What is art for? In my humble opinion it is to evoke some sort of emotion and sometimes that emotion is not the happy butterflies and spring flowers feeling but anger or frustration or heartache….so does that mean it isn’t art and should be removed? Then you must ask yourself, who gets to decide what is art and what is not?
Let’s start with Webster’s definition of art:
: something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
: works created by artists : paintings, sculptures, etc., that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings
So based on this definition, shouldn’t we accept that we are not going to get that warm, fuzzy feeling from every piece of art that is out there? Face it, some art is going to evoke an “important idea” that is hurtful or scary or heartbreaking instead.
After a passionate post on the IBH Facebook page over on crafter’s replication of a mammy doll I couldn’t stop asking myself where I stood; not on the Mammy Doll discussion but on where to draw the line on what is art and what is not. Many wanted the post removed because it was “offensive” and others called that censorship and still others thought the idea that it would evoke such a response silly.
So my question to you, dear lovers of art, what do you think? Do you think that art that depicts less that happy visions of our past should be banned from being made, seen, or sold? Do you believe that people of the past who destroyed millions of dollars worth of irreplaceable art because it disagreed with their philosophy were in the right? Or do you think that art can be used to educate others and cause such a strong feeling that they feel compelled to take action? Share your thoughts….