quote:Originally posted by HeruStar:
This is why I feel that artist should be able to be questioned as to what there intentions are. No art should go unquestioned or unchecked.
1. Who is going to question the questioner?
2. Who is going to check the intentions of the questioner?
3. Is there necessarily any connection whatsoever between the intention of the artist (even in cases where it's clear to the artist himself) and the capacity of his art to offend. I.e., Is it possible for the artist to pass the "intentions test" and still produce art that many find highly offensive?
For example, suppose a black artist living in the year 1900 painted a portrait of a black President of the United States. The intentions of the artist are clearly noble. He's dared to suggest a black person can aspire to such a high station. But wouldn't his art be offensive - at the least controversial - to most (circa 1900)?
(4) Should the intentions of the artist necessarily be clear to the artist himself?
I ask these questions seriously. I'm not trying to be cute. there is a long history of works which are presently regarded as great which were considered offensive when first introduced to the public.
* Shouldn't one function of art be to challenge the public? In these cases, who is to be the judge of intentions? *