Art to be classified like films? What affect on photography??

[Kym]

http://www.news.com.au/national/coming-soon-rated-art/story-e6frfkvr-1226082565315


THE visual arts industry is appalled by a proposal to apply a classification scheme to artworks exhibited in galleries across the nation.

A Senate committee review of the national classification scheme has recommended controversial artwork, such as Bill Henson's divisive images of children, be subject to the same classifications as movies, TV and video games.

Debate raged yesterday about the recommended measure, which the art industry fears may lead to unnecessary censorship.

Paul Greenaway, who runs Greenaway Art Gallery in Adelaide, labelled the senate committee recommendation "an appalling suggestion".

"There is a line obviously that public institutions have to tread because they have a very general audience," he said. "(But) You're seeing it within context, you're looking at it in a fine art context."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/coming-soon-rated-art/story-e6frfkvr-1226082565315#ixzz1QRTvYgVw

The 200-page report, released late last week by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, says the defence of "artistic merit" is not enough to allow some controversial works of art to be exhibited, particularly when it comes to those that depict children.

Chairman Tasmanian senator Guy Barnett said the current classification system was "broken" and "flawed" and the recommendation was striving for uniformity across all media platforms. "Visual arts should not be exempt from our criminal laws and our anti-pornography laws," he said.

"Bureaucracy out of control"

The industry, however, says self-censorship is enough, with many galleries posting warning signs when explicit or possibly confrontational works are on display.

Art Gallery of SA director Nick Mitzevich said a "one size fits all" approach to classification might be damaging to the industry. "Most of the visual arts industry censors itself and understands the moral compass of the industry," he said. "I think there's little evidence to support such a draconian approach - a one size fits all. It seems it's bureaucracy out of control."

The usual warning:
This is another emotive topic, so stay on topic and do not get personal - bans will be issued if you transgress as you have been warned

I would hate to have to submit my photography for classification if it were entered into a public competition or displayed in a gallery or anart show,
but at the same time there are photos (and art) that are clearly age inappropriate.

[Scotty72]

More nanny state stuff.

We are too accepting of government telling us what to think and what they think we should do / feel / like.

This is the same in education where educational authorities are pandering to those who want no child exposed to anything that may make them (or their parents) uncomfortable.

I will no longer teach Romeo & Juliet (one of the literary classics) because I am sick of the growing pressure (and even profession threats) to not discuss the themes of teen sex and young male violence (the two main themes in the play).

So, we will end up with (or perhaps now have) a generation of kids who are never challenged or made uncomfortable and therefore - never learn a perspective in anyway different to their own or how to deal with the reality of life after school.

Scotty

[Scotty72]

And, I know this has been said before... but,

What if the world had been 'protected' from that shocking image of the starving African child being stalked by the vulture or the Viet-Cong being summarily excuted by a bullet to the brain, or the girl with melting skin after she'd been napalmed?

Perhaps we would still be pretending that there was never a problem.


(oh! I forgot: we are...)
With modern journos being 'embedded' with military, they only permit us to see the nice images - so we pretend that places like Iraq are ok and demand we turn back the boats.

Scotty

[soulman]

I can't say I think it's a great idea, but those contentious Henson images from 2008 did actually get classified - and they received a PG rating. If the censorship is sensible, and it seems like it usually is in Australia, then I can't see it being a huge problem most of the time. Some artists get seriously out to lunch with shocking people at times - Serrano's Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ) offended a lot of Christians, but pushing the boundaries is one of the functions of art and the censors appear to know what's what.

Scotty, I seriously doubt that the images you mention, which I agree are very important, would be censored.

[WhoDo]

More nanny state stuff.

We are too accepting of government telling us what to think and what they think we should do / feel / like.

Interesting that you should use the tobacco lobby's catch cry in this context, Scotty. You may be surprised to learn that I actually agree with you on this point.

My problem with the Henson images was NOT how the children involved were portrayed; I thought they were lovely images. My problem was that we shouldn't be usurping the rights of children when we can have no way of knowing the impact of our decisions on their lives decades later. Art isn't more important than the welfare of the individual IMHO.

We can agree to disagree on that issue, if you like, BUT on this one we don't have to disagree at all. If we can agree that government has too much to say in what we do with our lives then it's not a huge leap to say that censorship and carbon tax are actually related issues! They both deal with overriding the rights of the individual for the common good.

For me the problem comes when governments don't indicate, before they are elected, that they will later adopt this or that stance (whether it be on censorship or taxation). By not seeking a clear mandate they have effectively usurped our rights as individual voters to elect our representatives on the basis of our own views on such issues. We wouldn't even be considering a carbon tax were it not for the importance of Green's support for the Labor government, and the Greens in no way represent the majority opinion on this or any other issue! Most labor members wouldn't support a carbon tax simply on the basis of their constituent's wishes any more than they supported Work Choices (what oxymoron that was).

Personally, I think it's high time that question of individual rights vs. the common good was taken out of the hands of politicians, because they are all only too willing to sell their votes to cling to power. Maybe we need not only a Censorship Board (as we now have) but also a Taxation Board to question and prove government claims that certain taxes are justified on the basis of the common good! Let's allow the public to make direct submissions to such boards regarding what they do or do not want to be allowed to see or be taxed to support!:D

[Scotty72]

Wow! That is taking one issue and hijacking it for another issue (Bill Henson ==> Carbon Tax.... That is the Segway of the decade :lol:).

