A Singular Creation Art Community
promoting and showcasing all types of art and photography

Socio-political commentary

If you want to discuss anything art related this is the place to be.

Moderator: Moderators

Social Impact

Postby Mike51 » Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:40 am

Forgive me for jumping into the middle of this interesting discussion, but I have been trying to identify the "significance" of the art that I see in these times. I believe there are plenty of artists out there making those social commentaries. ie..banksy. The problem, as I see it, lies in the fact that most of the visual arts that we are interested in is overshadowed by TV and other mass media in this 21 century. In its self, that isn't anything new, and has been gradually pushing the fine art in to museums or dusty attics. Except for sites like this, that fit into this new world. A lot of people in this world have no appreciation for any thing other that what Britney Spears is doing. A majority of them haven't even read a book.
I have sold many paintings as furniture, which is ok by me, But I also have some favorite pieces in that dusty attic or my studio, because it disturbs somebody in the house. I do enjoy the reactions when someone sees those pieces, it beats "oh thats nice".
Film is probably the most powerful media for reaching the masses, and even that requires the audience cooperation. In a gallery setting you only have a matter of seconds or maybe minutes to make a statement. With film you have a few hours.
When I see an artist that is true to himself/herself and not concerned with the commercial benefit, I usually see real sucess. When I read about art history and the artist that recorded that history in thier lifes work, I get a sense of who that person was. That is one aspect that really hasn't been effected. But thats my take. Thanks
User avatar
Mike51
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:50 pm
Location: Springfield, Mo
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby BAReam » Wed Aug 13, 2008 9:36 am

Mike... thank you for your comments. I like your spin on Britney Spears/ not reading books/ media competition. Crushed for time right now so will have to respond later this evening.

Be well; catch ya later...Bruce
User avatar
BAReam
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Iowa--USA

Postby DLKeur » Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:48 am

Hmm. pehiatt, you really got nailed, didn't you. I'm sorry that you didn't have a good lawyer and influential friends "in low places" to help.

I'm a advocate of "in your face." I don't give a rat's *** about PC or keeping things "tame." But the plain fact is that, it pays the socio-eco infrastructure to ensure that "tame and PC" is beautiful so Ms. Sally Suburban and Mr. Joe SportsBoor can feel safe and cozy so they'll spend their dollars on consuming where they are told to, vote for whom their programmed to by TeeWee, and not question WTF is happening in our country and the world.

I don't think that it was as bad as you suggest through the eighties and nineties. In fact, we made some excellent gains in civil rights, equality, a woman's control over her body, and the environment...when compared to the fifites and sixties. Yes, we had our own version of McCarthyism. Yes, I was there at the '68 convention and several of my friends were shot and killed. I was a kid, but I was "shell-shocked." I didn't believe this could be happening in "my America." Kent State was beyond all comprehension. Then things started to change. And it got better. Then we had the Nixon years, though we did finally get OUT OF VIETNAM, a war over resources, though that's a little known fact. And ugly Reagan. But, finally, despite how much I despise "a polititian's polititian, Clinton got us headed toward actual ecological conscience and our economy was doing very well. We were "in the black" and getting into "green." Finally.

Then came Bush. And we plummeted back to the fifties -- lost most of our gains...and are still losing them. And 911? I always look at "who gains most." Bush was the one who stood to gain most from 9/11, and, you know what? The gullible American dummies bought it hook, line, and sTinker. Why? Because the alternative is to horrible to contemplate -- that a US President would launch an assault on his own people in order to empower himself...but he did.

And liberals? Yeah. That's been dirty word, but I don't give a rat's ***, like I said. Except I'm not really a "liberal," because I don't believe in welfare for little bitches who spread their legs just to get more "dole," and I've got a neice who milked that system to the hilt, mind you! I'm pro-death penalty. I'm anti-gun control. So am I a liberal? Well, I'm a tree hugger (and proud of it); I'm pro-choice; I pro-free speech, I'm a Constitutionalist in the traditional sense of the word, extending the proposition as far as it can be stretched; I'm pro Bill of Rights to the penultimate unlimited interpretation; I'm for freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion; god doesn't belong on our money, in our courts, or in our government...so on and so forth. So what am I?

Me.

But on to the question that started this thread: Why don't we talk about controversial subjects here? I'm not sure. I think it's because no one wants to sully this place with crap. We like Joe and the home he's built us, and we don't want controversy muddying up our relationships with each other...because, quite frankly, most people DO NOT defend the right of someone to express an opinion contrary to theirs. Instead, they avoid them, or worse, deride them, and respect turns to contempt, and, ultimately, hate.

