Going too far in general - Artistic vision vs offensive content

I find that rather patronising, actually. I know that not all art is immediately clear as to its purpose and motives, but regardless of that, there's plenty of "art" out there where the point of it is simply to shock and offend. There may be some spurious, pretentious reasoning tacked onto it to make it more attractive to pseudo-intellectuals, but certainly a decade or so back there were plenty artists who made an art-form out of just shocking with no rhyme or reason at all.

I don't have a problem with creating art purely to shock per se, though I do find it pretty silly. It's one thing if the art itself is executed beautifully. Look at Marilyn Manson, for example. Plenty of people won't even regard his work because they consider it so shocking, but nevertheless, he's a talented artist and his paintings (to my taste anyway) are beautiful. And his general motive IS to shock; it may make his audience think about why they're shocked and in doing so make a reason for it, but that is the main point. With him, I don't mind because the actual artwork, shocking or not, is beautiful and well-crafted.

 

I... suppose it's all personal. I mean everyone is offended by something else that another person may find completely unoffensive, but tinies... well... that's one thing I don't know if I can compromise on. If it looks like a small child and you put it in an inappropriate adult-like situation or make it look somewhat provocative I just think that's wrong for everyone and anyone. :/

 

That's why I meant "you" in a general sense. If the general policy would be to ignore, rather than to scream "censor this bull@^%#!!1!", then where's the fun to offend?
Unless, of course, the artist wasn't aware of his hurtful behaviour, in which case talking to him - like you said - would be the best approach.

 

I meant "general you" as well-- that artist doesn't give a crap if ANY one person/group is ignoring them, because there's always someone else who's watching. There is no "general policy" to ignore.... People have triggers, and other people will always press them, so there will always be reaction.

And how exactly do you know that the artist's declared motives are spurious? Do you actually ask, or seek an explanation? Or do you simply make the assumption that they're lying? Is the automatic assumption "Since I don't like it, this person cannot possibly have any motive besides shock, and therefore has nothing to say"?

And even if the artist's motive IS just shock value-- again I ask So What? Shock value is still value. The masses love their blood & circuses, and always will.

 

I am pleasantly surprised by the number of people in this thread expressing an open-minded attitude towards how we express ourselves with our dolls. Very heartening.

Personally, I stand with the majority on here (although I wonder if this is a minority when placed against the entire membership of DoA, as I have read some pretty mean-spirited comments about what has been posted and assumed it was the general culture in these parts). My comfort zone is pretty roomy and I enjoy looking at a variety of different ideas represented in doll form. Where it ends (at anything suggesting paedophilia, non-consensual sex or harm of children) I will probably choose not to look. If it looks as though the individual has produced the work for purely prurient purposes (and how do I know? All I can say is that, if you are going to tackle these subjects for any "serious" purpose, you had better be doing it bloody well) then I might well think less of them. Not that they are necessarily a bad person, probably just lacking in better judgement. But I wouldn't want their work to be censored. That is going down a path that a number of oppressive regimes have travelled before. Not where I would want this hobby to go.

 

It would be hypocritical of me to argue with this since this is how I see alot of "modern" art lol. I also feel that a good skill I learned in art school was how to assign meaning to things you initially had no intention of having meaning. However, if someone looks at something and sees *something* in it, even if nothing was intended, that's still totally okay. People have been doing this for a looooong time in the arts.

And even an artistwho puts no more thought into it other than to shock people is still going to, most of the time, purposefully or inadvertently make people think, even if it's just to reaffirm their feelings.

Marylin Manson actually had a good quote on his particular blend.

“I just try to make people think. I don't try to shock them or scare them. I just try and get them to question.”

 

Of course I don't think art has no meaning if I don't like it. That was a sentence with lots of double negatives so I'll rephrase it: whether I like the art in question or not does not stop me from finding meaning if there is any, or concluding there's none if I find its reasoning spurious. Lying has nothing to do with it. I tend to go out of my way to seek explanations for work I find shocking, and if those explanations are patently what we Brits call "a load of bollocks" then I tend to dismiss the work's artistic integrity. What makes the motives a load of bollocks is, of course, dependent on personal factors. What I think is a shedload of pretentious wittering, someone else may find an incredibly profound and insightful concept.

