Immediate Family by Sally MannI felt that one of the most convincing arguments was by the not censor team in the Immediate Family case; the team argued, "Do not attack the photographer, attack the pedophile."
Many times, when the public opposes an artwork, they must be remind about the other issues and factors that contribute to why they are so against it. Society has already shaped people's mind about how they view certain things, thus, sometimes it is hard for them to see that there is a bigger problem than what they are targeting. For example, one may argue that the Immediate Family artwork is child pornography, however, the only reason one may argue that is because they have prior values to why they see this photograph as something else. Also, it is important to hear the artist interest, before making assumptions of something that wasn't there.
Enrique Chagoya Pro Censorship
I think everyone in class might be against censorship, on behalf of our team, we all believed that Chagoya's artwork should not be censored for any reason. Censorship has a very negative connotation, it takes away an artist's right to freedom of speech and expression. However, I believe if the art work contains hate speech then that's another story, but if an artwork is offensive then there is no real reason to why to censor the work. When it comes to art, there is always going to be someone who might find the art offensive, however, it is important to understand the art rather than hate it. Therefore, my team and I thought it would be clever to turn censorship into something positive. In a way we agreed with all the statements that the opposing team stated, but instead of using that information against our arguments, we agreed in order to show that pro censoring the art was in the best interest of both the public and artist. All the other teams demonstrated good arguments to why or why not censor an artwork, however, every of those arguments only showed what the public felt and saw. For our team, it was important to show a view that the artist might agree upon.
We felt that our arguments revolved within the artist community: how would they feel if they experienced a hate crime or an attack from someone crazy? It is important to protect beautiful art and artists. Since, the NEA is currently facing a questionable financial future, an artist does not receive enough money to protect the art, thus, the cheapest way to protect their work, is by censoring their work (or keeping it away from the public).
Protecting the art work and preserving it, show that censoring is sometimes in the benefit of the artist and their work, not just the public.