RogueHunter
Sexy Skin Demon
You kind of hit the point. You are being taught about art, in context of the time it was created and given a background of understanding. A student that hasn't received that context only gets to see an image.
What First Amendment??
- Thread starter Tru Mackney
- Start date
Legate Damar
Townie
For the most part, you turn over all of your rights when you attend public school. You get some of them back when you leave campus and a few others when you turn 18. The others are simply mythical at this point in history. (They may or may not have existed in the past, I am unsure.)
In the US at least, there are no petty tyrants more petty or tyrannical than school administrators. And most teachers do their bidding willingly.
In the US at least, there are no petty tyrants more petty or tyrannical than school administrators. And most teachers do their bidding willingly.
R
randiann
Thank you! Exactly what I would have said. In the US in a public school, there is no such thing as the 1st amendment.
Tueuse de Vampires
Love will tear us apart..
Theoretically, could you use that as a reason not to attend school? For instance, could a parent refuse to send their child to school with that reason and would lawyers agree? (this may sound strange, as I don't know exactly how the American school system works, so pardon me if it's a silly question, for me it isn't)
Blondie Bear
Zydrate Addict
Until you're 16/17 (I think it depends on the state), your parents are required to educate you in one way or another, whether public, private, or homeschooling. A lot of people homeschool because they don't agree with what the public school system teaches children and they can't afford private school.
Lou
Scooby
This is a tough issue.
First of all, as we covered earlier, minors don't have rights in this country the same as adults do. So, first ammendment is kind of out the window right off the bat.
A nude, depicting a studen, even a self-portrait is considered Child Porn. I can't do a nude of someone under 18. Well, I guess I CAN, but I can also get in trouble for it. There are some exceptions. I guess I could do as much as they show in diaper commercials. But, even then, people can throw a fit and I could wind up in court.
The school doesn't have the right to delve into students sketch books and say what they can and can't draw, but they DO have the right to decide what will and will not be representing their school.
Just as eBay can regulate what I do and do not list.
Art is subjective and as Rogue Hunter has pointed out, not everyone cares to see past the surface and look for the meaning behind it. Personally, I'm intrigued by a Crucifix in a jar of urine and can imagine LOTS of meaning behind it. Could there be a more "universal" way to get the point across....probably. I have tons of ideas every week that I have to "amend" to be more socially acceptable. On the other hand, another method might not have been a shocking and to the point and perhaps that's what the artist was wanting.
It's a fine line and an artist of any means has to decide which side of it they want to be on. If you are in a punk rock band and wish to play "shocking" music, it's going to be slapped with a parental advisory and not played on the radio. If you pee on a crucifix, you may get your point across to a few people, on the other hand, lots of people aren't going to bother to try and see the meaning behind it.
Me? I'm go more "mainstream" because my intent is to actually make a living. I try to keep my ideas as vague as possible so that they mean something to a larger group of people.
It stinks, in a way. Because children should be allowed to express their feelings through art. But, just like the rest of us, they have to remember that when you go out of the mainstream, 1.) the place you intend to display the art can easily say, "Um....nope. We don't want this representing us" and 2.) that is won't be as universally accepted or even attempted to be understood.
First of all, as we covered earlier, minors don't have rights in this country the same as adults do. So, first ammendment is kind of out the window right off the bat.
A nude, depicting a studen, even a self-portrait is considered Child Porn. I can't do a nude of someone under 18. Well, I guess I CAN, but I can also get in trouble for it. There are some exceptions. I guess I could do as much as they show in diaper commercials. But, even then, people can throw a fit and I could wind up in court.
The school doesn't have the right to delve into students sketch books and say what they can and can't draw, but they DO have the right to decide what will and will not be representing their school.
Just as eBay can regulate what I do and do not list.
Art is subjective and as Rogue Hunter has pointed out, not everyone cares to see past the surface and look for the meaning behind it. Personally, I'm intrigued by a Crucifix in a jar of urine and can imagine LOTS of meaning behind it. Could there be a more "universal" way to get the point across....probably. I have tons of ideas every week that I have to "amend" to be more socially acceptable. On the other hand, another method might not have been a shocking and to the point and perhaps that's what the artist was wanting.
It's a fine line and an artist of any means has to decide which side of it they want to be on. If you are in a punk rock band and wish to play "shocking" music, it's going to be slapped with a parental advisory and not played on the radio. If you pee on a crucifix, you may get your point across to a few people, on the other hand, lots of people aren't going to bother to try and see the meaning behind it.