For the record, I don't have a problem with the tobacco wrapper restrictions. I do support any individual adult who wants to be an idiot and their right to smoke. However, I do not support the right of tobacco companies to advertise their products to impressionable kids.

The two are seperate issues. Tobacco companies have spent millions on psychologists etc to devise strategies to appeal to kids. Kids can't be expected to resist this massive psychological assault. Of course the tobacco companies are targeting kids - they aren't targeting the adults because they are dying.

Anyway, enough of this irrelevancy :cool:.

We are talking about art, not for profit business.

Talking tax... again, we are not talking about people's money or their desperation to hold on to it.

We are talking about people's need to have their minds opened up by confronting art.

Piss Christ, yes, it was probably offensive to some Christians but that is OK. Religion needs to be challenged. Sometimes religion is offense to others. I know a small time artist who depicts Jesus as a gay man... This is his way of challenging the offensive stance the Catholic Church takes against gays.

As for protecting children.... from what? Their bodies? Those Henson shots weren't sexualised! Maybe we need to protect children from the attitude that bodies are a thing to be ashamed of.

I hope you don't support the notion that Romeo & Juliet is inappropriate because it discusses the issue of teenagers and the pressures of sexual awakening.


I can hear the chants now!
"Ban Shakespeare for a better world"

[smallfooties]

kinda like changing 'bah bah black sheep' to 'bah bah rainbow sheep'.... hmm... it's been done here in perth already... i went to a primary school one day and saw the crayon drawn sheep with rainbow confetti stuck to it's body... hmmm....

[Scotty72]

kinda like changing 'bah bah black sheep' to 'bah bah rainbow sheep'.... hmm... it's been done here in perth already... i went to a primary school one day and saw the crayon drawn sheep with rainbow confetti stuck to it's body... hmmm....

????????

[colinbm]

Scotty wrote
""As for protecting children.... from what? Their bodies? Those Henson shots weren't sexualised! Maybe we need to protect children from the attitude that bodies are a thing to be ashamed of."" :th3:
Col

[ricktas]

I don't have an issue with Art being classified. It seems to me that those that vehemently do not want it, are assuming that artists are 'better' people than anyone else, and have some divine right to not have the rules that are applied to others, applied to them. For me it smacks of arrogance.

What are we afraid of, if Art was classified?

As for everyone using the "rights" to define their reasoning, this is Australia, we do not have a Bill of Rights. And just cause you have the ability to do something does not mean it is your 'right' to be allowed to do it. People who use their RIGHT to do something to justify being allowed to do it, need to step back and consider the implications and reasoning for doing it, rather than just jumping off the bridge, cause they can.

There seems to be some sort of fear that classifying Art will change it. I suggest that this is not so, rather it will define Art more. Some Art is porn, some porn is Art.

[kiwi]

where would you put the "PG" sticker on a photo ?

would an "R" sticker be like a figleaf ?

[Fantasyphoto]

????????

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/racist-baa-baa-black-sheep-put-out-to-pasture/story-e6frfku0-1226012652386

[WhoDo]

Wow! That is taking one issue and hijacking it for another issue (Bill Henson ==> Carbon Tax.... That is the Segway of the decade :lol:).
:D Glad you got a kick out of it, Scotty! I just thought there was a great deal of incongruity in arguing FOR restrictions on one front (a tax) and AGAINST them on another (censoring art) even though both proclaim they are for the "common good". :confused013


We are talking about art, not for profit business.
And that distinction is important because ...? At a fundamental level both issues address freedom and the desire to restrict that freedom for the "common good". That's all.


We are talking about people's need to have their minds opened up by confronting art.
There is a great deal of difference between what is "confronting" - causing people to think about the issues addressed - and what is "offensive". The latter is more to do with attention-seeking sensationalism than any altruistic desire to open people's minds for whatever reason, and forces rather than causes attention to be focused on an issue, usually with negative consequences.

In my view it is a bit like the "comedian" who feels that foul language is essential to their humour. I find their humour sadly lacking if it relies on foul language for its effect! The same can be said for "art" that seeks to be offensive in order to justify its classification as "art". It simply isn't.


As for protecting children.... from what? Their bodies? Those Henson shots weren't sexualised! Maybe we need to protect children from the attitude that bodies are a thing to be ashamed of.
No, not from their bodies. Those are indeed truly beautiful in all of their shapes and sizes. Children do need protecting but in my view the protection is from any adult, parent or otherwise, making decisions the child may later regret them making on their behalf. Adults in general, and parents in particular, have a responsibility to safeguard the future of their children against regrettable decisions. Ask any of the indigenous Australians of the stolen generation whether they feel any better that the adults who took them from their families believed they were doing so for their own good!

Decisions affecting us are very, very dangerous when made by us and for ourselves. They are potentially explosive when made by us for someone else, regardless of the underlying intention. After all, isn't that the point of the discussion on censorship too; people making decisions for other less mature people but with the best of intentions? For the record I think decisions that restrict, like censorship, are far less dangerous than those that abrogate choice by "opening up minds" that aren't yet equipped by experience to receive the input.


I hope you don't support the notion that Romeo & Juliet is inappropriate because it discusses the issue of teenagers and the pressures of sexual awakening.
No I don't think Romeo & Juliet is "inappropriate" but I do think your imputed reason for that is off the mark. Shakespeare's work may well address those issues in the context of today's society and its pressures, but I seriously doubt those issues were central to its themes when it was written!

It was a different age, and the distinction of their age was not so much an issue then. In those times 20 may well have been considered middle aged! People often died before they were 40. In THAT context the fact these lovers were also teenagers was probably less relevant than their emotional awakening.

