Art or Blasphemy

[Carrot88]

I'm not against artists who expresses themselves or anything because I understand them in some ways but really is this really necessary? Freedom of expression is okay but this much? Considering that the country consist of many Catholics.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/8077/blasphemous-philippine-art-riles-catholics

[Hanzo23]

It is his expression of an idea in art form. So the answer is easy. It is art.

Blasphemy is a word made up by religious people and not an actual harm inducing act by itself. Sin that is associated to it is only perceived on a relative basis. Some Catholics now can make fun of ancient gods of the past but when their own holy figure is involved they get all irate over it. Talk about a bunch of hypocrites.

Who cares if a country is consisted of a significant number of a particular cult? The Philippines is a republican country and everyone has a right to express himself/herself. His right to freedom of expression cannot be alienated if it does not incite rebellion to the government or result in physical harm. If you are offended by it, then dont look at it. This is the problem, the country is the "Republic of the Philippines" not "The Catholic country of the Philippines"

[vampdubistaaa]

If there's one thing I've learned from reading Emily the Strange novels, it's that everyone has their own interpretations for the different types of art. If that's how the artist wants to play it out, then let him (or her. I don't really know. Lol ) be. It's his/her opinion on the topic, anyway. And like Hanzo23 said, this is a free country. We have the right to express ourselves. No one has the right to say your work is "wrong" because in art, there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong". It's not Math, JSYK. Lol.

[Carrot88]

I know that in art there is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' it's just a form of an abstarct expression of someone's feeling. But don't you think that was just a little to harsh. I'm not saying that it's okay if some people make fun of other ancient god or something I think those are the types who doesn't care less of others.

Is this it? I mean, freedom is absolute? I'm not saying that I am offended, I just thought that haven't we given too much for our religous workers enough to handle?

[Hanzo23]

I know that in art there is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' it's just a form of an abstarct expression of someone's feeling. But don't you think that was just a little to harsh. I'm not saying that it's okay if some people make fun of other ancient god or something I think those are the types who doesn't care less of others.

Though there are times when you indeed need to hold accountability for others, there are some rights that you can express regardless of accountability. These rights are inalienable. A Muslim praying on a christian dominated location and states "There is no other God but Allah" is technically considered offensive to Christians. Yet why do we tolerate it? Because we respect their right to express their faith. Same respect should be extended to artists to wish to express their ideas.

Is this it? I mean, freedom is absolute? I'm not saying that I am offended, I just thought that haven't we given too much for our religous workers enough to handle?

Freedom is an inalienable right. No-one should be denied this right as long as it is practiced in accordance to the highest laws in the land (The constitution)

[pach]

it may be 'art'.... but the sort of art that is fit for people who do not have any religious sensibility.

[definedelirium]

the reason why you perceive it 'blasphemous' is because you were brought up in a christian/catholic environment and juxtaposing images that are considered as 'holy' in your faith with images that are 'dirty' or 'impure' will of course strike a nerve. people are the ones that give meaning into something; a cross is merely two lines intersecting, but to catholics it means something else. to use it in a way that is not in keeping up with your perception of how a cross is to be used can offend you.

to those who dont share the same belief or thought system, it is not blasphemous. sometimes people forget this. not everyone thinks the same or believes in the same set of values. even if the philippines is 85% catholic it doesn't mean that i cant express my dissent/disbelief in it nor does it stop me from criticizing it or making it as a springboard for discussion.

i think the exhibit is in keeping up with the intentions of the artist. the exhibit aims to change the perception of people with the things/persons they idolize, and with the furor it has sparked, i think it has done well. i believe art should start a discussion, aside from an expression of one's self.

a piece of art is only as good as the artist's intention. from that point of view i can say mr. cruz's exhibit shouldn't be taken down.

[pach]

if freedom of expression is so central to human dignity, i believe that law should regulate it so as not to cannibalize itself.

[Hanzo23]

Under what grounds shall it be regulated? Blasphemy is a victimless crime. It does not hold its weight in court and cannot be used as a grounds to limit personal freedoms especially when there is a separation of Church and State.

[pach]

The question is not whether the art was blasphemy or not, because we have a separation of church and state. From our secular politico-legal framework, blasphemy is irrelevant, and it should be.

The question is whether the exhibit offends freedom of expression which is very central to the dignity of the human person. In fact, it does because it offends something that is personally valuable somebody, even if that somebody is  the only one in the world who holds such a value so dear,, regardless whether that valuable something is the image of Christ, or a potato, etc etc.

This kind of art is in fact an affront to the freedom of expression because it now has entered into the threshold of what is empirically offensive.

The freedom to offend is no freedom at all. If it does offend, it is no longer freedom, it is Already oppression.

[definedelirium]

so pach if i'm going by your statement, girls who wear short skirts, for example, are offensive because there are people who greatly value... being conservative i guess. or a woman's purity perhaps. gays are also offensive because they are what they are and some people believe that they shouldn't be that way. hell, people with tattoos and piercings can also be considered offensive because they 'defile' the body which is supposedly the temple of the holy spirit blah blah blah. or smokers too, because i dearly value my right to clean air and my right to live a long, healthy life. does that mean those people should stop what they are doing? no.

if we let the thought that we may offend someone with our actions control the way we express ourselves and live our lives, we might just throw ourselves off a cliff or walk into traffic during rush hour. the thing is, taking offense at something is subjective. while you may think that the exhibit is offensive, there are others like me who dont. does that mean that the exhibit should be taken down? no. just because a group of people has taken offense at the exhibit doesn't automatically make it a bad thing. mr cruz didn't kill someone, he was merely expressing an idea and used religious imagery and that happened to offend people in this predominantly catholic country.

[Hanzo23]

I am in agreement with definedelirium's response.

or smokers too, because i dearly value my right to clean air and my right to live a long, healthy life. does that mean those people should stop what they are doing? no.

Pach, "Bato-bato sa langit, ang tamaan, wag magalit"

If your concept that the exhibit should stop, this should apply in the same way to your habit as well.

[pach]

Ang argument na dapat tungkol sa isyung ito, biglang napunta sa aking lifestyle. 

The CCP exists at the service of the Filipino people, especially those who pay taxes for its upkeep. Majority of the Filipinos hold a value which the CCP-sponsored exhibit offends. Hindi rin naman issue dito kung pwede ba i-exhibit yung art sa pilipinas. We are a free country, so of course we can do anything so long as it is not criminal. . Ang issue is whether the CCP (which is publicly funded by a majority of Filipino catholics) can be used as a venue to hold such an exhibit that offends Catholicism.

Pwede naman sa lansangan, o sa bahay, but i dont see the reason why this publicly-funded building should host an exhibit that offends the public.


One last thing - taking offense is an objective, physical phenomenon. When somebody cusses at my mother, there is a chemical and physical reaction in my body about the act that was triggered by sound waves that correspond  to "pvtang ina mo".  I get flustered, i get giddy, i get excited, i blush and my whole body heats up because of adrenaline.  Can we say that cussing can still be a subjective thing if it is obviouse that words can hurt people? If words can hurt people. Much more so images.

Paano kung sabihin ko na for me, ok lang pumatay because in personally dont think its offensive? 

[phantomknight]

Isn't it enough to say that you should respect other people's religion?

[pach]

^ they dont believe in religion in the first place, so for them, "respecting" religion really means respecting nothing.