3 ms·
I think this interpretation is somewhat perverse. It’s true that the purpose of art is often to confront social norms and taboos. But that doesn’t lend itself t
by AmericanChopper 4y ago
I think this interpretation is somewhat perverse. It’s true that the purpose of art is often to confront social norms and taboos. But that doesn’t lend itself to the conclusion that art is somehow going to benefit from restrictions on expression and access to information. Some of the best artistic expression has been inspired by some of humanity’s worst misery, but promoting misery for the good of art would be rather insane.
- toxik 4y agoAs I noted in a sibling comment, I don’t think censorship is constructive or positive. I do think that art can, and perhaps especially will, arise in repressive scenarios. Solzhenitsyn comes to mind. Clearly nobody denies the artistic value in his writings, and equally clearly, nobody proposes it to be a good idea to subject people to that kind of horror.