Sorry for the long post.
User avatar
DLKeur
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:16 pm

Postby BAReam » Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:23 pm

DLKeur wrote:Hmm. pehiatt, you really got nailed, didn't you. I'm sorry that you didn't have a good lawyer and influential friends "in low places" to help.

Me.

But on to the question that started this thread: Why don't we talk about controversial subjects here? I'm not sure. I think it's because no one wants to sully this place with crap. We like Joe and the home he's built us, and we don't want controversy muddying up our relationships with each other...because, quite frankly, most people DO NOT defend the right of someone to express an opinion contrary to theirs. Instead, they avoid them, or worse, deride them, and respect turns to contempt, and, ultimately, hate.

Sorry for the long post.


DLK... thank your for your long post. I've read it three times trying to find something to deride over... but alas, I couldn't :o

I could not agree more with what you've eloquently stated. I do have a question however. Is it not possible to discuss controversial subjects without it turning the discussion into a pissing match; as I absolutely defend free speech.

As someone succinctly stated; Your right to swing your fists ends at my nose. I don't, and won't, defend unwarranted personal attacks. There is a BIG difference between free speech and abuse.

side bar: I revived a few threads so I could clarify what you consider my "signature" style.

Hope you are feeling better... be well my ornery friend :)
Bruce
User avatar
BAReam
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Iowa--USA

Postby DLKeur » Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:43 am

Yes, INTELLIGENT, THINKING people who aren't afraid of different viewpoints AND who understand "debate" and the "public forum" concept -- the classical university education, now obsolete, I believe. Those who swallow dogma, however, have been taught to fear conflicting opinions and debate, to fear alternate perspectives that don't suit the "puppetmasters" -- read World Bank, International Trade, and the old Military Industrial System Eisenhower warned about in one of his last speeches as U. S. President. These folks are so inured by the system into the system that, no, they cannot abide someone who doesn't tow one or another socio-political perspective as spoon-fed to them. Free-thinkers -- the real meaning of that phrase, not the connotative definition now popular -- are feared, and all but extinct, IMO, mostly thanks to the social programming achieved through television. For the few and far between, yes, we can and do debate, mostly in private circles, but we are a waning minority.

As to your defining me as "ornery," thanks. That's high compliment! :D
User avatar
DLKeur
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:16 pm

Postby Menolly » Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:50 am

DLKeur: It's really a shame that people think that way, too. Some of the most interesting things I've learned have nothing to do with facts or reality, but everything to do with the different ways that people interpret them. I've tried having simple debates in an open-discussion classroom (at a community college, no less) and it was nearly impossible because no matter how politely or apologetically I couched a counterpoint, it was always interpreted as me saying they were wrong or stupid. Talk about frustrating! It's no wonder people are so obsessed with inane things like Britney Spears, sex, and dumba** comedy; they're the only "safe" things to talk about!

To Everyone: If you want a truly enlightening and challenging experience, try this game: start a conversation with someone over an issue on which you are completely opposed, i.e you are pro-choice and they are fervently pro-life. If you can get through the conversation without them disliking you, and without lying, you win. (Failing to get a word in edgewise counts as a draw.) The prize: You actually get to learn why the other side believes what they do, and you might even learn why they think YOU'RE the crazy one. The answer might not be as fundamentally wrong as public opinion would have you believe. This little game is an art in itself!
Menolly
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 3:32 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

I play the game all the time.

Postby pehiatt » Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:54 pm

Menolly I play the game all the time and the object is not only to share ideas but have fun as well. The best medicine is learning to laugh at even the most outragious ideas.

Most all of my friends are ultra right wing conservatives. Bush has helped me win many over to more center if not liberal thinking.

The thing is that I know my audience and they know me or at least are getting to know me. This is quite different than opening up to a fully public forum. There is little real debate only flames and conflict.

