Censorship of art in Italy.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article5042374.ece

So what do you think, was the museum boss fired under pressure from the pope?

Of course he was fired because of the Pope. The Pope pretty much owns Italy.

That's an ugly peice of art anyway. Why defend it?123625

Your right it's ugly. But it's art, and freedom of expression should always be defended. Even when we disagree with the subject, example: Flag burning.

That's an ugly peice of art anyway. Why defend it?123625

An art can be ugly and hold it's integrity at the same time.

[QUOTE="123625"]That's an ugly peice of art anyway. Why defend it?btaylor2404

Your right it's ugly. But it's art, and freedom of expression should always be defended. Even when we disagree with the subject, example: Flag burning.

I don't agree that art should always be defended. I don't suppose you remember the starving dog being displayed in a gallery in europe right? I mean technically that was art, even though we dissagree with it, right?

I honestly don't get the meaning of the frog peice. Care to explain?

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

[QUOTE="123625"]That's an ugly peice of art anyway. Why defend it?123625

Your right it's ugly. But it's art, and freedom of expression should always be defended. Even when we disagree with the subject, example: Flag burning.

I don't agree that art should always be defended. I don't suppose you remember the starving dog being displayed in a gallery in europe right? I mean technically that was art, even though we dissagree with it, right?

I honestly don't get the meaning of the frog peice. Care to explain?

We agree, any animal or human harmed for art, isn't art. Now as to the frog, while I understand and "get" most art, I don't see the metaphor for this one. I just doesn't make sense to me, but that's just me. The artist obviously meant something, and his/her rights should be defended.

I think there was already once a problem with this same piece of "art" and I will say what I said them:

if muslims get their way that certain things are banned beacose it is offensive to them, then christians should get the same rights otherwise it is all one big example of dubble standarts just beacose one group is a minority, either we play all by the same rules or we don't play at all. I am not supporting the baning of the Danish cartoons and all the **** that happened beacose of it and never will, but I hate such dubble standarts as these even more.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

[QUOTE="123625"]That's an ugly peice of art anyway. Why defend it?btaylor2404

Your right it's ugly. But it's art, and freedom of expression should always be defended. Even when we disagree with the subject, example: Flag burning.

I don't agree that art should always be defended. I don't suppose you remember the starving dog being displayed in a gallery in europe right? I mean technically that was art, even though we dissagree with it, right?

I honestly don't get the meaning of the frog peice. Care to explain?

We agree, any animal or human harmed for art, isn't art. Now as to the frog, while I understand and "get" most art, I don't see the metaphor for this one. I just doesn't make sense to me, but that's just me. The artist obviously meant something, and his/her rights should be defended.

Except the artist for that dog peice thought it was art too (hopefully), why should your opinion that it's not art, be right? I mean shouldn't it be defended if it is art? Anyway, I know bother all about art, but all I'm going to say is that some art should not be defended, especially when we find the meaning.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"]

[QUOTE="123625"]That's an ugly peice of art anyway. Why defend it?123625

Your right it's ugly. But it's art, and freedom of expression should always be defended. Even when we disagree with the subject, example: Flag burning.

I don't agree that art should always be defended. I don't suppose you remember the starving dog being displayed in a gallery in europe right? I mean technically that was art, even though we dissagree with it, right?

I honestly don't get the meaning of the frog peice. Care to explain?

We agree, any animal or human harmed for art, isn't art. Now as to the frog, while I understand and "get" most art, I don't see the metaphor for this one. I just doesn't make sense to me, but that's just me. The artist obviously meant something, and his/her rights should be defended.

Except the artist for that dog peice thought it was art too (hopefully), why should your opinion that it's not art, be right? I mean shouldn't it be defended if it is art? Anyway, I know bother all about art, but all I'm going to say is that some art should not be defended, especially when we find the meaning.

Well I think he's making an artistic statement, I just don't get it. I think all art should be defended. If it's in horrible taste the artist will take the hit they deserve.