Should there be a limit to what an artist can say or do? Why?

>>10013680

Art has always been for the rich and overly educated, today's art is no different.

File: 1504467086473.png (84KB, 253x239px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 253x239px

>>10013680
Let these sopa de macaco third worlders do whatever they like. Not like they're civilised or anything.

>>10013680
No, because.

>>10013680
yes. artist shouldn't have anymore rights than anybody else. as for what right anybody should have, there are many different opinions, but in my opinion, anything that directly harms someone or something (animals, nature, possessions of others) else without justification should be forbidden, everything that doesn't (drug and weapon possession, free speech e.g. radical political and historical theories etc.) shouldn't be.

>>10013741
Southern Brazil (the exhibition happened in Porto Alegre) is mostly white.

File: IMG_6938.jpg (252KB, 746x960px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 746x960px

No.

No, artists should not have any limitations put on them for any reason.

People should also be similarly free to react to art honestly, including outrage.

What the fuck kind of nanny state regulates art? I mean holy shit.

File: Dresie-and-Casie-twins-Western-Transvaal-1993.jpg (46KB, 534x534px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 534x534px

>>10013762
Whites can be third worlders too.

>>10013797
>artists should not have any limitations put on them for any reason.
are you okay with artists calling for a race war? or death on all christians/jews/muslims/etc?
should artists be allowed to use somebody's image in an offensive manner? racist art should be allowed?

>>10013804
not that anon but i'm ok with anything up to the point of inciting violence.

>>10013804
Yeah I'm totally ok with all of that, actually.

>>10013779
I'll never understand why people want homosexual marriage in australia when a civil union is exactly the same thing

>>10013804
Inciting violence or discriminating a specific group is generally where people feel it is crossing a line, because humans are non-rational actors there is a certain "danger" if you'd allow this, as you would have sects or groups of people specifically supporting artworks merely because they are representing their ideology. In a way it detracts from the art.

>>10013713
I MUST PAY FOR BOOKS !!!!!!!!!

>ban art that hurts my feelings and beliefs
So much for the tolerant left

>>10013680
You argue for social control of art in a time in which radical right-wing, neo-nazi, racist, fascist, traditionalist or otherwise politically incorrect art is exterminated from the artistic mainstream in hopes of controlling socially acceptable liberal lgbtq art. If anything you are the one who should call for the liberation of the arts and the human right to freedom of speech and press.

>>10013857

fox and the grapes

>>10013874
>So much for the tolerant left
It was a rightwing group that bitched endlessly about the exhibition

File: 1452981786450.jpg (61KB, 312x560px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 312x560px

>>10013878
>nazis crying for human rights
Hahaha

>>10013874
it was mostly christian conservatives that boycotted the exhibition
having said that, the brazilian left has outright censored or called for censorship of several pieces of media

>>10013909
I'm not a nazi, just saying that in times of repression of nazi beliefs nazis should fight for their human right to free speech not out of sympathy for nazi beliefs but because it is their human right and because these rights can only be upheld if they are fought for by the oppressed.

>>10013857
because they are retarded and think marriage is so romantic and needed for a long lasting relationship

>>10013802
This is just the bogdanoff's first attempt at transforming their cosmic existed into human bodies

>>10013881
t. Didn't understand the story

>>10013857
I don't think most people know that, I live in the UK and I only learned a week ago through my own research that a marriage and civil partnership here give roughly the same benefits

File: 1505115451704.png (58KB, 636x674px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 636x674px

>>10013935
>human right

Yes. But the state should not invest in controversial art, neither should investiments on it be tax deductible.

File: coyote-b8.png (57KB, 267x342px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 267x342px

I'm getting second hand embarrassment from the fact that some anons fall for such an obvious b8

>>10013857
>>10014074
I'd say it's more about the stigma at this point. Even if the benefits are the same, calling a straight couple "married" and a gay couple "civil partners" has the effect of making the latter seem less legitimate. It also makes them more vulnerable to having their rights changed or taken from them, as any new government could change the benefits of civil partnerships while leaving marriages intact. By defining gay couples as married, it makes it more complicated to change the laws in ways that discriminate against homosexuals specifically.

>>10013680
no
because fuck it

>>10013680
>say
no
>do
of course
>why
because why would someone get to kill someone else and get away with it by calling it "art"

>>10013839
same

No, however i never understood why faggots felt the need to homosexualize religious imagery.

Legally speaking? No, gives government too much power over speech.

The solution to gay marriage is and always was simple; dissolve the archaic practice of marriage and make only civil unions legally binding for both homo and hetro couples.

Such a waste of male homosexuality. Imagine that - never having to deal with women; absolute serenity. There's a reason many of the most significant creatives of history have been gay males.

>>10014751
>many of the most significant creatives of history have been gay males
a hell of an assertion pal, surely u can prove this?

>>10014732
because its le subvertive xD

>>10013804
>putting limits to a image depiction made by an artist
fuck off motherfucker piece of shit, go back to Medieval age

>>10013857
marriage today in Anglo countries has zero meaning, people obsess too much over words and think they have power today just because they did yesterday.
gay marriage is utterly meaningless and marriage in general is just a property agreement now, love has little if anything to do with it, and marriage without love is no marriage.
so let gays marry, its an utterly trivial non-issue pushed by liberals so they can bask i the illusion of change while thing in reality remain static.
real love and real "marriage" can still be had, people just need to stop giving authority to the liberal state's version of that word.