The masses and their love of "blood and circuses" can be debated too. Take Titus Andronicus, for example. Back in the day it was incredibly popular and people flocked to see it, drawn by the goriness and violence and general senselessness. Nowadays it's rarely, if ever, performed and some critics say it's so bad Shakespeare can't possibly have written it. Shock tactics do work, still, in certain ways, but do get less shocking and more simple bad taste as time goes in. When Marilyn Manson burned bibles onstage back in the 90s he caused a terrible fuss. He still does it now (at least he did when I saw him a couple of years ago) but it's hardly a big deal. Maybe it's different over the pond where people tend to care more about these things, but burning a bible is not particularly exciting. I know several people who have burned bibles, and was going to burn one myself for an art project (until I had a better idea). Burning Korans though, as that maniac proved last year, is still considered very taboo and shocking; but still, pretty pointless.

 

I think there is a difference between doing something controversial because it is necessary in order to present one's particular vision or message and deliberately running roughshod over people's deep held values, just for its own sake. That could be considered artistic vandalism. Personally (and speaking as a big Manson fan and an agnostic) I think some of Marilyn Manson's stunts are designed to provoke just for its own sake, or for whatever release it gives him. There are more effective ways to challenge dogma than burning books that many people consider to be sacred.

And if someone pulls something similar with their dolls, it isn't necessarily immoral, just ends up appearing rather spiteful. However, I can understand how deep-seated anger and resentment could motivate someone to do it. Again, I would just choose not to view it.

 

That was my point. Just because you find something pointless doesn't mean the artist didn't have any purpose besides provocation. This doesn't give the art automatic depth of meaning, of course. But it means you cannot assume anything about any artist's motives for creation just by looking at the end-product. (What is the old saying, about how one should never ass-u-me...)

Oh no no no. The desire for mindless shock-and-schlock has NOT faded at all from the mass id. Any charges of "pointlessness" does NOT stop the masses from loving provocation for its own sake. The passing of centuries has not dimmed this love by even 1 candlepower. If anything, it has increased; as the noise & constant stimuli of human existence increase, as the scar-tissue thickens, it takes ever-sharper thrills to get a frisson out of anyone.

To wit: the reality-TV genre. Teen Mom. Nuff said!

(Also worth noting that Titus Andronicus is actually being performed now more than ever. The Utah Shakespeare Festival has it planned for their 2012 lineup, and if it plays in Utah...)

That's a good point. A lot of times, I think such people try to shake us up just to see if it's still possible to make us feel anything. They do always seem to find new depths to plumb.

 

I personally agree with those who say that as an artist one cannot go to far.

Of course, there are always limits that society puts on art, and legally, yes, one can go too far. . . as in making art with your murder victims or whatnot. And there are always going to be things that are horrible and not right. But just making something doesn't make someone an artist anyway.

That said, as far as dolls go, I think that as long as no one is being actually harmed, there shouldn't be any limits at all to customizations or freakiness. Doesn't mean that everyone has to want to see it. . . but if its someone's artistic expression. . . that doesn't seem to be going too far.

Hope that wasn't too rambly and weird.

 

I don't think artists drawing children nude is taking it too far, depending on how they are posed. If they are posed in a sexual position then yes, I think it's way to far. If they are posed being raped or molested, way to far. But if it's just one of those old paintings with people holding a blanket and nothing is shown but the child's back/head then I think it'd be fine. Otherwise I don't think anything would be wrong but I believe things should have mature warnings and things telling people what they are going to be seeing.

 

There really are no lines to cross... Even if someone managed to make something that offended every person on the planet-which I... kind of doubt could happen-it still had a purpose. One cannot go "too far" in something meant to make people think and feel, regardless of the thoughts and feelings that result.

 

I think Ricky Gervais said it best; he said that no matter what you do, someone is going to be offended. For me, as long as it isn't illegal, people can do what they want with their dolls. Some people have super thick skins, and other people get upset at the drop of the hat.

Overall, I would say to at least try to be respectful in whatever you decide to pursue, but realize someone might still be offended.

 

^This.

In all of the discussions about offending people with this and that (nudity/sexual themes/graveyard photoshoots, etc. etc.), the one thing to remember is that what is "too far" or what crosses the line between porn and tasteful nudity is always different to the individual. You can't please everybody, so setting a standard of "how far is too far" is rather impossible.