There is no need to sensationalise Romeo & Juliet in order to make it attractive to today's youth. What young people today still cannot relate to young lovers (in the purest sense) being torn apart by family and failing to recognise better alternatives for their future in the face of that? Why not focus on the issues that divided the two families? Why not focus on the alternatives that may have meant they were both able to avoid the tragedy of an early death by suicide and lost love? I guess sex still sells, eh, even in the classics?:confused013

[Bennymiata]

I had a cat named Sambo, and a dog named Blackie when I was a kid, and I certainly didn't think about any racists slurs that their names could imcur, and I doubt very much if any kid would find an Enid Blighton book having homosexual overtones either, but there are so many do-gooders out there now trying their best to think up ways of slurring the things we all grew up with and loved.

Like Shakepeare.

My wife came from a very artistic family, where her father collected lots of paintings when he was alive.
We have inherited some of them, and some of them are of nude ladies.
We have 2 of these nudes hanging over our bed, and we've had all sorts of funny comments about them including comments that we should be ashamed of having nude paintings above our beds and in our family room.
Now these pictures are by a famous artist who does his artwork in just a few lines, so any one of these ladies is depicted in less than a dozen sweeps of his brush, and how these could ever be construed as being offensive, I'll never know. There certainly isn't any detail in them, unless you call a curved line representing the breast of a lady offensive.
But it goes to shwo that there are some people who try to find offense in everything they see and hear, and I feel so sorry for them as they wil never have a happy life.

As far as changing nursery rhymes, that's just plain ridiculous!

Mary had a little lamb
It's feet were black as soot,
And everywhere that Mary went
His sooty foot he put!

Now try changing black to rainbow in this one!

[Duane Pipe]

Hi all, I'm not that good at discussions like this and so forth But how about the pore old Golliwog..
I was listening to the ABC radio station during Oprah Winfreys visit, (whoopee bloody doo) and they had
a talk back on the Golliwog and whether it is offensive and should it be displayed in her presence
(A snippet from Google
A MELBOURNE doll shop has withdrawn a golliwog from its display to avoid offending the Oprah Winfrey road show.)
And how about Catch a nigger by the toe.
I cant take a camera to my sons school concerts, Why! is it to protect the children, No, I think it is another way to raise funds for the
school, (you can purchase there videos) well that's not so bad I suppose.
I think society is _ _ _ _ _ _ and going way too far with the sensitivity shit.
There are that many images of children on the internet why would a sicko bother going to a school concert to satisfy his/her SICKNESS,
After all the lighting in them halls makes it to difficult to get a good shot anyhow
I hate discussing politics, We vote these terds in the hope that they come through with their promises and they all end up full of shit

[peterb666]

where would you put the "PG" sticker on a photo ?

would an "R" sticker be like a figleaf ?

Now that is an interesting concept.

Hmm, interesting topic.

I am against any form of censorship but there are times when inappropriate material should be restricted, especially when younger children are not in the company of adults.

While I like Bill Henson's work, in my opinion he does at times seem to deliberately create controversy to fuel his own fame/infamy.

If common sense was common, there would be no need for anything like this. I am certainly not convinced that such a scheme is necessary as I think we have done quite well over the years without it.

[Scotty72]

I don't have an issue with Art being classified. It seems to me that those that vehemently do not want it, are assuming that artists are 'better' people than anyone else, and have some divine right to not have the rules that are applied to others, applied to them. For me it smacks of arrogance.

What are we afraid of, if Art was classified?

As for everyone using the "rights" to define their reasoning, this is Australia, we do not have a Bill of Rights. And just cause you have the ability to do something does not mean it is your 'right' to be allowed to do it. People who use their RIGHT to do something to justify being allowed to do it, need to step back and consider the implications and reasoning for doing it, rather than just jumping off the bridge, cause they can.

There seems to be some sort of fear that classifying Art will change it. I suggest that this is not so, rather it will define Art more. Some Art is porn, some porn is Art.

It is not arrogance.

Perhaps I should be clear:

if something is created as a for profit enterprise (eg. commercial cinema) then, classify away.

But, if it is an artwork for education, public comment etc then, no. Especially if it is by an individual artist (as opposed to a corporation)

I know it may be difficult to know which is which but, not really... there is already a provision for EXEMPT FROM CLASSIFICATION.


Anyway Rick, you were the first to bring up rights. Rights work both ways. Many nanny staters claim they have the right to not be offended. By saying you don't want your child exposed to certain works of art and literature, parents are claiming the 'right' to keep their children ignorant of society.

Of course classifying art will change it. An artist may want to do a painting depicting the horror of the massacres of Aboriginals. He may wish to make a social statement that helps encourage debate in schools etc. If he thinks his painting risks getting an M or R (where it can't be shown in schools), he may tone it down... The art and the message is watered down. The whitewashing of history continues - the telling of history is suppressed.

It is already happening now Rick... Some kids don't learn of the Nazi horrors because schools are too wary of offending some sensibilities.

A travesty if you ask me...

[Scotty72]

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/racist-baa-baa-black-sheep-put-out-to-pasture/story-e6frfku0-1226012652386

See - hundreds of years of culture - changed by some over sensitive censor...

So, dumb!

[Speedway]

Just another nail in the coffin of democracy in the governments (all partys) push to dictatorship.
Keith.

