Has anyone ever been hurt by the arts?

Consider examples such as D.W. Griffith's film The Birth of a Nation, which has been used as a Ku Klux Klan recruiting film or Stanley Kubrick's film, A Clockwork Orange, which some say inspired brutal crimes.

propaganda
S.M.Lein - 06:03pm Jan 20, 2000

My view comes with the bias that many propaganda pieces over the years and across the world have been created with such skill, visual appeal, and deep message, that they are considered art. If this is so, then people throughout history have been hurt by art. There were antisemetic pieces printed by the governments of Germany (and many other countries) which were beautiful pieces of art. In many cases, when first viewing these posters and prints, I had no understanding of their messages. One poster in particular was of a very stylistic devil-man which made me think about the skill with which it was created. When I read the translation equated a Jew with the devil, I was not pleased with the message the piece was sending, but it was still a wonderful piece of art.

Assuming that when and where that poster was first distributed, people not only saw the images as art, but the message as "words to live by", then it follows that people WERE in fact hurt by this piece of art. In this case, those people were any Jews within the effect range of this piece.

This is only one example of how art (as propaganda) has hurt people. There have been countless campaigns led by various peoples against other peoples, and so countless times that people have been hurt.

Of course my being an artist, I still take the stand that art, whether seen as good or bad from different points of view, is necessary in this world. Perhaps at times it is a neccessary evil. But still neccessary.

more to say at... http://www.deadhero.com

Non-Popaganda
Paul Arnold - 11:05am Jan 27, 2000

I for one have never seen a piece of propaganda which would qualify as art. The term art is used much too loosely these days and has been for some time. There are slick pieces of propaganda, to be sure, but if shows like "Entarte Kunst" from the Nazi era and regime are any indication, very little of it can be considered truly artistic. Most propaganda is heavy-handed, awkward, and often laughable. Portraits of dictators, for example, are generally idealized tripe with no lasting resonance. Art with a single message ("One liners", as we used to refer to them in art class) are generally just that; billboards sending a single, obvious message, however skillfully rendered.

Perhaps our inundation with advertisements have blurred the line for much of the populace between art and ideological message, but what we should be focusing on is whether, in addition to the overt message, anything else exists.

Most people who believe that art is "subversive" and causes "problems" predicate that it has some sort of resonance for the individual. Anyone who gets their aesthetic jollies from an idealogical piece of garbage like "Birth of a Nation" have probably already formed their opinions on the subject long before viewing the work. In other words, there is no resonance inherent to the piece aside from what the viewer brings to it him or herself. Propaganda art is only useful to those to whom it confirms and reinforces beliefs which they already held.

In this sense, I feel that art is incapable of causing harm to the viewer in and of itself. It can only serve as a focusing point for the predisposition of the individual, not as the driving force behind the harmful action or opinion itself.

Is Art Hurtful?
azjudyann - 07:44pm Jan 28, 2000

Nothing in art can hurt us unless we choose to let it. Anyone who cries that this book or that movie or video is hurtful to them should look in the mirror and ask, "What is it about myself that allowed that piece of art to feel so painful?" Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, as is ugly. And shame on those of us who use our children as an excuse to protect ourselves from our own pain.

Why Violence Doesn't Even Affect Children and Teens
Mark Laughlin - 10:16am Feb 7, 2000

I feel as though media and art is too easily blamed for violence. The movies people watch don't "make" them do things. They may inspire, but if a child wanted to hurt another child the movie couldn't have caused that. The hate had to be pre-motivated. As a line in the movie "Scream" says "Movies don't make the psycho, movies make the psycho more creative." Any way you cut violence will happen wheather media gets more or less violent. People need to stop blaming the media for societies problems.

I am a 15 year old high school freshman.

PANTINGS
DVD - 08:02pm Feb 10, 2000

I FIND SOME WORKS OF ART OFENDING BUT THEY HAVE NEVER HURT ANYONE . THEY JUST MUST HAVE COME FROM A BAD MIND.