Active Now

Randy D
Discussion » Questions » Entertainment » Does/should art and artists get a pass when it comes to propriety? See below. How far should "artistic license" go?
RosieG

Does/should art and artists get a pass when it comes to propriety? See below. How far should "artistic license" go?

A current production of Julius Caesar in New York has a Trump lookalike in a business suit portraying Caesar. You know the story. Et tu Brute? He gets knifed to death. So I dunno. Is that fair since it's "art" or is it a bridge too far? What do you think and why?

Posted - June 12, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 7280
    Well, I still believe in objective standards, but when one accuses another of impropriety, it is usually just an opinion and not to be confused with a statement of fact.

    And you know how widely distributed opinions are---everyone has at least one, (two if they've had a colostomy).
      June 12, 2017 1:41 PM MDT
    1

  • Excusing barbarity is barbaric in itself. Assassinations are brutal and not civilized or legal. You say you believe in objective standards and then deny it by your next assertions.
      June 19, 2017 7:56 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    You jump too fa and too quickly and land in the middle of an invalid assumption.  Definition of standard:  something considered by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
      June 19, 2017 9:46 AM MDT
    0

  • If assassination is approved, that needs badly to change. Whoever approves of it doess not change he fact that it is barbaric. ISIS practices decapitation and bombing. Their approval is barbaric. Sois approval of assassinating anyone alive
    in a play.
      June 19, 2017 10:00 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Thank you for your reply tom. Apologies but I don't think you answered the question I asked  or if you did it is too subtle for me to grasp.  Is it a bridge too far? That's my question.
      June 20, 2017 3:53 AM MDT
    0

  • There are reasonable limits for anything and everything. There is also controversy about what is art. Staging an assassination of a president is exceeding civilized limits by far. Kathy Griffin was fired as she deserved for doing a decapitation of Trump routine. Advocating the assassination of anyone is barbaric and should be illegal. I do not call such barbarity Art.
      June 19, 2017 7:53 AM MDT
    2

  • 7280
    "Advocating the assassination of anyone is barbaric and should be illegal."----during the campaign didn't Trump suggest the second amendment people might have a cure for the Hillary problem?
      June 19, 2017 9:53 AM MDT
    0

  • I never heard such a thing, but if it occurred, I do not approve. Your view is that it is fine to do it against Republicans but horrible to do it to Democrats. One barbarity does not excuse another. Excusing barbarity is barbaric as well. This post was edited by my2cents at September 10, 2017 4:10 PM MDT
      June 19, 2017 10:04 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Thank you for your reply SZ. I'm torn on this issue this frankly. I don't think it's right to advocate violence against anyone, specific or non-specific. On the other hand don't we give artists some slack as we do genius?  Don't we allow a genius more wiggle room to be odd/absurd/difficult/eccentric than we do average folks? Years ago in a philosophy class we discussed this topic..."should genius be given special treatment?" As I recall it was a draw. Some of us thought a genius would be more able to cope fairly and logically within the limits of propriety/acceptability while others thought that a genius is not like thee and me and so to restrict it to the same standards as normal people would not be fair. I think there is no simple answer. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I thought what Kathy Griffin did was not art at all. It was disgusting commentary. I'm not an artist so I can't go inside their heads to figure out intent. :) This post was edited by RosieG at June 20, 2017 4:01 AM MDT
      June 20, 2017 4:00 AM MDT
    0

  • 604
    I had a friend who was a retired art teacher, and he said something that's stayed with me......'art is created to make us think, to anger us, please us, and so on.....that's  the purpose of art, art of any kind". !!!!!!
      January 31, 2018 8:09 AM MST
    0

  • 6098
    Do you get a "pass" when it comes to exercising propriety on this site?   Well artists don't need one either. Seems like they are just trying to make their "art" more popular and understandable to people and nothing wrong with that.  We have those freedoms whether in art or just expressing ourselves.  Which may have more to do with freedom than "license" - but of course freedom is not the same thing as license which some people forget. 
      January 31, 2018 9:14 AM MST
    0