Must art in public spaces be acceptable to everyone?
Cases like painter Diego Rivera's proposed mural for Rockefeller Center, Man at the Crossroads, or Maya Lin's Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington, D.C., have spurred wide debate about public art. Please share your thoughts on these or similar cases.
Must art in public spaces be acceptable to everyone?
The art of a society is an indication of the health of the culture. There have always been controversies in the arts as the arts evolve. I have always believed that change is good. Unfortunately, riding on the coat tails of change that advances a culture there are the dregs that contribute to the decay of a culture. Each of us has our limits as to what we feel is acceptable. I won't personally support art that I feel is outside of my limits of acceptability. At the same time, I would not want art censored by applying some one else's standards. But, there must be a standard for general public consumption. The primary reason for this belief is concern for our children and of course the secondary motivation is out of concern for those that use art to support demented causes. There are enough sources to obtaining material without public display of materials that contribute to the moral decay of our children and far too many groups that support anti-social causes. We seem to have forgotten that with freedom comes responsibility. That responsibility includes defining what is generally acceptable for public use and display.
No. Art must represent the artists thoughts, impressions and beliefs. Art must NOT be used to deliberately shock or repulse or offend anyone. There was no need for the artwork of the Madonna made out of feces. At all times art is supposed to say about the artist, "Let me show you how I feel, and how I see things" not "Let me show you how stupid you are by looking at this" or "Let me shock and offend you".
Art is everything. Art is nothing. Art is as simple as what one single person thinks is beautiful. To a mother, her kindergartener's finger paintings are magnificant works of art. Whereas an art critic may view them as pieces of garbage which serve no purpose but to clog our landfills. Two extremely different views and yet because that one mother sees her child's work as beautiful, it can be considered art. Famous artists such as Claude Monet and Pablo Picasso struggled their whole lives to "teach the world a new way of seeing". Only after their deaths do we truly come to recognize what brilliance they were capable of. My whole point is to tell people not to judge a piece of work by just glancing at it and seeing something considered 'objectionable'. Truly look at it. Get inside of the artist's mind, if you will. Then, art does not become so black and white, appropriate for our children's eyes or not, it becomes beautiful. Isn't that what art is all about?
For time to time, this subject rises from the ashes. One group or another is "deeply offended" by some public display of "unacceptable" art. Each time the hullabaloo subsides. Why? There are those who hold that the only acceptable art is representaional, classically derived, free from exhibition of any offensive nature. In other words, once the paint is on the canvas, the problem becomes one of how to offend the least numbers of people while making a living as an artist. Hogwash! It is the responsibility of the artist to produce his/her art. It is the responsibility of the viewer to observe, as quietly and contemplatively as possible, both the process and result of that art. If one does not appreciate what one has observed, then one has the option of leaving alone what one has discovered about oneself. Did the art shock you? Did it amuse you? Did it engender any feelings whatsoever? Then the art did its job. It got you involved. Throwing politically correct labels at the art in an attempt to make it disappear is the rankest sort of censorship. Not only is this the result of intellectually bankrupt thinking, it sends a message that represents censorship as a desireable result of the public discourse. Is that what we as a nation are willing to promote? If it is then the art did its job. No, no, and no again. Art in public spaces need never meet the test of public acceptability. The list of artists to be excluded by applying that criteria would include Michaelangelo, Rubens, Titian, Picasso and so many, many more.
My answer to the bald question, Must art in public spaces be acceptable to everyone?, is, No, it needn't. But the issues run deeper than this disingenuously simple question.
If art were to be made acceptable for everyone, the colors would all disappear. Art would cease to amaze and delight, just as it ceased to offend. We would end up with no art whatsoever. And this is the sort of thing that would spread. We would be left with a situation right out of "Fahrenheit 451." This book would offend this group, so it would be gone. That painting would be offensive to that other group so out it would go. And let's not even get started on whathisname's music. Perhaps controls are necessary when it comes to art in public, but if that control is simply based on whether it offends someone or not, then it is no control at all. There is nothing out there that is inoffensive to everyone, unless it is something that everyone is indifferent to.
No, i don't belive that art should be acceptable to everyone, regardless if it is in a public place or not. I feel that art is used to provoke thought, convey feelings, and express. If someone is offended by a piece of art, then perhaps the offended party should think more about why they feel that way. In some cases, art is meant to provoke thoughts fo anger, embarassment, or disgust. If the artist has done that, then they have done thier job. One cannot worry about offending someone, due to the fact that one cannot please all people.
I think the Madonna painting controversy of a few months ago raises an important point. This question is a devisive one- it is worded to force a yes or no answer. Since when is art black and white, yes or no? The Madonna painting with the elephant feces is not offensive. It is offensive to those who do not understand the symbolism of that substance. It represents rejuvination. But explain that to a culture with a phobia of germs, and you'll be laughed out of the room. With modern art, appearence is secondary to intention.
Art by its sheer definition is created to provoke a response, a thought ,a feeling, an emotion....hate, love, passion and passiveness are all ranges of emotion. It would be impossible to find art that everyone found acceptable. Besides some of our greatest masterpieces were created because the artist was moved to create by some emotion, positive or negative.
No, but I think in certain cases there should be signed information regarding content on the approach. Particularly with regard to children. A piece of art, and the message it hase been created to convey, may be of a theme or complexity only really suitable for adults, and as such parents need to be aware of this to chose whether to take children (or hopefully when to take children)to view such art. I should say that I would have said no without conditions until very recently when I became a parent, and realised how different everything, from a simple poster to a program on TV appears when you are trying to act as suitable teacher and guide for very young children.
The wisest artists know that if your art doesn't tick someone off, then you're doing something wrong. "Art" that is acceptable to everyone isn't art. It's anarchy at its most stultifying. What is unacceptable is censorship, especially in the name of "protecting the people."
