Should some art projects not simply be destroyed to protect society?

Questions about destroying the coast are always very precarious.A large part of the Amsterdam society suffers much from the tourist tsunami. It would therefore also greatly help to destroy the works of art by Van Gogh and in the state.

This question raises more questions. How far is freedom of expression?As an artist, can you set up and sell projects that can pose a great risk to others?

Frank Vijt says that “if an art project threatens a society, there is a serious wrong with society, not with the art project”, but when the art project is the Ewe virus packaged in a FabregĂ© egg, I do not see what is wrong with the Society, even if the buyer has to promise to never open the egg.

When you allow this kind of art, you can elevate a terrorist with a bomb belt to preformance artist.

Everyone has an opinion about art.Just like taste, there is a lot to say about this, but you can just as well not agree with each other.

You might wonder: if art damages society, is it art?

But answering that question does not solve the problem at all, but the artist can actually aim to shothe his art.Or that he wants to demonstrate something because Of his wrong actions.

Destroying art seems to me to be exaggerated.In this case, it is clear that the purchaser should not start using the laptop. To say, that a virus-infected laptop is art, is for me personally a little bit through the bend, but if others see art in it, they may like to see that of me. As long as I’m not confronted with the consequences of the viruses on that laptop, they go their course.

Art Project?As I read it it is more of an atomic bomb. Does the thing matter?

‘, ‘ Why should society be ‘ protected ‘ against art?Surely society cannot be so vulnerable? I believe that art projects are only eligible for destruction if they pose a direct danger to human life. Otherwise it would amount to censorship, and that is something that society should be protected against.

“,” Simply no, even Nazi art is to be preserved with a fine interpretation.Once you begin to censor some art as a society dangerous is the end search. Eventually you end up in a world where others decide what you are going to think. Actually, we are already living there and art is the only refuge for free opinion, therefore not. Or it goes with art the same way as with Facebook and Google… Where in your place you decide what you read and see and so think.

Yes.This happened, for example, with Momo, a work of art that represents a woman who looks like a monster (or vice versa). Some idiot, of course not the artist himself, has devised the Momo Challenge, which has led to many children who commit suicide, which was the last part of the challenge. To many children who have become terrified. To a mess… And that’s why Momo was destroyed

How dangerous is dangerous?

I have to say that I am not really impressed with the laptop in the link.Every decent virus scanner has long been able to recognize these viruses and make them harmless. Much more dangerous is a new virus, but even then it is dangerously relatively relative. After all, there are dozens of viruses known that have been able to do their work on millions of computers for years and many more that have already destroyed what they could. If humanity were to go through a computer virus, it had already happened.

So back to the question: How dangerous is dangerous?Little to no really dangerous art is known to me, but I must mention that I am absolutely not an art connoisseur. The most dangerous art I know is dangerous because of the provocative nature. They could lead to conflict and violence.

Could an artist also present a bomb on sharp as art?A thermonuclear bomb? An object with poison gas? Or another weapon Of mass destruction? Yes, I certainly believe that destroying the protection of society is a sensible move. But as long as it does not go beyond pre-existing art I say: Live as much as possible and let live.

I would start with a question E, why should art projects possibly be dangerous to society?If I see how many things are accepted as art, then I think there is plenty of it, and one would better avoid being made, or attempting to make. For example, could someone buy a cannon, and there every day, as an art project, to shoot a bullet with it? Allé, that just gone as an art project.

Leave a Reply