158 replies to this topic

[cubanmiamiboy]

Simon G, on Dec 4 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

...American Idol, Hannah Montana, X Factor or any other lobotomising crap...

[carbro]

Simon G, on Dec 4 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

You know what I was thinking and decided it'd be a far better World if there was indeed any real danger and possibility that an impressionable young person would ever be inclined to switch on a specialist arts channel and be confronted with troubling, thought provoking, challenging and even downright disturbing material with intellectual weight and power, than the reality that that same young person is 100% certain to opt for switching onto American Idol, Hannah Montana, X Factor or any other lobotomising crap that makes up the majority of modern media.

  Bravo, Simon!

[kfw]

Simon G, on Dec 4 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

You know what I was thinking and decided it'd be a far better World if there was indeed any real danger and possibility that an impressionable young person would ever be inclined to switch on a specialist arts channel and be confronted with troubling, thought provoking, challenging and even downright disturbing material with intellectual weight and power, than the reality that that same young person is 100% certain to opt for switching onto American Idol, Hannah Montana, X Factor or any other lobotomising crap that makes up the majority of modern media.

I don't think the only choice is between vacuous and challenging. And not every insult -- certainly not de frutos' -- is challenging.

[Nanarina]

Simon G, on Dec 4 2009, 10:03 PM, said:

You know what I was thinking and decided it'd be a far better World if there was indeed any real danger and possibility that an impressionable young person would ever be inclined to switch on a specialist arts channel and be confronted with troubling, thought provoking, challenging and even downright disturbing material with intellectual weight and power, than the reality that that same young person is 100% certain to opt for switching onto American Idol, Hannah Montana, X Factor or any other lobotomising crap that makes up the majority of modern media.

This whole argument of complete censorship for the few remaining outlets in the mass media where content comes above popularity is deeply dangerous, it's asking to silence the few places where challenging and dissenting artistic voices can actually still be heard.

Simon I agree with you in most respects, but one problem for me is my grand daughters who love ballet do actually go onto BBC4 and the Sky Arts s programme (the latter at their own home) they are 6 and 9 years old.  At the same time they watch Strictly Come dancing , the X facttor and britains got talent, together with their brother like normal kids they watch cartoons.  But  I myself find some of these very violent, even the Disney older ones with Tweety Pie .Tom and Jerry  etc are violent as well,Laurel and Hardy   Abbot and Costello etc and they are meant to be funny, and we just accept them as that. My daughter their mother wants her children  to learn about the arts, and encourages my helping them by taking both  to the ballet etc.  But the thought of them tuning in to any un suitable programme whether it be De Frutos or
another, really  worries me. They are usually supervised. One day my Gransdson who  is 10 and very artistic, and can draw anything, was caught with his pad and pencil copying a nude on TV,  , he was actually allowed to finish his drawing, and was very proud of it. We felt it was in his interest of art.  But where do you draw (no pun intended) the line?

[Simon G]

kfw, on Dec 5 2009, 04:44 AM, said:

Simon G, on Dec 4 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

You know what I was thinking and decided it'd be a far better World if there was indeed any real danger and possibility that an impressionable young person would ever be inclined to switch on a specialist arts channel and be confronted with troubling, thought provoking, challenging and even downright disturbing material with intellectual weight and power, than the reality that that same young person is 100% certain to opt for switching onto American Idol, Hannah Montana, X Factor or any other lobotomising crap that makes up the majority of modern media.

I don't think the only choice is between vacuous and challenging. And not every insult -- certainly not de frutos' -- is challenging.

kfw,

You didn't see the De Frutos, how do you know? Though one thing's for sure, its mere existence is certainly challenging many people here's perceptions and views on what is and isn't art and the nature and purpose of censorship. Just think how much more interesting that conversation would be if we had all seen it and could discuss it from the same point without bias and kneejerk responses?

So if anything it achieved its goal, we're talking about it and the issues surrounding it in a reasoned, intellectual way - why couldn't a child be brought into a similar discussion if they were to view it, and discuss it with responsible parents who trust their children enough to be able to be challenged, and to question their world in an intelligent and thoughtful manner?

