Censorship Of Abject Art During The 21st Century

five year old kid is cursing at them or trying to fight back at them.

Art has been around since the beginning of humankind and it has been and will always be a visual form of human expression, ideas, and morals. Art is subjective and everyone will feel differently towards one specific artwork. But disliking an artwork because it offends you does not mean that you must destroy it. Recently, a white artist, Dana Schutz created an abstract painting of Emmett Till, a 14 year old African American that was killed by a couple of white men because he supposedly whistled at a white lady. Many people have deemed this artwork as a form of cultural appropriation and have demanded the artist to take it down. Despite the controversies of this artwork, art should never ever be censored because it violates the artist’s freedom

To depict the extent to which humans have twisted nature in the food industry, Michael Pollan offers anecdotes detailing modern slaughterhouses and the industrialization of meat, one of which is written about his personal connection with a steer raised for slaughter. Similar to the meat industrialization system he describes, the manner in which Pollan writes is clear and methodical, each animal designated by a number and their histories described succinctly; steer 9534’s name, for example, “signifies she was the thirty fourth cow born in 1995” (Pollan 69). However, this system greatly differs from the original nature of the process which Pollan describes. Before the mechanization of the meat industry, cattle grazed in

I genuinely got emotional when I first read this passage. When the author, Eric Schlosser visited a slaughterhouse in the High Plains, he describes the sight of cows being lead into the factory. These cows are lead up a ramp and into the factory to be knocked unconscious, then later slaughtered.

How can one person's decision impact others? Every time i'm reading a book i have my own opinion of what i just read not everyone has the same opinion of it. I could read a book that contains drug dealers and love like the book Perfect Chemistry by Simone Elkeles and think that it was a great book but another person can think that it is to inappropriate. If that person decided that the book should not be in their school library a decides to challenge and it gets banned other people that might have wanted to read it can no longer do that because of that ONE person. It takes only one person to change or bring something to the attention of others. What if someone banned the book you have wanted to read for so long? You would probably not like it, so why do it to others? If you didn't like the book then don't read it, that simple, don't ruin it for everyone else.

    The Cow brings a useful, and different perspective on murder by using sound and imagery; however, it is not about the murder of a person, it is actually about the killing

In her essay, “Censorship: A Personal View” Judy Blume gives readers insight on the impact of censorship based on her personal experiences as a young reader and then later in life as a censored writer. She provides numerous examples of educators who were affected by censorship and chose to take a stand against it (345). Although the piece lacks evidentiary support for these accounts, and draws on sarcasm for emphasis, the original objective remains clear and strong. Blume succeeds in exposing what censorship is capable of, what this means for readers and writers, and how activist groups like the National Coalition Against Censorship [NCAC] can

Censorship, is when a piece of art is monitored because the content is not appropriate for society or people of all ages. I believe that censorship hurts the artist and their right to freely express themselves.

As an essential part of culture, art is arguably at the core of culture, which naturally leads to the importance of art censorship in America’s Culture Wars. Also, decision for selecting art works which could own fellowship and funding reflected the conflict in politics between different parties and groups. So, the significance of censorship would be questioned and the standard of choosing some outstanding works to receive funds would be attacked in this American Culture war.

The cutting edge of the public art development, connected with the hip-hop society of breakdancing and rap music, began with African-American and Latino teenagers in Philadelphia and New York in the late 1960s (MacDonald 1). At that time graffiti to most, was considered to be a form of art work. Regardless of those that thought of it as art, there were and are still numerous individuals that loathe the graffiti movement. Works of art have been dependably charming for ages, as it is a method for self-expression and inventiveness. Artistic expressions have advanced in many ways, such as public canvases offering an approach to modern day unique artwork. Graffiti is progressively turning into a hobby. Although one of the major controversies of graffiti surround the statement that it is not art and considered vandalism, graffiti allow artists to display grateful meanings, skills and expressions to the public.

What would life be like without censorship? Though there might be upsides to it, such as more freedom of speech, it could also cause some problems. Not only would we be exposing children to many horrors of the world, we also would be doing nothing to prevent offensive and oppressive content in the media. Therefore, some censorship is necessary for all people; however, in most cases, we should be allowed access to most information in society.

“In twelve seconds or less, the knocked cow — unconscious, semiconscious, fully conscious, or dead — moves down the line to arrive at the “shackler,” who attaches a chain around one of the hind legs and hoists the animal into the air.”(Eating Animals, page 117.) Foer’s vivid description of bloody slaughter in killing floor reveals the cruelty in the animal industry, at the same time evokes criticism on inhuman treatment and terrible living condition animals received. During class, some of us reached an agreement that massive and unethical slaughter of animals raised for meat should be criticized while eating meat from peacefully died animals seems acceptable. As both of them ends with the death of animals, I start to wonder what really discriminate

This idea of humans disregarding the feelings of animals for human selfishness through the use of animals for food is also a main point Walker makes. She discusses how we do not consider the impact that the methods of production have on the animals. Most humans want to be ignorant on how the animals they eat are killed. She explains this idea of the “contented cows” that we see on our milk containers. We choose to be ignorant so we don’t have to own up to all of the bad things we do as a race. Indians are envied for their land and are therefore slaughtered then called animals or savages to make up for our wrong doings. By reminding us of our ignorance in the past she shows us that we have been wrong before and continue to be wrong when it concerns the rights of animals. She ends the piece by claiming that she was “eating misery”, which again shows the emotions that animals have that are so nonchalantly

A fascination with the human body, body were an experience that could somehow be held in common. The ways in which we might experience the body as connected or represent it as disconnected in a live performance. Shifting attention from traditional art object to the artist’s physical action further proposed that art existed in real space and real time. Marina Abramovic, a pioneer of performance art began using her own body as the subject, object, and medium in the early 1970s as she said, ‘In performance my body is object and subject.’ For the exhibition

The parameters of the term censorship have been changed and manipulated very much over the years. Television and movie ratings have become more lenient against violence and indiscretion because these things are now seen as entertainment. Is this appropriate for our youth? Should children be exposed to these images so early on? How does censorship in the media affect adolescents? Children are the future of our society and need to have some understanding of real world occurrences. Ultimately, censorship can only be determined by the parents. The media cannot filter every bit of controversial images. What rights does the media have in this situation? How are their First Amendment rights applied here? As an aspiring political science