DLKeur - What I was harassed over back in the sixties was really tame by todays standards. I learned a lot over the years. A compromise was struck over the banned poster ( A hippy parody on Christmas "Joy to the World). Book stores could continue to sell it as long as it was not displayed in the window or viewable from the street. I sold 10,000 in less than two months. Saved my business for another year.
User avatar
pehiatt
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Frederick Maryland
Gallery: View Gallery

Re: Social Impact

Postby BAReam » Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:36 am

Mike51 wrote:Forgive me for jumping into the middle of this interesting discussion, but I have been trying to identify the "significance" of the art that I see in these times. I believe there are plenty of artists out there making those social commentaries. ie..banksy. The problem, as I see it, lies in the fact that most of the visual arts that we are interested in is overshadowed by TV and other mass media in this 21 century. In its self, that isn't anything new, and has been gradually pushing the fine art in to museums or dusty attics. Except for sites like this, that fit into this new world. A lot of people in this world have no appreciation for any thing other that what Britney Spears is doing. A majority of them haven't even read a book.
I have sold many paintings as furniture, which is ok by me, But I also have some favorite pieces in that dusty attic or my studio, because it disturbs somebody in the house. I do enjoy the reactions when someone sees those pieces, it beats "oh thats nice".
Film is probably the most powerful media for reaching the masses, and even that requires the audience cooperation. In a gallery setting you only have a matter of seconds or maybe minutes to make a statement. With film you have a few hours.
When I see an artist that is true to himself/herself and not concerned with the commercial benefit, I usually see real sucess. When I read about art history and the artist that recorded that history in thier lifes work, I get a sense of who that person was. That is one aspect that really hasn't been effected. But thats my take. Thanks


Mike.. couldn't agree with you more. I'm beginning to wonder if US, indeed the world, suffers from something akin to attention deficit disorder. We shouldn't be surprised I guess when we are constantly confronted with 5 minute sound bytes and endless inane pop-up advertisements.

As for pop culture in general; I think I would like to resign, if only I could.

Be well...
uce
User avatar
BAReam
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Iowa--USA

Re: Social Impact

Postby DLKeur » Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:04 am

BAReam wrote:
Mike51 wrote:Forgive me for jumping into the middle of this interesting discussion, but I have been trying to identify the "significance" of the art that I see in these times. I believe there are plenty of artists out there making those social commentaries. ie..banksy. The problem, as I see it, lies in the fact that most of the visual arts that we are interested in is overshadowed by TV and other mass media in this 21 century. In its self, that isn't anything new, and has been gradually pushing the fine art in to museums or dusty attics. Except for sites like this, that fit into this new world. A lot of people in this world have no appreciation for any thing other that what Britney Spears is doing. A majority of them haven't even read a book.
I have sold many paintings as furniture, which is ok by me, But I also have some favorite pieces in that dusty attic or my studio, because it disturbs somebody in the house. I do enjoy the reactions when someone sees those pieces, it beats "oh thats nice".
Film is probably the most powerful media for reaching the masses, and even that requires the audience cooperation. In a gallery setting you only have a matter of seconds or maybe minutes to make a statement. With film you have a few hours.
When I see an artist that is true to himself/herself and not concerned with the commercial benefit, I usually see real sucess. When I read about art history and the artist that recorded that history in thier lifes work, I get a sense of who that person was. That is one aspect that really hasn't been effected. But thats my take. Thanks


Mike.. couldn't agree with you more. I'm beginning to wonder if US, indeed the world, suffers from something akin to attention deficit disorder. We shouldn't be surprised I guess when we are constantly confronted with 5 minute sound bytes and endless inane pop-up advertisements.

As for pop culture in general; I think I would like to resign, if only I could.

Be well...
uce


That's why, decades ago, I got rid of the tv...permanently. Haven't owned on since the early nineties, and didn't watch much -- maybe Nightline occasionally -- after the late seventies, early eighties. :D
User avatar
DLKeur
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:16 pm

Re: Social Impact

Postby BAReam » Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:34 am

DLKeur wrote:
BAReam wrote:
Mike51 wrote:Forgive me for jumping into the middle of this interesting discussion, but I have been trying to identify the "significance" of the art that I see in these times. I believe there are plenty of artists out there making those social commentaries. ie..banksy. The problem, as I see it, lies in the fact that most of the visual arts that we are interested in is overshadowed by TV and other mass media in this 21 century. In its self, that isn't anything new, and has been gradually pushing the fine art in to museums or dusty attics. Except for sites like this, that fit into this new world. A lot of people in this world have no appreciation for any thing other that what Britney Spears is doing. A majority of them haven't even read a book.
I have sold many paintings as furniture, which is ok by me, But I also have some favorite pieces in that dusty attic or my studio, because it disturbs somebody in the house. I do enjoy the reactions when someone sees those pieces, it beats "oh thats nice".
Film is probably the most powerful media for reaching the masses, and even that requires the audience cooperation. In a gallery setting you only have a matter of seconds or maybe minutes to make a statement. With film you have a few hours.
When I see an artist that is true to himself/herself and not concerned with the commercial benefit, I usually see real sucess. When I read about art history and the artist that recorded that history in thier lifes work, I get a sense of who that person was. That is one aspect that really hasn't been effected. But thats my take. Thanks


Mike.. couldn't agree with you more. I'm beginning to wonder if US, indeed the world, suffers from something akin to attention deficit disorder. We shouldn't be surprised I guess when we are constantly confronted with 5 minute sound bytes and endless inane pop-up advertisements.