[Simon G]

Nanarina, on Dec 5 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

Simon I agree with you in most respects, but one problem for me is my grand daughters who love ballet do actually go onto BBC4 and the Sky Arts s programme (the latter at their own home) they are 6 and 9 years old.  At the same time they watch Strictly Come dancing , the X facttor and britains got talent, together with their brother like normal kids they watch cartoons.  But  I myself find some of these very violent, even the Disney older ones with Tweety Pie .Tom and Jerry  etc are violent as well,Laurel and Hardy   Abbot and Costello etc and they are meant to be funny, and we just accept them as that. My daughter their mother wants her children  to learn about the arts, and encourages my helping them by taking both  to the ballet etc.  But the thought of them tuning in to any un suitable programme whether it be De Frutos or
another, really  worries me. They are usually supervised. One day my Gransdson who  is 10 and very artistic, and can draw anything, was caught with his pad and pencil copying a nude on TV,  , he was actually allowed to finish his drawing, and was very proud of it. We felt it was in his interest of art.  But where do you draw (no pun intended) the line?

Nanarina,

It's funny, I used to use the "it's for art" defence when I was a kid with a hankering for smut, too. It's incredible that it still works!

I suppose we could return to a Victorian policy of total censorship, cold baths, regular pre-emptive corporal punishment, stern Christian lectures, salpeter in milk, chastity belts and dressing table legs in trousers - because that really worked for them.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm just off to cleanse the streets of Whitechapel with my trusty scalpel.

[Nanarina]

Nanarina, on Dec 5 2009, 10:20 AM, said:

Simon G, on Dec 5 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

Nanarina, on Dec 5 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

Simon I agree with you in most respects, but one problem for me is my grand daughters who love ballet do actually go onto BBC4 and the Sky Arts s programme (the latter at their own home) they are 6 and 9 years old.  At the same time they watch Strictly Come dancing , the X facttor and britains got talent, together with their brother like normal kids they watch cartoons.  But  I myself find some of these very violent, even the Disney older ones with Tweety Pie .Tom and Jerry  etc are violent as well,Laurel and Hardy   Abbot and Costello etc and they are meant to be funny, and we just accept them as that. My daughter their mother wants her children  to learn about the arts, and encourages my helping them by taking both  to the ballet etc.  But the thought of them tuning in to any un suitable programme whether it be De Frutos or
another, really  worries me. They are usually supervised. One day my Gransdson who  is 10 and very artistic, and can draw anything, was caught with his pad and pencil copying a nude on TV,  , he was actually allowed to finish his drawing, and was very proud of it. We felt it was in his interest of art.  But where do you draw (no pun intended) the line?

Nanarina,

It's funny, I used to use the "it's for art" defence when I was a kid with a hankering for smut, too. It's incredible that it still works!

I suppose we could return to a Victorian policy of total censorship, cold baths, regular pre-emptive corporal punishment, stern Christian lectures, salpeter in milk, chastity belts and dressing table legs in trousers - because that really worked for them.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm just off to cleanse the streets of Whitechapel with my trusty scalpel.

Simon,  I can just see you on your hands and knees, with a bar of carbolic soap scraping away in vain.  About as ridiculas  as  it would be to return to the Victorian beliefs.

[kfw]

Simon it's a fair question, but not everything that provokes protest is intellectually challenging, and enough has been written about the de frutos now that, to quote a U.S. vice-presidential candidate of awhile back quoting a television commercial, where's the beef? As you say, we've mostly been discussing not ideas in the work itself, but what is censorship and what is appropriate protest. I think there are better ways to interest kids in adult issues than "vile, scatological", agit-prop.

[cubanmiamiboy]

Simon G, on Dec 5 2009, 07:03 AM, said:

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm just off to cleanse the streets of Whitechapel with my trusty scalpel.