[Mark L]

From Kyms thread starter;"THE visual arts industry is appalled by a proposal to apply a classification scheme to artworks exhibited in galleries across the nation." (orange emphasis mine)
And part of his comment; "I would hate to have to submit my photography for classification if it were entered into a public competition or displayed in a gallery or anart show,........."
Most post's don't seem to address the topic, I think.
If the proposal was to classify all artwork everywhere, like posting a photograph on AP, then I'd be up in arms. However things to be displayed publicly, possibly need classification. Having said that, I don't believe banning is a classification. Warning and restricted access is as far as I'd like it to go.

[Scotty72]

:D Glad you got a kick out of it, Scotty! I just thought there was a great deal of incongruity in arguing FOR restrictions on one front (a tax) and AGAINST them on another (censoring art) even though both proclaim they are for the "common good". :confused013


So, if I agree in the principle of free speech... are you telling me it is incongruous to believe it wrong to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre? Or, just like the other, are they totally different?



And that distinction is important because ...? At a fundamental level both issues address freedom and the desire to restrict that freedom for the "common good". That's all.


The distinction should be self-evident to all but bean counters and 'greed is good' types?



There is a great deal of difference between what is "confronting" - causing people to think about the issues addressed - and what is "offensive". The latter is more to do with attention-seeking sensationalism than any altruistic desire to open people's minds for whatever reason, and forces rather than causes attention to be focused on an issue, usually with negative consequences.


And who decides what is offensive? Many Catholics found two gay men hugging on a billboard 'offensive'. Calling something offensive is usually code for, 'I personally don't like it.'




In my view it is a bit like the "comedian" who feels that foul language is essential to their humour. I find their humour sadly lacking if it relies on foul language for its effect! The same can be said for "art" that seeks to be offensive in order to justify its classification as "art". It simply isn't.


So don't buy un-funny comedy. But, don't try to restrict others - who gives you the right. Besides, this is moot. Most of this would be in licensed (18+) venues anyway.



No, not from their bodies. Those are indeed truly beautiful in all of their shapes and sizes. Children do need protecting but in my view the protection is from any adult, parent or otherwise, making decisions the child may later regret them making on their behalf. Adults in general, and parents in particular, have a responsibility to safeguard the future of their children against regrettable decisions. Ask any of the indigenous Australians of the stolen generation whether they feel any better that the adults who took them from their families believed they were doing so for their own good!


So, the parent who sends their kid to a school where they get bullied, raises them a religion they come to regret, encourage their kids to play a sport where they get injured. Do they need protecting from their parents? Should we hand over all parental duties to the government?



Decisions affecting us are very, very dangerous when made by us and for ourselves. They are potentially explosive when made by us for someone else, regardless of the underlying intention. After all, isn't that the point of the discussion on censorship too; people making decisions for other less mature people but with the best of intentions? For the record I think decisions that restrict, like censorship, are far less dangerous than those that abrogate choice by "opening up minds" that aren't yet equipped by experience to receive the input.


We ask 15 year olds to make life changing decisions - choose their senior subjects that will begin to determine their careers. MY GOD! They are not equipped for this most important decision. We should let the govt decide each student's subjects from now on, in case they make the wrong decision.



No I don't think Romeo & Juliet is "inappropriate" but I do think your imputed reason for that is off the mark. Shakespeare's work may well address those issues in the context of today's society and its pressures, but I seriously doubt those issues were central to its themes when it was written!

Duh! of course they were. Read up on the context of that play. Elizabethan England etc. Do you thin that Shakespeare's enduring (for centuries) themes were just a random fluke? wow!




It was a different age, and the distinction of their age was not so much an issue then. In those times 20 may well have been considered middle aged! People often died before they were 40. In THAT context the fact these lovers were also teenagers was probably less relevant than their emotional awakening.


Of course Shakespeare was commenting on the society he lived in; their attitudes to marriage, treatment of women etc. Otherwise, you seem to believe he was just writing a random.



There is no need to sensationalise Romeo & Juliet in order to make it attractive to today's youth. What young people today still cannot relate to young lovers (in the purest sense) being torn apart by family and failing to recognise better alternatives for their future in the face of that? Why not focus on the issues that divided the two families? Why not focus on the alternatives that may have meant they were both able to avoid the tragedy of an early death by suicide and lost love? I guess sex still sells, eh, even in the classics?:confused013

Have you read the play? Have you read all the constant sexual imagery that starts on page one and continues to the very end? Your comment is rather like asking to teach about Hitler without mentioning the war... Crazy!

[Scotty72]

From Kyms thread starter;"THE visual arts industry is appalled by a proposal to apply a classification scheme to artworks exhibited in galleries across the nation." (orange emphasis mine)
And part of his comment; "I would hate to have to submit my photography for classification if it were entered into a public competition or displayed in a gallery or anart show,........."
Most post's don't seem to address the topic, I think.
If the proposal was to classify all artwork everywhere, like posting a photograph on AP, then I'd be up in arms. However things to be displayed publicly, possibly need classification. Having said that, I don't believe banning is a classification. Warning and restricted access is as far as I'd like it to go.

Classification is step one down the path of banning

artists will be affected by the ratings

AP is viewable by the public - of course it would be included.

[ricktas]

Classification is step one down the path of banning...


HUH. Books, TV shows, movies and more have been rated for years, and most are not banned, even XXX movies are allowed (for adult audiences).

The items that are banned are generally done so cause they are offensive in the extreme. I think to state it is a step down the path of banning is just trying to incite a more emotive response than is really necessary. Nothing like making an inflammatory statement (that has zero proof or evidence to support it) to try and garner support for a particular view, rather than look at the facts and discuss them in an open and up-front way.

