Who has the right to censor art?

Censoring art, is true graffiti, a visual expression altered but I'm not paying for that and only if I was would I be offended for paying for something that looked like the actual piece of work.

No one has the right to censor art! They have the choice of whether to display it or not but that's where it stops!!!

Never apologize for your art. No one has the right to censor art.
Furthermore, the piece (banner) has served its purpose. That is art. Art is; an extraction of emotions whatever they may be from whomever is viewing it, reading it, etc.

Obama. Obama has the right to censor art.

No Censor Just Embrace. Check out My Art Profile piece "The art of Matt Ritchie" and Tell me what you Think..
http://current.com/items/89742966/the_art_of_matt_ritchie.htm

This is as complicated as matters of state and church. Too many people step beyond the line yet the line is not drawn and no one knows how to draw it.

Well... I mean... I have to say this was entirely warranted.

You have to understand that Stalin created a fucking famine that killed millions of Ukrainians; putting a picture of him next to a Ukrainian church is like putting a huge picture of Hitler next to a synagogue.

Censorship is never a good idea. With that said, the powers that be should have checked in with the neighbors out of courtesy. This small courtesy may have prevented the larger crisis.

Censorship SUX !!!
(complete statement)

Stalin still brings chills and anger out in most Ukrainians you speak to because so many of us were slaughtered by his policies and wishes. Stalin sent more Ukrainian people to their death than Hitler did to Jews. between 20 and 27 million Ukrainian lives were lost in deliberate execution and starvation under multiple Holodomors set by Stalin because the Ukrainians were seen as a weaker race and because we wanted our independence back.

the world is still yet to recognize this as a genocide of my people, at least that is how Ukrainians feel and because Russia also denies it as a genocide. So Stalin pictures appearing could be very controversial, most people are reminded everyday of the Communist Regime with the remaining communist statues and buildings left all over Ukraine as well as the unhealthy status of the country.

As an artist though i feel like art should be able to be displayed anywhere with no silencing. where the artist places his piece is part of the art statement one makes with his work. But this all depends on an artists motivation for the piece. If one wants to create something for his own expression of emotion with no interest in public feedback, then others dont matter in this process. If one is creating something for others to enjoy and remark on, then the artist must take into account public interest.

An art dealer or organizer should be intelligent enough to know that if you put up a picture of a dictator in a country abused by that same dictator, the response will not be in any way positive. It doesnt matter if it was Picasso, still a bad idea on the guys part, Ukrainians will not want to look at him.

two words...THE ARTIST

if the piece is censored because it adds to the impact of it sure...but if the artist does not want it censored then it shouldnt be censored...simple as that

Hmmmm.........Art that sticks it's finger on old wounds and disrespects victims is crap in my book.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe people affected by his rule and communism, would like to forget.

How about a picture of the bastad hanging from a tree?

Now that's art!!

I think the point of art like this is to get us to react and then examine that reaction. Our responses to the portrait, both immediate and considered, are a part of the piece as a greater whole. If our reaction is to say that we should tear the work down and shut it away because it causes us discomfort... well then the grim and morbid features of the piece do not end merely with a charcoal sketch of Stalin.

I majored in Art Education and believe me some of this stuff IS NOT art, it only makes it to the public because someone with money funded it! DUH.

As an artist myself I'm all for art as long as it doesn't glorify Murderers.

Stallin is upthere with Hitler, Che, Mao, Lenin, Fidel Castro, etc.

Historians estimate that between 20 million and 40 million died during Stalin's rule, tearing families apart and creating a climate of fear that haunted the Soviet Union.

Why don't we erect a statue of Hitler? I guarantee you, that if we did, all this art bullshit would go out window, because the Jews would not stand for it.

Why should the Christians or any other group put up with this.

Fuck censorship. Art will always rebel and push limits, make people think and feel, test society's boundaries and personal comfort!...problems usually come when the art is in a public forum, so the public feels the right to have a say on whether or not they wish to support that art or artist's message. I think that's fine too- it will never stop artists from creating and 9 times out of 10 no publicity is bad publicity- controversy and art are laughing lovers!

Wait I'm confused, people seem to be saying the piece was in the Ukranian Church.

As far as I can tell it was in an unaffiliated arts and sciences institute across the street. Which makes us secularists look like the big losers in a religion-rationalism pissing contest.

No one has the right to censor art

Art as in drawing & painting, is not different than writing a book, cinema, or even song writing. At some point, someone always gets offended by the material being displayed for public consumption. But that's OK, they surly have that god given right, but to ban it for the fear that others may actually appreciate it, is borderline insecure and shalow.

Artists are politically motivated, as we all are, so they have every right to artisticaly display their view point without the hesitation or fear of offending anyone or group.

Art, there is so much to say. It shows truths and why not face the truths. It shows emotion, and gives feeling. Why do we hide and keep history like it never happened.

What the government does not want us to see, they cover it up. Easier said than to believe. Under their control which we allow.

Communication, sometimes I wish people had no language just images.

No person or entity has the right to censor art. The way to maintain a degree of political correctness and decency is to put a warning sign on potentially offensive...

The history of religion is plenty bloody too, isn't that rather like the pot calling the kettle black ? I have to look at christian "art " all the time , I don't complain . They should be more humble and try use it as a moment for contemplation of human power structures.

The person who chooses to display art has the right to censor it. It is their right as the proptery owner. It's as simple as that.

The artist needs to find another venue to display that particular art piece. Obviously it's not appropriate in a Church. Duhhhhh

HUH? Art!? I hate activism that puts words on things that are not what the main issue is!

- The Church is not censoring ART! It's Censoring a portrait of Stalin, which was one of the responsible for Communism, killings and an ideology that was destructive for the Ukranian people as to many others.

- Art has of course to be censored, ONLY, to maintain other people's rights, including Animals, etc (I have seen people killing dogs and animals to use them as part of their art work)

- Art should not be used to impulse hatred, killings, etc.

- The artists however, should not be censored at any point*; whether or not the piece of work will make it to the public is something different.

* Not censored unless someone, something dies or is a victim because of the piece of art.