Me? I'm go more "mainstream" because my intent is to actually make a living. I try to keep my ideas as vague as possible so that they mean something to a larger group of people.
It stinks, in a way. Because children should be allowed to express their feelings through art. But, just like the rest of us, they have to remember that when you go out of the mainstream, 1.) the place you intend to display the art can easily say, "Um....nope. We don't want this representing us" and 2.) that is won't be as universally accepted or even attempted to be understood.
Tru Mackney
Flavors of Entanglement
This is a really bad photograph of one of my pieces that was almost taken down. If you can't tell, it's Amy Winehouse drawn with chalk pastel, and I recreated her as though it were a piece of Renaissance art. It was allowed to stay up, but there was a lot of discussion as to whether to take it down or not.
ILLYRIAN
Druish Pervonian Wizard
Sorry, but that can't be Amy Winehouse, your picture is way better looking than the real thing!
I wonder if Amy Winehouse is the disgruntled grandchild of Mary Whitehouse?
Oh, and about the crucifix in a jar of urine, if the crucifix was upside down, would it be a 'good' thing?.
And no comments about taking the p - - -! please.
I wonder if Amy Winehouse is the disgruntled grandchild of Mary Whitehouse?
Oh, and about the crucifix in a jar of urine, if the crucifix was upside down, would it be a 'good' thing?.
And no comments about taking the p - - -! please.
Lou
Scooby
Yeah, she's too pretty to be Amy Winehouse.
As for the urine, it's hard to imagine that a crucifx in urine is ever a "good" thing, whether it's upside down or right side up. I'm sure it would speak to the message. From what I can find, though, it was right side up.
Apparently, a nun got meaning from it....
And, perhaps we should give the guy some credit for finding a nice, inexpensive medium, most art supplies are PRICEY! :whistle:
As for the urine, it's hard to imagine that a crucifx in urine is ever a "good" thing, whether it's upside down or right side up. I'm sure it would speak to the message. From what I can find, though, it was right side up.
Apparently, a nun got meaning from it....
And, perhaps we should give the guy some credit for finding a nice, inexpensive medium, most art supplies are PRICEY! :whistle:
SpikedBuffy
Love Isn't Brains
Of course you have the right to say what's on your mind (and this means artistically as well), but there are limits. I'm a big supporter of the 1st amendment, but I do not support those that pull that card as a reason for saying what they want in order to hurt somebody intentionally.
While you have freedom of expression, you do not have the right to subject children to your thoughts and ideas if it hurts them physically or mentally. In a school, the administrator has the final say on all matters, and they have to follow rules too. You might have freedom of expression, but they also have a school code of conduct that says "No nudity, no offensive terms/slogans, racial slurs, drug/tobacco/alcohol promotion, etc." And I do agree with that. The world is tough enough, children (even teenagers) don't need to be subjected to any of that.
While you have freedom of expression, you do not have the right to subject children to your thoughts and ideas if it hurts them physically or mentally. In a school, the administrator has the final say on all matters, and they have to follow rules too. You might have freedom of expression, but they also have a school code of conduct that says "No nudity, no offensive terms/slogans, racial slurs, drug/tobacco/alcohol promotion, etc." And I do agree with that. The world is tough enough, children (even teenagers) don't need to be subjected to any of that.
Wow American schools sound like conservative strong holds :/
Never had this issue in my high school, we could show whatever art we made, if anyone got offended too bad. It wasn't about them. And I don't think having a freedom to express yourself necessarily encompasses every single way of doing so. Such as the poop and piss previously mentioned, artists generally don't have intentions of breaking the law, I'd like to think we can express meaning without needing to. But then we get into a whole post modern discussion which puts me to sleep, basically common sense rules.
Never had this issue in my high school, we could show whatever art we made, if anyone got offended too bad. It wasn't about them. And I don't think having a freedom to express yourself necessarily encompasses every single way of doing so. Such as the poop and piss previously mentioned, artists generally don't have intentions of breaking the law, I'd like to think we can express meaning without needing to. But then we get into a whole post modern discussion which puts me to sleep, basically common sense rules.
Blondie Bear
Zydrate Addict
^ It's not so much Conservative, which would tend to pull these things down because they were morally reprehensible, but Liberal, which is pulling them down because of a worry about political correctness. Both are horrible acts of censorship, but they do it for different reasons.
apocalypse
Potential
R
randiann
Guest
Tru Mackney
Flavors of Entanglement
It matters to me because I know that there are men and women over seas fighting and losing their lives to protect this right that has been taken away...