Quote
Originally posted by: Deguello
Art in fact, DOES fall under man-made laws. Would you argue that child pornography is art? You could. But its wrong and illegal. Displaying a dead body is in poor taste and has been illegal for a long time. The Bodies exhibit is different in that it is quasi-scientific in nature and they mostly got consent, but the ones that they may have not raise serious ethical issues. Hypothetically, suppose I wanted to use your blood as my paint. Since art is apparently free from man-made laws, I can bludgeon you and paint daisies on your wall in your blood. Now I'd imagine you'd how a problem with that and would not consent. But you would have just about as much consent as those contested dead bodies, or a very young child being abused by their guardians.
In what way is displaying a dead body illegal? Are open casket funerals against the law? Those plastinated body exhibits are hard for me to judge. I think there's nothing wrong with them as long as everyone on display gave fully informed consent when they were alive. If they didn't give consent, then their bodies should be taken out of the exhibits and given proper burials. Does that change whether it's art, though? Assume for a moment that it is art, and compare it to an established, accepted art form. If someone stole paint in order to create a painting, would the painting, the actual creative act, not be art? If a block of marble was stolen and made into a statue, would the statue not be art just because the sculptor had no right to make it? In either case, if the crime had not been committed, the materials had been obtained legally, and the resulting piece was exactly the same, would the work be art then?
It seems to me that the creative act, the thing we judge to be art or not, is separate from the acquisition of material. The crime committed does not necessarily influence the art itself. In your own example, the crimes committed are assault, battery and vandalism. Using blood for paint is not specifically a crime that I know of, although it would certainly be informative during the trial. That's not to say that art isn't subject to law. Child pornography is illegal not just because it is itself harmful (and it is, since it encourages further harm to children), but also because the act of creating the stuff is illegal. You abuse a child in the process. Taking a provocative picture of a child is illegal regardless of whether you're making "art." On the other hand, painting isn't illegal regardless of whether the paint is stolen. Stealing paint is illegal regardless of whether it's used to create art. They are separate acts and require separate judgments.
Quote
The real story hee is that the ESRB may be tightening down on games not that they are starting to look more realistic and in the Wii's case, control more viscerally. I think same games that used to get M's might find themselves under the AO banner soon.
I have a lot to complain about when it comes to the M and AO ratings. The AO rating says, "This is totally inappropriate for minors." The M rating says, "This is totally inappropriate for 95% of minors." There is no point in making that distinction. The age guidelines for the ratings are 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 18. There's a three to four year difference between each pair except for the last. I understand why AO means 18 and older, because that's when you're legally no longer a minor and are responsible for your own screwups. I just think that in light of that, the M rating doesn't really serve its purpose well. They should either move it back to 16 or eliminate it and move T up to 14. Obviously, they should tweak the criteria for the ratings if they do that, too.
The other big problem is that "Rated M for Mature" is quite possibly the best ad line to use on kids ever invented. They should have come up with a drier name, or at least something that wouldn't attract kids. Alternatively, they could have used something other than age-based ratings, avoiding the problem of kids wanting to be grown up entirely.
Topic: Manhunt 2 from Rockstar? Whoa... (Read 102145 times)
