Modern i would like to know what that persons response to the images shown there would be if they don't like a comedic (havent seen the shot in question mind but these ones usually are comedy value) shot of a baby being cooked.

Oh and for those of you who haven't yet been to that exhibition....i would say go but it's not really worth the entry fee. If it was free id say go see it. As it's £10 a ticket only go if you're desperate.

Sorry for the tangent! lol

http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibi...FQs-lAod7xPM8g

TheDarkReaver · #3 (**permalink**) 07-15-2010, 06:27 PM

I'll quote the "offensive" post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by T.R.R

Please no hate comments as this is all Photoshoped!!!

PowerPix · #4 (**permalink**) 07-15-2010, 06:34 PM

Lmao! Can't we do anything anymore????

"Common sense" would say to him that this meant as a joke and obiviously a baby would not be on a burner....but maybe he lacks what he preaches....just sayin'

BelovedMemories · #5 (**permalink**) 07-15-2010, 06:36 PM

Quite honestly, IF it were real, then I would hunt the person down and make sure justice was brought before them.... BUT it is NOT real and I think that T.R.R. did a fantastic job at photo-shopping... I think that it is purely art and that honestly, if you're going to waste your time criticizing someone Else's art because it's something you would never do, then you have too much time and should really find a day job! Not saying this to be mean or ignorant... I am truly just saying, leave him alone. It's his photo, his art, and he is very talented!

superduperwesman · #6 (**permalink**) 07-15-2010, 06:39 PM

I can understand the complaint with this image and why some would be upset.

I've included my comment from the other thread below:

All I know is that if next week TRR cooks his baby I'll feel like I should have called the authorities Just saying...

Joking about illegal things can open a world of problems. Just to clarify, cooking a baby would be illegal.

A little while ago a dad dipped his baby's feet in boiling water to see her reaction.. he'd prob find this picture amusing. The police... not so much.

Link to info on the feet dipping situation:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/20.../14159216.html

RLucas · #7 (**permalink**) 07-15-2010, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkReaver

Does/should morality define art?

P.s Keep it civil!

I am still trying to wrap my mind around CharlieJ's comment. It's like a nesting doll of intolerance!

I will have to think about your question a while. In a sense, I would think it would. Everyone's moral compass is different in one way or another. I couldn't have said it better than Sime. "One man's trash is another man's art". I believe that bout sums it up for me.

If I think of something deeper, I will get back to you!