 

As anyone with a DeviantArt account can tell you, one could upload a poorly photographed, clearly pornographic picture, slap an "art" label on it, and say that art is subjective, and has every right to be on DeviantArt as Da Vinci has to be in the Louvre.

And I can't argue with that. Art is subjective. Just as what we find offensive is subjective. Controversy and art often go hand in hand. When Nathanial Hawthorne wrote The Scarlet Letter, I'm sure a lot of people got quite offended. As mentioned above, Shakespeare wrote some fairly offensive plays, often criticizing the monarchy without doing so outright. I cannot speak for any paintings, having never taken an art history course, but nearly everyone knows of the "banned books" lists.

We are subjected to a lot of offensive material in everyday life - the quasi-recent scandal of the Catholic Church, the overuse of slang and profanity, the advertisements with sexual undertones, the violence in movies and video games, and even the comedy that pokes fun at and raises awareness of these things and many more.

As I have observed, art - paintings, writing, photography, and yes, pornography - is the artists' response to the world around them. I see nothing in art that is more offensive than what I see or have seen in life, and often I find the art less offensive than what I see and have seen. If a piece of art manages to offend me, I simply avoid looking at it and do my best to forget it.

Sadly, this does not work with the Twilight Saga.

 

The problem is that people have different lines when it comes to 'too far.' Whose definition does one go by exactly? What might seem no big deal to one person can trigger some pretty bad stuff for someone else. Ultimately, I feel like the artist needs to do what they feel they need to do. If they aren't physically harming people, then ultimately there is no reason why they can't create whatever they want no matter how shocking. We as viewers of course always have the right to not look. I really don't care what people create with their dolls -- if I don't like it, I will go find something that I do like to look at instead. It's good ettiquette to warn people of offensive material so they can make the decision not to click. If they have been warned and look anyway it's really their own fault that they got upset. Part of navigating the internet is having the maturity to deal with the stuff that's out there that you don't like.

 

I agree on most of this but I find 'Nazi-themed' dolls in very bad taste.
I understand that it might be a character or it might not reflect your intentions or personal thoughts, but if the wrong person saw one these dolls you could be in a world of trouble.
Although I agree that we as a society need to grow a thicker skin, there are still some lines that should remain uncrossed.

 

I commend you for sharing your opinion even though it's clearly not the popular one on this thread. I happen to know many people who feel exactly the same way that you do... and uncomfortable doesn't begin to cover how I feel about depictions of pedophilia, or rape.

I agree with you in as much as I do NOT think it's all subjective, and I have a problem with people just taking that "out" for good reasons. I do find that even if everyone were to believe that these horrific acts in life are inherently wrong, it doesn't mean that we as artists should shield ourselves from their existence in an attempt to only portray the "right" or "good" or "neutral" things in life.

For example, I had the experience of visiting a torture museum in southern Germany. Until faced with the images and the physical evidence of the cruelty that humans have committed that I encountered there in the context of reflection that a museum provides, physically touching it, being surrounded by it, I could not contemplate certain aspects of our humanity in the same way, or have the same understanding that I do now.

I also agree with everyone who insists on making sure you're giving people a warning (disclaimer), a CHOICE on what they want to experience, or what they are ready for. I've volunteered for years in a support group for survivors of sexual abuse, and the damage caused by images that could pop up in what is supposed to feel like a safe place (I don't just mean here, but on the internet in general or in random searches) can be devastating, triggering flashbacks, even alternative states of consciousness with extreme unintentional or unaware self-harm. I of course don't assume that this is what happens to most or even many people, but the potential to harm is there, whether anyone sees it as "physical" harm or not, it is very real.

 

I think "private" and "public" have a lot to do with this idea. Personally, I don't really care what you do in your free time, as long as no living thing is harmed. I also think that censorship, in a legal sense, is bad. However, there is a rule of common sense in every culture--what can you display or can't you display somewhere public without a backlash? You don't need to heavily research people, just know the rules of the place (in this case, the forums).

In the context of dolls--I may not AGREE with you if you do really unconventional things with your dolls. I may not want to befriend you, even, depending on how vastly different we are and what I consider is right or wrong. Past that, I don't care. I'm not personally offended by much as it is, and if I am offended by something, I remove myself from viewing it. (I tend to selfishly think that the world would be better if everyone acted that way :p)

 

I find it interesting that drug abusing dolls are not permitted but every other kind of abused/abuser/murder scene, etc. is perfectly fine.