[Scotty72]

HUH. Books, TV shows, movies and more have been rated for years, and most are not banned, even XXX movies are allowed (for adult audiences).

The items that are banned are generally done so cause they are offensive in the extreme. I think to state it is a step down the path of banning is just trying to incite a more emotive response than is really necessary. Nothing like making an inflammatory statement (that has zero proof or evidence to support it) to try and garner support for a particular view, rather than look at the facts and discuss them in an open and up-front way.

No... books are not classified.

Movies, TV shows etc are.

(I support this)

Generally, books are written by individuals or small groups; movies and TV shows by corporations... which is my point and obviously until now the government has had similar views.

[WhoDo]

So, if I agree in the principle of free speech... are you telling me it is incongruous to believe it wrong to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre? Or, just like the other, are they totally different?
So are you telling me it is congruous to contend that, against my wishes, I must pay to clean up the planet when there is no irrefutable proof I am/we are making it dirty and then in the next breath demanding that there be no restriction on so-called "artists" confronting my grandchildren in public with images that are offensive by current community standards? Seriously???


And who decides what is offensive? Many Catholics found two gay men hugging on a billboard 'offensive'. Calling something offensive is usually code for, 'I personally don't like it.'
And if the majority "personally don't like it" that's called a societal norm! If you don't like it, either find a society that agrees with you OR find legitimate ways to educate the society in which you live about the distinction. Waving placards and shouting slogans is not convincing in this day and age. Having a megaphone, free time and a few noisy cronies doesn't make one the voice of the "silent majority". I'd suggest you investigate Social Constructivism as a reasonable approach to education in an intelligent, self-determining society.


So don't buy un-funny comedy. But, don't try to restrict others - who gives you the right. Besides, this is moot. Most of this would be in licensed (18+) venues anyway.
I know you are intelligent enough to have understood the analogy so it would seem disingenuous to fault the analogy rather than address the point IMHO. I wasn't suggesting restricting others from listening to poor comedy. I was defending the view that a society's children need to be weaned onto potentially offensive imagery at an age when they can view it with reason and experience.


So, the parent who sends their kid to a school where they get bullied, raises them a religion they come to regret, encourage their kids to play a sport where they get injured. Do they need protecting from their parents? Should we hand over all parental duties to the government?
Oh, please. I just got through pointing out that I didn't trust the government on the issue of taxes. Why would I advocate handing over parental rights to them as well? This is an obfuscation pure and simple.


We ask 15 year olds to make life changing decisions - choose their senior subjects that will begin to determine their careers. MY GOD! They are not equipped for this most important decision. We should let the govt decide each student's subjects from now on, in case they make the wrong decision.
No, we start them on the road to making their own choices. We also provide them with ample opportunity to reconsider those choices along the way AND offer plenty of advice to help them make informed decisions. Another red herring, Scotty.


Duh! of course they were. Read up on the context of that play. Elizabethan England etc. Do you thin that Shakespeare's enduring (for centuries) themes were just a random fluke? wow!

Of course Shakespeare was commenting on the society he lived in; their attitudes to marriage, treatment of women etc. Otherwise, you seem to believe he was just writing a random.


Have you read the play? Have you read all the constant sexual imagery that starts on page one and continues to the very end? Your comment is rather like asking to teach about Hitler without mentioning the war... Crazy!
So you are saying that you know so much about Shakespeare, and his intent when writing, that there is no possibility your interpretation is wrong? The question I would ask is, if that were the case, why are your peers also evidently in disagreement with your interpretation:

...I am sick of the growing pressure (and even profession threats) to not discuss the themes of teen sex and young male violence (the two main themes in the play).

I think it's sick to assume that because teenage "love" (sexual congress isn't specified in Romeo & Juliet to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge) and "young male violence" (although there is debate over what constituted "young" in Elizabethan England) are a part of the story they are suddenly "the two main themes of the play"!{my emphasis}. There is so much more to Romeo and Juliet than these two controversial issues in my view. Overplaying their centrality is sensationalist, much the same as using inflammatory examples as "evidence" without any proof of a logical connection. Hitler was bad so NOT teaching about him, his policies AND the war he started would be wrong; ergo my argument must also be wrong? You can do better than using logical fallacies in defence of your viewpoint, Scotty.

[WhoDo]

Generally, books are written by individuals or small groups; movies and TV shows by corporations... which is my point and obviously until now the government has had similar views.
:eek: Books are published by corporations for profit! Your argument is seriously flawed! And FWIW IMHO there is never anything "obvious" (sic) about a government's views on anything!

[Scotty72]

So are you telling me it is congruous to contend that, against my wishes, I must pay to clean up the planet when there is no irrefutable proof I am/we are making it dirty and then in the next breath demanding that there be no restriction on so-called "artists" confronting my grandchildren in public with images that are offensive by current community standards? Seriously???


Why do you insist of comparing apples to ball bearings? The one having nothing to do with the other.



And if the majority "personally don't like it" that's called a societal norm! If you don't like it, either find a society that agrees with you OR find legitimate ways to educate the society in which you live about the distinction. Waving placards and shouting slogans is not convincing in this day and age. Having a megaphone, free time and a few noisy cronies doesn't make one the voice of the "silent majority". I'd suggest you investigate Social Constructivism as a reasonable approach to education in an intelligent, self-determining society.


