I read today that the photograph of a crucifix bathed in urine called ‘Piss Christ’ was vandalised in France,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13124769
This is after an ex-soldier was sentenced to 70 days in prison for burning a copy of the Koran in the centre of Carlisle,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-13119241
“When you start by burning books, you’ll end by burning people.”
Quote by Jewish Writer Heinrich Heine about the burning of the Koran during the Spanish Inquisition.
The arts are so limitless, they are an expression of our imagination. There is so much beauty in our world. I wonder how much of this is for art and how much of this is to create controversy to get noticed. I certainly can’t see it as “challenging people’s thoughts”.
Why would someone choose to clearly upset a large group of people in a piece of art or a public display like burning a religious book which is sacred to so many?
It is ok to burn a piece of cloth, but if that was a country’s flag, then that would offend a lot of people and create a lot of hate as to some people their flags are “sacred”.
But then what should and what shouldn’t be allowed?
Is it ok to burn and destroy things that have no positive value to society? By that I mean things that would lead people to become worse than they are, to cause more harm to themselves, other people and the environment. How do we decide what is ok and what is not ok. Someone’s decision will be influenced by their background, the amount of love they have in their lives and the amount of suffering they have gone through.
Is it ok to label a piece as “art” when it is actually about generating hate instead of inspiring awe?
I’m not a religious person and although the church has caused a lot of suffering it has also helped a lot of people, I’m still against the photograph ‘Piss Christ’. I can only imagine the author has had a lot of suffering in his life to want to cause so much anger.
There must be a sense of responsibility about all our actions, if an engineer builds a building that collapsed and caused injury to a lot people, then surely that engineering would be held accountable. Why isn’t an artist accountable for the harm that his creation causes in the same way? Because it is very clear to see the damage caused by a falling building. This is a very thin troublesome line, because we then get into the area of tv, films and video games and their effects on people that have gone on to cause harm.
Maybe I have double standards, but to me it is completely acceptable to have video games (even violent ones, to a limit) however I’m still completely against the art referred to above. Why?
I guess it boils down to this question to me:
Does someone’s own suffering or causing controversy/attracting fame justify the creation of hate material?