As for pop culture in general; I think I would like to resign, if only I could.

Be well...
uce


That's why, decades ago, I got rid of the tv...permanently. Haven't owned on since the early nineties, and didn't watch much -- maybe Nightline occasionally -- after the late seventies, early eighties. :D


Good for you Dawn. I too have declined TV for long periods of time and perhaps need the self discipline to do that again. I'm SURE I'd be more productive... maybe even less depressed in general.

Be well... Bruce
User avatar
BAReam
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Iowa--USA

Postby william » Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:04 pm

Wow!!!!! This was good, and I was in the forum of "What is good art?" I really missed out on some good stuff here. You mean we're allowed to state an open and honest opinion of the world? Damn I've been in a cave... I thought there were men in black suits hiding in the shadows to make sure we didn't really see and tell. It seems to me that the average human bean wants pretty little pictures to hang on the wall and we have to show the polictics and social issues through a pretty picture.... I don't even know where to start..... all the shite in the world and we can have an oppinion on it? I'm going to have to start all over again because I know alot of people who like to go through life in their little delerious state taking prosac, vicadin, ritalin and the drug of the day to be happy. And I think there's some pretty big fish to fry these days.. Of course TV gets to have all the fun because it's so ready there to watch..... how many time do people watch tv then 7 days go by.....they take a camera and zip zip a picture that talks to you and tells you what to think...... Maybe our predesser's got to have all the fun when there were no movies to watch and the only entertainment was to go out, listen to music, read and look at art.

I really enjoyed reading the posts, this is why I'm happy to be here....Hope I didn't offend, I just got really excited once I got the chance to sit down and catch up. I had a word explosion. Hope it made sense, If you get to know me, sometimes I talk too much....in this case, type.

Be Good.
william
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:05 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby BAReam » Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:17 pm

I can't help myself e.g. ... post appocolyptic media, or rather it's effects. Case in point.

1991... IHCC Existential Philosophy class... . About 4 weeks into the term our class {20 students} were supposed to be discussing Herman Hesse' Steppenwolfe. Our instructor {we'll call him DG} asked for comments on the weeks assignment. The usual suspects {myself and two other students} attempted to respond, and were pointedly instructed to wait for comments from the remainder of the class. After about 5 minutes of utterly painful silence DG closed his books, gathered his notes and cerimoniously placed them in his
iefcase. He sat back at his desk and calmly told the class that when and if they were inclined to put out enough effort to have a discussion of the material, they should contact his office. Only then would classes resume, and only those students who participated would get a grade... any grade, then stood up, gathered his case and walked out. Of course the students he was addressing sat like lumps, looking blankly at one another, trying desperately to decipher what had happened... duuuh :shock:

As for me I was saying hoooraaah for you Dana... way to go!!

I guess I'm off point here... but a glaring example of US education in 21st century. And I'm pointing the finger at STUDENTS more so than the system. You can lead a horse to water; but you can't make him drink...
amen.

Sorry.. will try to be on topic next time.
Bruce
User avatar
BAReam
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Iowa--USA

Postby Menolly » Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:07 pm

BAReam: I think you were perfectly on topic. Any social issue requires people to actively care about the issue enough to involve themselves, and what you're saying tallies frighteningly with my own classroom experiences. It's no wonder that politicians and business leaders get away with so many abuses; if it doesn't come up, smack them in the face, steal their iPhones and siphon their fuel, the Millenium generation seems to be deliberately blind, deaf and dumb. I think it would do them a world of good to just get one lesson in expecting better of life, not just more. I don't know if it's just my area or generally across the country, but people are just so negative these days that it's no wonder there's so little motivation for change.