Practise what you preach... The norm now is art is not censored... you are supporting the call for censorship... you don't like it... you find another society :p

Who is waving placards? What are you on about? :beer_mug:



I know you are intelligent enough to have understood the analogy so it would seem disingenuous to fault the analogy rather than address the point IMHO. I wasn't suggesting restricting others from listening to poor comedy. I was defending the view that a society's children need to be weaned onto potentially offensive imagery at an age when they can view it with reason and experience.


Good, then I hope that they will restrict religion - I find proselytising to children about imagery deity in the sky offensive... may we censor censor that? I find the violence portrayed on TV sports offensive... R-rated? Good stuff



Oh, please. I just got through pointing out that I didn't trust the government on the issue of taxes. Why would I advocate handing over parental rights to them as well? This is an obfuscation pure and simple.


But, you said you were worried about parents making decisions that may be wrong?



No, we start them on the road to making their own choices. We also provide them with ample opportunity to reconsider those choices along the way AND offer plenty of advice to help them make informed decisions. Another red herring, Scotty.


So, then there will be no need to 'protect' them from their own choices? Because they will be so well advised. So, you just defeated your own argument.:cool:



So you are saying that you know so much about Shakespeare, and his intent when writing, that there is no possibility your interpretation is wrong? The question I would ask is, if that were the case, why are your peers also evidently in disagreement with your interpretation:


Oh, I've only spent 20 years studying and teaching Shakespeare... what would I know?

Some of my peers think that Shakespeare never existed... A bit like the faked moon landings.



I think it's sick to assume that because there is teenage "love" (sexual congress isn't specified in Romeo & Juliet to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge), "young male violence" (although there is debate over what constituted "young" in Elizabethan England) are a part of the story they are suddenly "the two main themes of the play"!{my emphasis}. There is so much more to Romeo and Juliet than these two controversial issues in my view. Overplaying their centrality is sensationalist, much the same as using inflammatory examples as "evidence" without any proof of a logical connection. Hitler was bad so NOT teaching about him, his policies AND the war he started would be wrong; ergo my argument must also be wrong? You can do better than using logical fallacies in defence of your viewpoint, Scotty.

Oh, well, a theme that starts in Act 1 scene 1 and is developed on almost every page (as sexuality and (to a slightly lessor extent) teen violence are) seems like it might be a central theme. Or, maybe it's just me.

Scotty

[Scotty72]

:eek: Books are published by corporations for profit! Your argument is seriously flawed! And FWIW IMHO there is never anything "obvious" (sic) about a government's views on anything!

Sorry to point out the bleedingly obvious...

The publishers are NOT the artists...

[WhoDo]

Sorry to point out the bleedingly obvious...

The publishers are NOT the artists...

And movie makers are NOT the screen writers! Sheesh! Talk about blinkered! :confused013

[WhoDo]

Oh, I've only spent 20 years studying and teaching Shakespeare... what would I know?

Some of my peers think that Shakespeare never existed... A bit like the faked moon landings.
Which only goes to demonstrate that because you know a lot about a subject doesn't imply you know everything! I refuse to draw that inference; sorry.



Oh, well, a theme that starts in Act 1 scene 1 and is developed on almost every page (as sexuality and (to a slightly lessor extent) teen violence are) seems like it might be a central theme. Or, maybe it's just me.
When did teenage love and angst become "sexuality" for you, Scotty? The answer might make interesting reading in a journal of modern psychology! Some people can find all sorts of things in words that the author never intended. For example, religious fundamentalists and gnostics. I know you can accept THAT analogy! They are just WORDS and you cannot impute a meaning in them that the author INTENDED without the author or someone who knew the author intimately attesting to the truth of the interpretation. Maybe Shakespeare needs to be read in the original Elizabethan English the way the New Testament of the Bible should be read from the original Greek and Aramaic?

[Scotty72]

Let me say it clear. Romeo and Juliet is a story about Romeo trying to get his rocks off. There is constant sexual imagery (not romantic lovie-dovie imagery).

Or perhaps you think

'Nor will she ope her lap for saint-seducing gold.'

Is a very romantic thing to say?

Perhaps when Gregory says he will, '... Thrust Montague's maids to the wall.' he really means this in a romantic way...

When he goes on to talk about cutting off the women's 'maidenheads', you think that is about love.

When Benvolio asks Romeo, if [a girl] has sworn to live chaste? Romeo replies, 'She hath, and in that sparing makes huge waste.' obviously Romeo is thinking about reading romantic poetry.

Or, after Romeo realizes he can't get into Rosaline's pants, he chases Juliet. How could that be mistaken for a sexual connotation, right? After all, you're the expert.

Or, on their first meeting, Romeo asks Juliet (when she says bye), 'Will thou leave me unsatisfied?' When she replies 'What satisfaction can thou have tonight?' She must be thinking Romeo wants a game of chess, right?


So, WhoDo, you are obviously so well versed in Shakespeare; so expert in his use of language, I will bow to your superior knowledge.

I will now leave you to give your expert opinion to chickens on how to lay eggs.

Scotty

[Scotty72]

Maybe Shakespeare needs to be read in the original Elizabethan English the way the New Testament of the Bible should be read from the original Greek and Aramaic?

I'm starting to think you haven't even read it.

What on earth are you on about. It is always read in Elizabeth English. Unless you are reading the Disney version where the sex is toned down.