...excuse me, but...     
(oops... ...sorry about that, so back to DeFrutos... )

[Nanarina]

Simon G, on Dec 5 2009, 10:03 AM, said:

Nanarina, on Dec 5 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

Simon I agree with you in most respects, but one problem for me is my grand daughters who love ballet do actually go onto BBC4 and the Sky Arts s programme (the latter at their own home) they are 6 and 9 years old.  At the same time they watch Strictly Come dancing , the X facttor and britains got talent, together with their brother like normal kids they watch cartoons.  But  I myself find some of these very violent, even the Disney older ones with Tweety Pie .Tom and Jerry  etc are violent as well,Laurel and Hardy   Abbot and Costello etc and they are meant to be funny, and we just accept them as that. My daughter their mother wants her children  to learn about the arts, and encourages my helping them by taking both  to the ballet etc.  But the thought of them tuning in to any un suitable programme whether it be De Frutos or
another, really  worries me. They are usually supervised. One day my Gransdson who  is 10 and very artistic, and can draw anything, was caught with his pad and pencil copying a nude on TV,  , he was actually allowed to finish his drawing, and was very proud of it. We felt it was in his interest of art.  But where do you draw (no pun intended) the line?

Nanarina,

It's funny, I used to use the "it's for art" defence when I was a kid with a hankering for smut, too. It's incredible that it still works!

I suppose we could return to a Victorian policy of total censorship, cold baths, regular pre-emptive corporal punishment, stern Christian lectures, salpeter in milk, chastity belts and dressing table legs in trousers - because that really worked for them.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm just off to cleanse the streets of Whitechapel with my trusty scalpel.

Simon I can just picture you on your habnds and knee's   with a bar of carbolic soap scraping  away in vain.  Very amusing, but about as silly as returning to Victorian values.

[Simon G]

I still maintain that the absolute stranglehold that vacuous mass media has is far more damaging to the psyches and development of children's intellect than being confronted with challenging material. And that there's zero chance a kid would sit through 40 minutes of niche market dance-based physical theatre when there's a whole world of drivel at his or her fingertips.

But, how about we approach this from a different angle? The De Frutos wouldn't even register with children of a certain age, so let's say a child who is inquisitive, intelligent should happen upon a piece such as the De Frutos and ask about the symbolism religious etc within the piece. How would you honour that child's intelligence and perfectly reasonable questions by initiating a conversation with him or her? It would take some research on your behalf for starters, you'd need to know about De Frutos, his background dance, cultural and religious - there was an intellectual point and purpose as well as emotional one and indeed a commissioned one (it was made for the Spirit of Diaghilev evening after all). Then you'd have to research the transgressions of the Papacy historically, of the Roman Catholic church and specifically De Frutos' relationship with his religion. You wouldn't have to go into all the sordid details - but you could start an interesting and healthy discourse rather than censoring and rendering subjects taboo - most unhealthy approaches.

Ultimately though, the upshot would be you'd have an arsenal of facts and issues which could be spoken about and discussed with the child. That for me is a far more grown up and rational approach not only to this whole issue, but also to raising children who are open, aware and intellectually inquisitive.

[papeetepatrick]

carbro, on Dec 4 2009, 10:16 PM, said:

Simon G, on Dec 4 2009, 09:03 PM, said:

You know what I was thinking and decided it'd be a far better World if there was indeed any real danger and possibility that an impressionable young person would ever be inclined to switch on a specialist arts channel and be confronted with troubling, thought provoking, challenging and even downright disturbing material with intellectual weight and power, than the reality that that same young person is 100% certain to opt for switching onto American Idol, Hannah Montana, X Factor or any other lobotomising crap that makes up the majority of modern media.

  Bravo, Simon!

All good stuff, Simon, I agree with all you've said here and elsewhere on the thread, except want to get niggling about your !00% figure.  I've often made the mistake of thinking young people were getting moer bubbleheaded and MySpace -obsessed and cellphone-endlessly-diseased, and yes, of course American Idol (I've never seen it, but I know people of ALL ages take it seriously), but not all of them.  Maybe 95% is a better sad figure, and you probably didn't mean the 100% all that literally, so I'm just harping a bit on one little detail, since we will definitely still find those exceptional and sensitive youngsters, of course I'm sure you know that.