If the question asks should public art, meaning art indirectly funded by taxpayers through the NEA, be acceptable to everyone- the answer is a qualified yes. Individual tastes and aesthetic sophistication predispose some to the family-centered images of Norman Rockwell while others opt for the simple geometric forms of Rodchenko. The resulting dialog over which style is most deserving of public recognition is, all too often, grounded on the same aesthetic used to select a new couch. Each patron silently acknowledging their disapproval of the other's poor taste with the very same smugness used to dismiss those individuals so aesthetically challanged as to mix stripes and plaids. Art that doesn't shock us or make us feel uncomfortable should, by default, produce an epiphany.
The "best" art is art that challenges, that provokes emotion and debate between people. Art that everybody likes is just wallpaper.
It is impossible for art to be provocative and meaningful without offending someone somewhere. The native art forms of Africans and Native Americans offended the Christian Europeans who took over those lands. Does that render their arts meaningless? What of the art created by slaves in pre-Civil War America? Are their contributions without benefit because they might have offended slave owners? What is acceptable today may not have been acceptable yesterday. Eliminating the right for the offending mediums to exist eliminates the right for people to view and decide what is meaningful. Give citizens credit and give them the choice to make for themselves. It may be the case that the "offending art" could be considered mainstream in the future or even a historical perspective of life in our times.
In a word, no. Nor CAN it always be acceptible to everyone. The real question underlying this debate is is, "Are sponsors of large-scale, public-sponsored works of a provocative, intentionially shocking or jarring nature, justified in placing such works in the public's space, or in filling its institutions with such works--at the puclic's own expense, and over its objections?" The answer to this is clearly, no. We must recognize that any artist's creative vision is inherrently personal. For an artist's work to be of greater value and appreciation to a larter, public "captive audience" (as opposed to private patrons who choose to buy his work), it must be much MORE RIGOROUSLY scrutinized in terms of what type of sensibility it is creating in the public environment, than if it were being displayed in a private collection. We also must not be duped--as humble philistines, by "respected experts"--into the notion that, shock=creativity, that disturbance and provocation are a part of "serious art", or that what we LIKE has nothing to do with what we should have. Our public environment and our public facilities belong to all of us. They are not the proper arena for appeasing the contemporary art establishment's ego, with radical, half-baked, concepts that are only talked about because they were designed for shock value. There is a thing called "decorum". Any private citizen has every right to subsidize whatever suits his taste. However, the public arena should not be the dumping ground for conceptual experiments that practically no one would embrace in their own private environment. Artists very much need to drop the conceipt, distainfullness and babyishness of "I know best", or "We know best--you dont count", when being considered for the honor of having their works grace the larger, public environment.
We live in a world of global expansion. Where new cultures are introduced to countries almost everyday. So the question should not be "must art in public spaces be acceptable to everyone", but rather can it be. What may be considered offensive to one group of people could very well be considered moving to another. I honestly do not think that art can every really mean the same thing to everyone. And why should it. Art should make people think. It should make them think about the good and the bad. Because thats how life is. One never experiences just joy. So therefore art should never simply represent the pleasent.
I do not think that it has to be acceptable to everyone, however, if the majority of people are offended by it I think that it should be taken out.
I think that that there sould be less vilonce on tv and in books
No art will ever be acceptable to everyone. Art is an expression of an idea, even a fealing. No two people will ever have the very same idea or feeling and this must be accepted. Some art will be appreciated by the masses and some art will only be appreciated by a select few who just happen to be thinking along the same lines as the artist. Art in a public place should be allowed to remain there as long as those who find themselves in this place are able to come and go as they choose. If one person finds something in a public place offensive he/she has every right to walk away. Attempting to remove a work of art is like trying to stop another person's conversation. How can anyone have the right to stop something they don't understand? Art is never made to harm anyone, and if it is found offensive then it is misunderstood.
Bill Meecham - 05:58pm Jan 20, 2000
Must art in public spaces be acceptable to everyone?
kenogodyahoo.com - 06:07pm Jan 20, 2000
My personal point of view on the arts
Brandi ;-) - 06:08pm Jan 20, 2000
Must Art in Public Spaces Be Acceptable to Everyone?
Dave Ames - 10:05am Jan 26, 2000
Acceptable to Everyone?
Pete Grey - 03:29pm Jan 26, 2000
Must art in public places be acceptable to everyone
sacrificalgoddessyahoo.com - 03:30pm Jan 26, 2000
Must art in public spaces be acceptable to everyone?
Ariana - 10:01pm Jan 26, 2000
The Madonna Painting
Tyler Mountain - 01:57pm Jan 27, 2000
must art in public places be acceptable to everyone?
Ana Mendonca - 12:14am Jan 28, 2000
Must art in public spaces be acceptable to everyone?
Edd - 11:16am Jan 28, 2000
Unacceptable art
azjudyann - 07:43pm Jan 28, 2000
Must art in public spaces be acceptable to everyone?
Robert Vandenbush - 12:34pm Jan 29, 2000
(No Title)
kerco - 10:50am Jan 30, 2000
should art be acceptable to everyone
amanda presley - 11:22am Jan 31, 2000
Must art in public spaces be acceptible to everyone?
Rick - 09:56pm Feb 2, 2000
must art in public spaces be acceptable to everyone?
Alan Lee Hopkins - 09:57pm Feb 2, 2000
should art in public shows be acceptable to everyone
Gordon shumway - 09:02am Feb 10, 2000
TV, BOOKS
DVD - 07:58pm Feb 10, 2000
Must art in public places be acceptable to everyone?
Eric - 10:56pm Feb 10, 2000