Guess it was my turn to go off on a tangent. Sorry.
Menolly
 
Posts: 461
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 3:32 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby BAReam » Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:17 pm

I think what you are describing is apathy, and a sense of helplessness and or hopelessness. I hope I'm wrong on the last two points. Be well.
Bruce
User avatar
BAReam
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Iowa--USA

Postby Mike51 » Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:21 am

BAReam wrote:I think what you are describing is apathy, and a sense of helplessness and or hopelessness. I hope I'm wrong on the last two points. Be well.
Bruce

Bruce, you have hit the nail on the head APATHY
Our society is sooooo apathetic, or maybe desensitized.
Every day we see wars and death and disaster, but not up close....not effecting us or our lives or loved ones but through the tube.
The original discussion was about art and its impact society. The artist of today are making every effort to reach an audience and to get a point across, but its the percentage of the audience that has dwindled down to a smaller and smaller group of intellectuals (maybe psuedo-intellectuals) that pull the strings in the "ART World"
To most of us who try to communicate with our art, it is very difficult to make a significantly important social statement. You know, we all like to fantisize about making the same kind of impact as a Rem
andt or El Greco or (you fill in the blanks) but then again they didn't have to compete with CNN.
Gosh it gets deep in here. :shock:
Sometimes it is ok to just make art for art sake and enjoy the beauty or feel the emotion and let CNN do its thing..... and turn it off.
User avatar
Mike51
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:50 pm
Location: Springfield, Mo
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby william » Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:59 am

I think the apathy and desensitized go together in society. I see everyday where people have to work two and a half jobs just to make ends meet. At the end of the day, people are just tired and don't want to think anymore, again they go back to the quiet delirium of the living room or bed room and settle for watching what's going on in the world. I think the average person on a whole has taken a less active role in participating in life beyond their limit of sight and perspective. Or at least they do not think about a subject more than absorb it and assimilate to it. I think our society is becoming more egocentric. We don't go out beyond the scope of our life as much as we did in the past. Most people tend to keep to themselves. I do not think the average person speaks and socializes in public as people did even 50 years ago. Maybe it's technology. Between the internet, cable, digital, cell phones, and ipods, maybe we're evolving to
inging the world to us. I couldn't afford a vactation this year, so jump online and visit the world.. Oh yeah and I can talk to people without speaking.....I'm not shooting this down, but we do not have to go out to talk to people, everything comes to us. That and we live in a Burger King Society, I want it my way right away...... I see it all the time, fewer and fewer people really don't want to take the time to think, create, or go beyond the limits immediate gradification.
william
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:05 pm
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby BAReam » Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:59 am

Mike/William... you've both made some good points and i want to respond to them; have business away. Will definately be back a bit later... be well.
User avatar
BAReam
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Iowa--USA

At what price?

Postby pehiatt » Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:29 pm

Almost everyone holds some beliefs or ideas that go against popular opinion. Expressing those beliefs and ideas however are not always in one’s self interest. There is a price to pay for free expression.

The men in black suits are out there reading our e-mail, blogs, and forum post and looking at the images we create. They operate under the pretense of protecting society from terrorism, pornography, obscenity and socially dangerous ideas. They often go too fare using laws against constitutionally unprotected speech to restrict protected expression.

The Bush administration restricted (censored) images of death and destruction caused by Katrina and the aftermath created by government mismanagement. It also suppressed images of coffins of servicemen returning from Iraq and pictures of soldiers wounded or killed in combat.

Bush also significantly redacted and revised scientifically supported government reports on socially important issues in order to promote its own unfounded political point of view.

This however is not the kind of censorship and suppression of free expression that I am worried about. We have laws and courts that are generally committed to protecting free speech and there are people who continually fight, at least to some degree, to expose truth.

There is a much more insidious form of censorship which includes self censorship in order to protect self interest of a job, a family, friends, a neighborhood, or the very forums that we use to express our ideas.

What I worry about is: “The will of the majority is the most general of laws, and it establishes certain habits to which everyone must then conform…” (1)

While a true democracy with real freedom of speech requires dialogue on both sides of any debate, what the courts have termed, “the marketplace of ideas,”(2) this concept in practice has its limitations. Americans do not easily tolerate debate on many ideas.

What price are you willing to pay to express an unpopular belief?

History shows that for the most part people are quite willing to tip toe through convention into the gas chambers, ending up in ovens and going up in smoke rather than rock the boat.