[leonid]

Simon G, on Dec 6 2009, 12:46 PM, said:

I read psychology at university and have subsequently been involved in supporting, guiding and directing young teenagers into education, skills, The Prince's Trust and work.

I would not dare to make any of your statements regarding children that have the semblance of claims. But I defend your right to make them.

I have of course not read any case papers, but one in ten children in this country have mental health problems which mean childhood experiences and influences
are likely to be of significant importance.

You say, "I still maintain that the absolute stranglehold that vacuous mass media has is far more damaging to the psyches and development of children's intellect than being confronted with challenging material." What is the evidence for this?

Many successful choreographers and companies of the last twenty years are the product of "the vacuous mass media" and as I have avoided de Frutos I cannot comment on his work.

[cubanmiamiboy]

My two cents to this thread.  My mother is an Arts teacher-(college level in Cuba, elementary school here).  She's not allowed to show her students images of  Laocoön and his sons, Venus de Milo, Michelangelo's David, Goya's Naked Maja and so on.  Meanwhile video games depicting rape, murdering and plain sauvage behaviors are legally allowed.  What's wrong with this picture...?

[Simon G]

leonid, on Dec 6 2009, 08:38 PM, said:

Simon G, on Dec 6 2009, 12:46 PM, said:

I read psychology at university and have subsequently been involved in supporting, guiding and directing young teenagers into education, skills, The Prince's Trust and work.

I would not dare to make any of your statements regarding children that have the semblance of claims. But I defend your right to make them.

I have of course not read any case papers, but one in ten children in this country have mental health problems which mean childhood experiences and influences
are likely to be of significant importance.

You say, "I still maintain that the absolute stranglehold that vacuous mass media has is far more damaging to the psyches and development of children's intellect than being confronted with challenging material." What is the evidence for this?

Leonid,

I challenge you to watch an entire afternoon of entertainment geared at kids/tweens/teens that includes, American Idol, X Factor, Hannah Montana, High School Musical, Hollyoaks, Best of Friends, Kyle XY, The Season, T4, Camp Rock, Trouble on Deck, The Jonas Bros, Aaron Stone, Beauty and the Geek, Search for a Pussycat Doll, Sonny With a Chance, Nicktropolis - there's a few to be getting on with. Then let's talk about the current mass media geared at youth.

Yes, childhood trauma is the leading cause of psychotic disorder and disturbance in children. Incest, sexual abuse, PTSD, violence, bullying, underage sex, drinking drugs, negelct, no one refutes that. What is beneficial is keeping channels of communication open, you don't have to hit a kid with all the evils of the world and every sordid detail, but keeping discourse, debate open and answering questions in age appropriate manner is completely different.

The point about the Victorians isn't that a return to the superficial morality they followed is the answer, rather that they were the biggest bunch of perverts going. If anyone has ever seen pornography produced in that era, they'll know, it's hardcore and far more centered around the taboo sexuality and morality they tried so very hard to divorce themselves from.

But okay, here's a few things to think of:

Two men rape a young woman, they cut off her hands and rip out her tongue in order that she can't name her accusers.

A man kills two men in revenge, turns them into pies and tricks their mother into eating them.

A man marries and has sex with his mother, unwittingly, when he finds out he pokes out his eyes.

A young girl is raped in an Edwardian garden by a much older man, as his wife seduces a young boy.

Sixteen youths are brutally tortured to death in war time Italy in the state of Salo by a priest, a minister, a politician and a doctor.

A king's gay lover is murdered and that king killed by forcing a red hot poker up his rectum.

A young mother finds her life is a sham and commits the ultimate sin in 19th century Norway, the monster abandons her husband and children forever.

Those are a few examples off the top of my head. Shall we now censor and ban Shakespeare, Marlow, Pasolini, Euripides, MacMillan, Ibsen? At the very least let's keep our children away from these dangerous, sick so-called artists. But there's no fear of that, they'd rather be watching Hannah Montana & High School Musical.