Majar

It occurs to me that freedom of speech (the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation), also known as freedom of expression, is not really positive creatively or culturally.

Looking back on our artistic history, not just anyone could become an artist and be given a platform to express their ideas, to blurt out whatever mental diarrhea they wanted. Art and expression have been democratized and as a result dumbed down considerably.

All of the greatest works of art (in my mind, anyway, some may adore Picasso or Andy Warhol) came at a time when artists were working for the Church, or later employed by noble families. In either case, limitations were everywhere in what they could and could not depict. Art had a different purpose than it does today, mainly glorifying God, showing the people their myths, legends and holy patriarchs and later chronicling the nobility.

The more "free" art and expression became, the more vulgar it became, until we now are at a point where any expression can be called an art work or creative act and thus defended under the mantle of "freedom of speech." Jesus Christ in a jar of piss, Virgin Mary made out of elephant shit, the childish Mohammed cartoons, Mr. Hanky the Christmas Poo, etc are all symptoms of this. To defend and even promote these things as part of our value system is to cut off the nose to spite the face. What I'm saying is, you drag yourselves into the gutter to earn a few "cool" points. I know all about shock art and art for art's sake, and I reject this idea completely because of the road it leads us all down.

Idiocracy, 2006

Not everyone should have the right and be given the platform to express themselves, just like not everyone should have the right to vote or make babies. Limitations on art and forms of expression can be best understood as a type of cultural eugenics. I find that my best artworks come when I set parameters for myself in terms of subject matter, medium, color palette and what I'm trying to express.

Limitations can be understood as a set of parameters in which the artist is required to work.

Many artist working in countries with culturally or religiously mandated limitations on expression manage to go beyond the limitations in a sense, while technically remaining within them. An example of this I saw not too long ago was an artist from Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran has limitations on photographers, they cannot photograph nudes. Instead of photographing nudes, this one photographer (I wish I could remember his name) has made photographs of landscapes which look like the curves of the human body. The end result of this "oppressive" limitation was something more creative and interesting than any photo of a nude person could ever be. There are thousands of photographers specializing in nude photos of people, and everything that can be said or done with these images has been done to death. The photographs I saw instead focussed on the sensuality of the natural world and the wilderness, and how we're surrounded by the eros of nature without realizing it.

The Muslim culture's limitations on art are similar to Classical European limitations on art. In Classical European understanding of art, the work of art is not about the ego of the artist. The artist is a selfless servant, creating something to benefit the culture or to glorify God, to tell a story of the people or explain concepts of their faith. We have many surviving Roman monuments, sculptures, paintings, mosaics but few of the artists are known by name.

The Slav Epic, Alphonse Mucha

This understanding of art is seen across all human populations, going all the way back to paleolithic times to cave paintings. Art is a communal experience, a record of the consciousness. Art must have been the first "magic" man encountered after discovering how to make fire, so artists were without a doubt important persons to our prehistoric ancestors. They may have even been spiritual figures.

Australian Aborigines storytelling art of dance

Putting Jesus Christ in a jar of urine or portraying Mohammed as a pig does not benefit any person or any culture. It expands the ego and fame of the artist. This is not the purpose of art. This is not a part of our values, but a complete perversion of them.

Islam and Christianity are not alone in their current or historical taboos within art. The Sikh faith traditionally frowns upon artistic depiction of their Gurus, lest they be used as idols. "Art for art's sake" as we now understand art in the West is unknown to the Hindu. The art in Hinduism is offered to support the 4 directions of living: dharma, or righteous living; artha, or wealth acquired through the pursuit of a profession; kama, or human and sexual love; and, finally, moksha, or spiritual salvation. The statues are now literally worshipped, though they were not meant that way originally. They are a symbol for worshippers to concentrate on, and of course they believe that true reality lies beyond the senses.

To be an artist does not mean to create pretty pictures or shocking images in order to get fame and money. The Artist is a mirror for the consciousness of a people, and Easterners and other cultures still understand this. We ought to censor ourselves or once again set rules (laws) to that effect, lest we see something ugly reflected.