[Fantasyphoto]

Bill Shakespeare AKA Frank Bacon was one of my favourite writers but I much prefer the story of Julius Caesar (Big Julie)

http://notsogentlereader.blogspot.com/2011/03/not-so-gentle-viewer-rinse-blood-off-my.html

[Scotty72]

Bill Shakespeare AKA Frank Bacon was one of my favourite writers but I much prefer the story of Julius Caesar (Big Julie)

http://notsogentlereader.blogspot.com/2011/03/not-so-gentle-viewer-rinse-blood-off-my.html

... And Fantasyphoto is an honourable man. :th3:

[ApolloLXII]

If the proposal was to classify all artwork everywhere, like posting a photograph on AP, then I'd be up in arms. However things to be displayed publicly, possibly need classification. Having said that, I don't believe banning is a classification. Warning and restricted access is as far as I'd like it to go.

I agree as there will always be someone out there who will find something offensive about any controversial artwork. There is a fine line between a "challenging" piece of art and an offensive one. There are also artworks that deliberately set out to shock and gain some attention. As far as photography goes, I certainly wouldn't mind having any of my pictures labelled or classified or whatever. I just don't see the label " I think this is pretty ok but you might think it's crap" becoming very fashionable somehow. ;)

[WhoDo]

Let me say it clear. Romeo and Juliet is a story about Romeo trying to get his rocks off. There is constant sexual imagery (not romantic lovie-dovie imagery).
Gee, I wish I'd have known that when I was studying it at school! I might have paid more attention! Or not.


Or perhaps you think

'Nor will she ope her lap for saint-seducing gold.'

Is a very romantic thing to say?

Perhaps when Gregory says he will, '... Thrust Montague's maids to the wall.' he really means this in a romantic way...

When he goes on to talk about cutting off the women's 'maidenheads', you think that is about love.

When Benvolio asks Romeo, if [a girl] has sworn to live chaste? Romeo replies, 'She hath, and in that sparing makes huge waste.' obviously Romeo is thinking about reading romantic poetry.
If this wasn't so sad it would be funny. These lines are taken out of context and, despite the clear connotations in the way you have displayed them, I'd rather read them IN their original context before making a judgement. Just so I can get it clear in my head, who spoke each of the lines you have quoted? And to whom did they speak them? In what context? We all know that lads are more inclined to be lads around other lads, aren't they?


Or, after Romeo realizes he can't get into Rosaline's pants, he chases Juliet. How could that be mistaken for a sexual connotation, right? After all, you're the expert.
Ok, that's not a reasonable statement to make. Nowhere have I claimed to be an expert on the subject. All I have said is that apparently even other experts, including some of your peers, have by your own admission disagreed with your interpretation of the MAIN THEMES. Of course there will be references to sexuality in any such relationship, but that doesn't make it one of the MAIN THEMES.


Or, on their first meeting, Romeo asks Juliet (when she says bye), 'Will thou leave me unsatisfied?' When she replies 'What satisfaction can thou have tonight?' She must be thinking Romeo wants a game of chess, right?
Maybe. Or maybe he just wants a kiss, a kind word, some hope that he will be well received when next he calls, whatever! Why does it have to be that he is asking for a quickie before he goes? :confused013



So, WhoDo, you are obviously so well versed in Shakespeare; so expert in his use of language, I will bow to your superior knowledge.

I will now leave you to give your expert opinion to chickens on how to lay eggs.
Not nice, Scotty.


I'm starting to think you haven't even read it.

What on earth are you on about. It is always read in Elizabeth English. Unless you are reading the Disney version where the sex is toned down.

Really? Just because there are lots of doeth's and sayeth's in there? I don't think so. There are many words in Elizabethan English that do not translate well, and even you must accept that most copies available are TRANSLATIONS of the original plays.

Clearly you are emotionally invested in the issue, especially since you no longer teach the subject because people have "pressured" you on the subject of your interpretation. Therefore, for the sake of peace I will withdraw from the discussion. Cheers.

[ricktas]

some of the comments in this thread are bordering on personal attacks on other members for their views. I will be issuing bans if this continues. This is the one and only warning


So, WhoDo, you are obviously so well versed in Shakespeare; so expert in his use of language, I will bow to your superior knowledge.

I will now leave you to give your expert opinion to chickens on how to lay eggs.

The baiting in this is beyond what should be expected of members here, and borders on breaching the site rules

[Scotty72]

Gee, I wish I'd have known that when I was studying it at school! I might have paid more attention! Or not.


If this wasn't so sad it would be funny. These lines are taken out of context and, despite the clear connotations in the way you have displayed them, I'd rather read them IN their original context before making a judgement. Just so I can get it clear in my head, who spoke each of the lines you have quoted? And to whom did they speak them? In what context? We all know that lads are more inclined to be lads around other lads, aren't they?


Ok, that's not a reasonable statement to make. Nowhere have I claimed to be an expert on the subject. All I have said is that apparently even other experts, including some of your peers, have by your own admission disagreed with your interpretation of the MAIN THEMES. Of course there will be references to sexuality in any such relationship, but that doesn't make it one of the MAIN THEMES.


Maybe. Or maybe he just wants a kiss, a kind word, some hope that he will be well received when next he calls, whatever! Why does it have to be that he is asking for a quickie before he goes? :confused013



Not nice, Scotty.



Really? Just because there are lots of doeth's and sayeth's in there? I don't think so. There are many words in Elizabethan English that do not translate well, and even you must accept that most copies available are TRANSLATIONS of the original plays.

Clearly you are emotionally invested in the issue, especially since you no longer teach the subject because people have "pressured" you on the subject of your interpretation. Therefore, for the sake of peace I will withdraw from the discussion. Cheers.

You don't seem to want to recognize my point.

My point was that because of many wowsers in the community who choose to see these themes (and only these themes) and pressure schools to not study the text.

