by Kevin J. Putnam

Created on: October 05, 2007

Hate and ignorance does not gain credibility because it is a work of art. It is still hate and ignorance, and should be treated as such. During Hilter's reign massive amounts of propaganda was produced. The drawings and writings were to dehumanize Jews to the German populace. These works of an artist had only on thing in mind and that was to promote the destruction of a people and their faith. There is a thin line between what art is and what art does. There has to be a moral and ethical guide lines to what art can express. Not as an infringement of freedom of speech but in respect to art itself. Art being the creative expression of a human being. The first part of the definition is easy it is the second part where the confusion lies.

The subject matter is totally up to the artist, and there own artistic interpretation of what it is they want to portray. If that portrayal is meant to incite an ideal or faith it is still art, but that does not make it moral or ethical. Much like the freedom of speech a person is not allowed to go into a museum of art and start preaching hate using obscenities, even though that is the speakers true beliefs. Why then should a person be allowed to hang on the wall a piece of art that does the same thing. The police would be called in to arrest the person who is screaming obscenities at a religion or faith, then why would it be ok to hang a work on art on the wall that is much more powerful and expressive but still comes from the same cesspool of hate and ignorance.

Freedom of speech is not a ticket to stand up anywhere and say anything one pleases regardless of how it makes other feel. How it makes others feel is very valid in the discussion of what is freedom of speech. When some one creates a work of art that offends others, and it is with in reason that the person should be offended, how is that different from shouting obscenties of hate in a museum of art or a public mall. It is with-in reason to expect that an work of art can be judged on it's content and message. If that content and message is offensive to one faith or sensibilities then it should have to be called out and at least looked at.

We do this all the time with art. Obscene, racist, and propaganda art are all controlled. Why should artist be able to offend someones beliefs and that is freedom of speech. Where as an artist who depicts a rude sexual act between two humans is has violated the freedom of speech. Yes, art expression needs to be held to the same standards as any other forms of expression. What a person expresses privately is not the same as what is expressed publicly. If a work of art is obviously playing on someones faith, beliefs, or religions as a way to offend those who hold those beliefs then it should not have the support of public displays. Hate and ignorance does not gain credibility because it is a work of art. It is still hate and ignorance, and should be treated as such.

Learn more about this author, Kevin J. Putnam.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.