The Rants of Issachar

Ezra Levant of the Western Standard announced today that the Standard would be publishing the now infamous Mohammed cartoons. I've already been discussing this on Mike Todd's site so I'm not going to repeat myself. Check out Mike Todd's Waving or Drowning if you're interested.

Posted by:  Carla

Weren't you mad about "Piss Christ"????

Posted by:  issachar

I don't remember how I felt when I first heard about Piss Christ. (I was 13 years old when it was first exhibited).

Would I be angry if something similar was exhibited now? Probably not. It depends what you mean by angry. Annoyed? Most likely. Calling for blood? Absolutely not. Angry enough to demand that the "art" be destroyed? No.

I would prefer people didn't make such "art", but still believe that they should be allowed to make it without fear of violence. The pitfalls of excluding offensive art from free speech are too dangerous.

Posted by:  Katinka

Issachar, do you believe that there should be any constraints on the exhibition of art work?

Posted by:  issachar

Katinka...

There should be very, very few. And "good taste" or "feelings" should not be grounds for constraining artistic expression. We should be very careful when constraining artistic liberty.

Here's some examples of artistic expression that I think could be legitimately constrained.

* "Art" that consists of photographs taken from a hidden camera stashed in a public bathroom or something like that.

* "Art" that violates someone else's copyright. (Copyright does allow for artistic criticism).

* "Art" that calls for violence against individuals or groups when there is a credible danger that violence will result.

* Pornographic "art" that includes children.

The first category I would constrain because it's violating someone else's reasonable expectation of privacy. The second I would constrain because it's a form of stealing. The third I would constrain because calling for others to commit violence akin to committing violence. The fourth I would constrain because human societies universally recognize a societal responsibility to protect children.


I should say that I don't consider it "constraining artistic expression" if a gallery opts not to exhibit an art piece. This applies to public galleries as well. The right to speak does not include a right to force people to listen. If you want to create a piece of art so offensive that everyone refuses to exhibit it, you can show it in your own gallery.

I have mixed feelings on this subject. I don't like a lot of art that gets displayed and I'd rather it wasn't made. But I can't devise any way for society to filter out the "bad" art and keep only the useful and good.

Posted by:  Katinka

I concur with the constraints you have outlined...all sensible, logical and legally sound reasons to not exhibit certain items of "Art". However, at some level this could be defended as a constraint on freedom of speech/ communication.

Posted by:  issachar

That's because they are constraints on freedom of speech. All rights are constrained by other rights. But no matter what anyone thinks no one has the right "not be offended".

Posted by:  Katinka

that's very true....