Of course, I love the play and recognize it has far more and greater themes than the sordid. But, the fact is, whether or not you choose to recognize the fact, there are these themes - and because of that - some parents want it banned !

It relates to the original topic because classification will give even more wowsers even more traction in their quest to ban great literature. We should not censor art as it is thin thin edge of a dangerous wedge.

Anyway, if you will not recognize any possibility of truth if my words... I give up. Perhaps we should only teach little golden books.

Scott

PS. Other works under that parents have complained about as inappropriate for school kids.

Julius Caesar (violent)
Othello (too sexual)
The Catcher in the Rye (Language)
Away (too sexual)
Harry Potter (film) (I have no idea why)

and unbelievably

Pleasantville (film)

[WhoDo]

My point was that because of many wowsers in the community who choose to see these themes (and only these themes) and pressure schools to not study the text.

Of course, I love the play and recognize it has far more and greater themes than the sordid. But, the fact is, whether or not you choose to recognize the fact, there are these themes - and because of that - some parents want it banned !

It relates to the original topic because classification will give even more wowsers even more traction in their quest to ban great literature. We should not censor art as it is thin thin edge of a dangerous wedge.
Ah, now this is a point of view I can accept and recognise as reasonable, even if I disagree with its conclusion in regard to banning. Thank you for explaining, Scotty. :th3:

[Art Vandelay]

Interesting Shakespeare lesson going on in here. :p

I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's just a proposed classification system :rolleyes:

Scotty, at what age would you take a class of school kids to view an exhibition of images by this chap ?

* NWS ! * (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=mapplethorpe&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=895&prmd=ivnsu&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=PPkMTrrqJIiImQWHxK3LDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQ_AUoAQ)

[Scotty72]

Interesting Shakespeare lesson going on in here. :p

I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's just a proposed classification system :rolleyes:

Scotty, at what age would you take a class of school kids to view an exhibition of images by this chap ?

* NWS ! * (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=mapplethorpe&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=895&prmd=ivnsu&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=PPkMTrrqJIiImQWHxK3LDg&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBcQ_AUoAQ)

I would not but, I'm not an art teacher. :cool:

But, around my school, there are egs of HSC students artwork (paintings) throught the past decade or so that show stylised nudity etc. It has a context.

It would be a shame for some classifcation system to come in and deem these inappropriate for display.

Many depict the pressures that teenagers face in their journey through adolesnces which are of course appropriate for teenagers to view.

Scotty

[Art Vandelay]

So if you wouldn't take school kids to view that, haven't you in effect applied a similar classification system that you're arguing against ?

[Scotty72]

So if you wouldn't take school kids to view that, haven't you in effect applied a similar classification system that you're arguing against ?

No, I meant I would not take kids to an art exhibition because I'm not an art teacher. In the same way I hope my doctor wouldn't do my taxes.

However, I would take them to see a production of Romeo & Juliet put on by (for eg) Bell - who often don't hold back on the adult themes. Just how old, that is a judgement call for parents / teachers... but that is who should decide - not 'Nanny State' :p

[Kym]

Part of the problem is what is ok for a Year 12 - 17yo is not for a year 8 - 13yo.
The MA15+ is partly helpful in this scenario.

[Art Vandelay]

Well go back to the original question then, if not you, then how old would you think is reasonable for an art teacher colleague of yours to take kids to one of those exhibitions ?

[Scotty72]

Well go back to the original question then, if not you, then how old would you think is reasonable for an art teacher colleague of yours to take kids to one of those exhibitions ?

I don't know enough about the context, the syllabus etc to feel I should be able to make that decision. However, a bureacrat making an arbitrary decision; not allowing parents / teachers to make the judgement is wrong.

And, once you label something MA then, a lot of parents will then NOT think about the issues and simply allow govt to think fo them.

[Art Vandelay]

You keep dodging the question,, it's like you have a hankering to be a politician.. I'll simplify it a bit. how about taking a class of 9 year olds ?

[Scotty72]

I'm not dodging the question. I've given a plain answer.

I might retort that you seem like the political interviewer who keeps asking the same question until you get an answer you like. :)

If it were appropriate (as determined by parents / teachers) then, why not? But, I am not a primary school teacher so, I am not best placed to determine. As a parent of a 10 year old, I have taken her to the occasional M rated movie (eg Harry Potter) : the point is, I went first - then decided if she was mature enough and, I sat beside her. I did not simply say, 'the gubberment says it is good / bad' so I can out-source my parental duty to someone else to decide what is good / bad for my child.'

Classification by government will take away the responsibility / discretion. It works both ways, sometimes, an unthinking parent will see a PG rating then, get horrified when the F-bomb is dropped.

We should examine these works ourselves before we take children - not rely on arbitrary, faceless bureaucrats.

Scotty

[Art Vandelay]

We should examine these works ourselves before we take children - not rely on arbitrary, faceless bureaucrats.

Scotty

In an ideal world, yes. But it's not practical in the real world. For all the nanny state arguments, there are plenty of positives.

Suppose I had a note come home from school about an upcoming excursion to a photography exhibition for my 9 year old, I tick the box give consent. - For practical reasons, I can't go and view it beforehand

Is it better I rely on a classification system that has given the exhibition a "general" type catergory,

Or do I rely on the whim of a young idealistic arts teacher who is against any form of classification system and has deemed something like those mapplethorpe images as appropriate for 9 year olds ?

What's more dangerous ?

[Kym]

Closed. This is going nowhere fast.