Freedom of expression is seen as a means of promoting a “marketplace of ideas”, in which competing ideas vie for supremacy to the end of attaining the truth has been criticized on the ground that there is no guarantee that the free expression of ideas will in fact lead to the truth. Indeed, as history attests, it is quite possible that dangerous, destructive and inherently untrue ideas may prevail, at least in the short run.”

Tocqueville went on to point out that; “When once the Americans have taken up an idea, whether it be well or ill founded, nothing is more difficult than to eradicate it from their minds… among whom this liberty exists cling to their opinions as much from pride as from conviction. They cherish them because they hold them to be just and because they chose them of their own free will…

In countries where all the theories of social science have been contested in their turn, men who have adopted one of them stick to it, not so much because they are sure of its truth as because they are not sure that there is any better to be had. In the present age men are not very ready to die for their opinions, but they are rarely inclined to change them; there are few martyrs as well as few apostates.” (3)

This leads to a much more insidious form of censorship which includes self censorship in order to protect self interest of a job, a family and friends, a neighborhood, and the very forums that we use to express our ideas

We tout the internet as a forum of free expression but like other media such as newspapers and television, ISPs and Websites are commercial enterprises and they have bottom lines to protect. They therefore legally impose “Terms of Service” that limit expression because the first Amendment only protects people from government censorship not private action.

Terms of service from a popular web community Facebook is typical of how web administrators control speech.

“Welcome to Facebook, a social utility that connects you with the people around you. [Providing that] you agree not to use the Service or the Site to: upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available content that, in the sole judgment of Company, is objectionable…or which may expose Company or its users to any harm or liability of any type.

You understand and agree that the Company may, but is not obligated to, review the Site and may delete or remove (without notice) any Site Content or User Content in its sole discretion, for any reason or no reason…” (4)

I use Google which has similar language: “you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google’s sole discretion, without prior notice to you.”

Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service… If you misbehave, we may terminate our agreement with you. This might result in your access to some or all of our services being disabled. Don’t say you weren’t warned.” (5)

Google goes one step further with their warning: “Google isn’t responsible for things that might happen to you as a consequence of your use of our services. Unfortunately, everything in life has some risk.”

Humans are not rational and Americans are highly divided on many issues. What can happen includes being driven out of a neighborhood or even the extremes of having your house burned down and you killed by well meaning people (your good neighbors) who believe differently than you.

I do not take my responsibility to speak up against injustice or make any of my ideas public lightly. But I reserve the right to chose when and where I speak out.

We each have to determine for ourselves when and where we speak and chose what price we are willing to pay for that “RIGHT”

Have fun jabber away. You all have important things to say. Create profound and thought provoking images. Unfortunately some of you will quietly disappear only to be followed later by the rest of us. Its part of the human condition. Pick and chose carefully.



(1) Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America, Chapter 11: LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN THE UNITED STATES, From the Henry Reeve Translation, revised and corrected, 1899, Electronic edition deposited and marked-up by ASGRP, the American Studies Programs at the University of Virginia, June 1, 1997.

(2) “marketplace of ideas” metaphor was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his famous dissent in A
ams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).

(3) Tocqueville

(4) Facebook Terms of Use, Last Revision: June 7, 2008.

(5) Provision of the Services by Google, 2008.
User avatar
pehiatt
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Frederick Maryland
Gallery: View Gallery

Postby BAReam » Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:51 pm

Pehiatt; thank you for your thoughtful and insightful post. I feel I need to clarify my position in order to go further.

It is my opinion that we, as a group, and as individuals must temper comments in the name of decorum and civility. Opening this topic was done in the hopes of generating discussion, not argument. If we must, I would sincerely hope that we may agree to disagree, without animosity or injured feelings.

More a bit later... Be well Pehiatt.
Bruce

My original intent was in fact to generate a dialogue that would lead to art that might address some of the issues discussed a priori. Art originates in thought {Ream 08}. Does anyone feel we should abandon this thread or move to a more restricted dialogue e.g. craft and process? Please everyone, your input is IMPORTANT; thanks
Last edited by BAReam on Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BAReam
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:05 pm
Location: Iowa--USA

I wholeheartedly agree

Postby pehiatt » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:48 pm

I wholeheartedly agree. In this forum we should temper our comments with decorum and civility especially here.

This is not a forum for soapboxing or social-political protest. This is a forum for discussing craft and process.

Save the cultural wars for their proper place.

I want to preserve ASC as a valuable and enjoyable resource.
User avatar
pehiatt
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:22 pm
Location: Frederick Maryland
Gallery: View Gallery

PreviousNext

Return to Art Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests