Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanthe
....
I agree that violence is not an acceptable response to being offended, and what that woman did was criminally wrong. My point, though, was that violent reactions to art and the artist that are perceived to have committed sacrilege have become the norm - no matter what the religion. Not to have have expected that is either naive or disingenuous on the part of the artist.
|
That people cannot find other ways to respond to intellectual provocation than crude violence is a sad thing to contemplate indeed.
Art has provoked for centuries in one way or another* - at least in Europe (ex classique: Rembrandt, Monet, Debussy**), most probably also elsewhere (undoubtedly - it's just that I can't think of any well-known examples right now
).
Art tends to challenge established ways of thinking or doing. It is the pure creative mind at work, doing things no one thought of before. By its nature it's provocative.
We are so very lucky in this time and age - at least some of us - to live in socities that encourage and support free expression of thought. Societies where a civilised and non-violent exchange of ideas can happen. Well, that is what
civilised means to me - that everyone can speak their mind freely and that no one gets hurt or killed. That we can talk together even if we don't like each other or our ideas.
* I'm trying to evade the question that the universal point of art is to provoke - I'm not sure it is a universal point, but since art tends to be at the avant-garde of thought (or ought to be?), I believe it is by its nature provocative.
** AFAIK
L'après-midi d'un faune caused noticable controversy.