charlie1223 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) What would you say to someone who disagrees with you on performance art that you consider to be 'harmful' to kids, and the other person considers it as nothing more than nonthreatening artistic freedom?... especially if it were someone who was going into the realm of becoming a marching arts designer in BOA, WGI, and DCI. By the way, (and no kidding here) I actually had a PHD Sociology Professor in college who maintained that prostitution and adultery are actually helpful, not harmful, to the social construct of marriage; and he, as a sociology expert, gave lectures on why he contends that is the case. What would you say to that professor? I'll listen to him and maybe change my views! If I still thought that something was harmful to kids even if it was legal I wouldn't let my kids participate in it (if I had any). Other people can do what they want with their kids. Edited March 21, 2014 by charlie1223 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 So how would you set these designers back onto your "moral" and "righteous" path? Take over DCI, and install limits on what show designs people can do? Create some sort of morality police watching over everything and keeping people in line? Or just go straight to the top of the US government, and make sure they're keeping everyone on the straight and narrow path, with no variation for exploration or self-expression. I would not appeal to the Government because of the First Amendment to the Constitution which in part states: “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...”. The key words there, however, are ‘Congress shall make no law’. It says nothing about any other entity making a rule or regulation limiting speech concerning their specific organization or institution. So, as a concerned fan of the marching arts, and especially if I were a voting member on the Board of DCI, WGI, or BOA: Yes I advocate marching arts organizations creating rules and regulations which install limits on what show designs people can do, and Yes I advocate marching arts organizations creating some sort of structure to watch over everything and keep people in line with those rules and regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) I am not stating that DCI and WGI designers are morally bankrupt; nowhere close. My point is that the incremental acceptance and the lack of placing moral responsibility upon freedoms and behaviors, artistic or otherwise, is exactly what lead the Roman culture to Caligula. And if people cannot see that this type of incremental path is the same type of path we are on in our modern culture they are either blind or obtuse. And since many are not seeing, not willing to see, or completely ignoring that we are on this path, at some point it will inevitably infuse itself into the artistic framework of DCI and WGI; unless we as a culture change our ways and hold strong to the responsibility of freedom instead of celebrating the anything goes freedom. What you're asking for is for people to all have the same morals and that won't happen. At some point you need to let people do things that you are uncomfortable with it if it's between consenting adults or parents. Edited March 21, 2014 by charlie1223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 Not to mention that in the early 60's when the Beatles were coming into popularity,their hairstyle was considered by many to be a moral outrage; kids were suspended from school because of that haircut, and not allowed to return until they were cleaner-cut. Looking at that haircut now, it seems pretty tame to say the least. There is a natural progression of societal morality, and what might seem inappropriate at one time seems perfectly natural at another. Street art is a popular, acceptable mainstream art (if not fully exploited by large corporations), where as 20 years ago it mostly just looked at as vandalism. While some folks are maybe talking the extremes (I would venture to guess vomit-art will not be a main-stream art form anytime in the near future), I also think that at some point it becomes more of a "main stream sensibilities have passed by the older generation folks." I don't think that's a good or bad thing, just seemingly a fact. Drum corps is not something that is "forced" upon anyone, and if someone disapproves of perceived morality in show design they are certainly entitled to not consume the product. There always is a natural change in societal morality over time; I will give you that. However, all societies in history which have opened up their culture to freedom, without requiring people to adhere to the personal responsibility of engaging in that freedom, head down the path of moral ‘regression’ not moral ‘progression’. Unless you consider art moving into the realm of vomiting and defecating on each other as responsible moral ‘progress’, then you will, of course, disagree with my assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) There always is a natural change in societal morality over time; I will give you that. However, all societies in history which have opened up their culture to freedom, without requiring people to adhere to the personal responsibility of engaging in that freedom, head down the path of moral regression not moral progression. Unless you consider art moving into the realm of vomiting and defecating on each other as responsible moral progress, then you will, of course, disagree with my assessment."Requiring people to adhere to the personal responsability of engaging in the freedom..."What does this even mean? It's a personal responsability not a social/religious responsability. Everyone has a subjective idea on what this is and if you want to regulate what people think is "personal responsability" then you are asking for their to be a thought police or a theocratic society which defines what consensual adults do. Freedom means that even that "organization" can do a demonstration down a street and have it be legal. It also means Westboro baptist church can hold disgusting signs and picket a soldiers funeral. That's the horrible but beautiful picture of freedom and no amount of hoping for more "personal responsability" in these cases will change this. Because if you changed their ability to do this you change what is actually free. Edited March 21, 2014 by charlie1223 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 There always is a natural change in societal morality over time; I will give you that. However, all societies in history which have opened up their culture to freedom, without requiring people to adhere to the personal responsibility of engaging in that freedom, head down the path of moral ‘regression’ not moral ‘progression’. Unless you consider art moving into the realm of vomiting and defecating on each other as responsible moral ‘progress’, then you will, of course, disagree with my assessment. Allowing those things, and others like the Mapplethorpe exhibit a number of years back, and admiring them as something to emulate and become part of the fabric of society, are two different things. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I would not appeal to the Government because of the First Amendment to the Constitution which in part states: “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...”. The key words there, however, are ‘Congress shall make no law’. It says nothing about any other entity making a rule or regulation limiting speech concerning their specific organization or institution. So, as a concerned fan of the marching arts, and especially if I were a voting member on the Board of DCI, WGI, or BOA: Yes I advocate marching arts organizations creating rules and regulations which install limits on what show designs people can do, and Yes I advocate marching arts organizations creating some sort of structure to watch over everything and keep people in line with those rules and regulations. So, you just want them to adhere to your morals? Got it. And DCI has a rules Congress….. so there's that. You say societies that allow this "deparvity" regress instead of progress. How would you classify scientists discovering the Higgs-Boson particle, or curing as many diseases as they have in this perverted society? Or growing a functioning liver out of stem cells? Or creating cars that can run on bio-fuels? Or 3D printing moving prosthetics for amputees? If society is regressing, what are all of these ground-breaking discoveries then? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsubone Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Allowing those things, and others like the Mapplethorpe exhibit a number of years back, and admiring them as something to emulate and become part of the fabric of society, are two different things. That's the most important thing. Freedom of speech and expression means that you can do what you want as long as it does not cause harm to others, even if people shouldn't admire the behavior. Heck, burning the American Flag is protected under the Constitution, but you'd be hard pressed to find a large number of people who think it's an admirable behavior that should become part of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 What you're asking for is for people to all have the same morals and that won't happen. At some point you need to let people do things that you are uncomfortable with it if it's between consenting adults or parents. You wrote, “At some point you need to let people do things that you are uncomfortable with it if it's between consenting adults or parents.” Ok; first off please define 'adult' as it applies to society; because in the United States when a 12 year old goes to see a rated G movie in a theater that 12 year old pays as an adult yet they are not considered an adult to go see a rated R or NC17 (X) movie; when a 15 year old commits a horrendous crime they are tried as an adult yet they are not considered and adult in the voting process; there are 19 year olds from France studying at universities in the United States who can evaluate the differences of fine wine and can recommend which wine for which meal while there are many 21 year old United States citizens studying at the same universities who do nothing but get plastered and smash beer cans on their heads. And here is the real kicker to your statement: ‘Parental Consent’. That means as long as a parent gives their blessing, their children should be able to engage in any ‘adult’ behavior. So,where do we, as a society, draw the line especially as it applies to Art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) You wrote, “At some point you need to let people do things that you are uncomfortable with it if it's between consenting adults or parents.” Ok; first off please define 'adult' as it applies to society; because in the United States when a 12 year old goes to see a rated G movie in a theater that 12 year old pays as an adult yet they are not considered an adult to go see a rated R or NC17 (X) movie; when a 15 year old commits a horrendous crime they are tried as an adult yet they are not considered and adult in the voting process; there are 19 year olds from France studying at universities in the United States who can evaluate the differences of fine wine and can recommend which wine for which meal while there are many 21 year old United States citizens studying at the same universities who do nothing but get plastered and smash beer cans on their heads. And here is the real kicker to your statement: ‘Parental Consent’. That means as long as a parent gives their blessing, their children should be able to engage in any ‘adult’ behavior. So,where do we, as a society, draw the line especially as it applies to Art? You're right! I guess that's all subjective too! You're starting to really get the hang of the complexity that is our subjective reality and morals! "where do we, as a society, draw the line especially as it applies to Art?" through subjective consensus. In India you have gurus who perform yoga naked (could be seen as a performing art) on the street and contort/torture their bodies/genitalia in positively disgusting ways for everyone, even children to see. These people are seen as well... gurus, which is very venerable in that culture. It's ALL just subjective consensus. Edited March 21, 2014 by charlie1223 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts