Actually, yeah... You kind of can. Anything can be an artistic expression under the right context and to the right audience.The tag, "it's art" cannot be used to justify any action to the whim of the offender.
Actually, it doesn't -- but feel free to explain otherwise.
Because it's not.Because you say it's not?
Define art.
You said flag burning is not art and in most cases, I might agree with that. But you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of art that didn't include self expression as part of that definition. Which, setting a flag on fire can certainly fall under self expression.Why are you asking for art to be defined in a thread about flag-burning? Define pizza.
Perhaps they already are citizens? Just a thought....The real question is, why would flag burners WANT to be citizens? If they hate the country so much, they should leave.
I object to your objection, so considering you object, you should stop objecting.If freedom bothers you so much, maybe you should be the one to leave the "Land O' the Free."
The government prohibits me from expressing myself by punching you in the nose for example.
Because it's not.
Why are you asking for art to be defined in a thread about flag-burning?
Define pizza.
You said flag burning is not art and in most cases, I might agree with that. But you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of art that didn't include self expression as part of that definition. Which, setting a flag on fire can certainly fall under self expression.
Not so nice when it's turned back around to you, is it?I object to your objection, so considering you object, you should stop objecting.
In certain contexts, this is true -- we call it "assault."
In other contexts:
Why not?
Why are you waffling on it?
Now, art, please?
Here's one instance of the flag being destroyed artistically by Penn and Teller on television, to make a very specific point. I do hope you have 5 minutes to spare to watch the video and tell me what you think of their point.Because in the entire history of humanity, across all cultures of every continent, you probably won't find a single instance of people considering the burning of the American flag as art. If you do find an instance of it, then those people were r-worded [bless and do not curse].
That’s not to say that the American flag isn’t an important symbol. As Penn Jillette admitted in the clip, the American flag is but a piece of cloth, but one that “is nothing but meaning”. The inherent symbolism of the American flag does represent the country the freedoms we enjoy. Or rather, the freedoms we have left. Regardless, the flag is a symbol which is why burning it is such a meaningful act. It’s also a freedom that’s quite rare compared to nearly every other country in the world that prohibits flag desecration. Only the U.S. and a handful of other states in the Anglosphere protect their citizens’ rights to burn their flags.
In the United States, the right to burn the flag is protected by the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is the piece of paper “that means more to us than any other piece of paper in the world”. That amendment disallows the abridgment of speech by the government. That means the government cannot pass a law that would prohibit the people from burning the American flag for example. Therefore, when Penn and Teller burned an American flag in the White House it was their Constitutionally protected right to do so.
Furthermore, just because Penn and Teller burned an American flag does not mean they did it maliciously. They performed that trick on West Wing “in celebration of the very freedoms that allow us to burn a flag”. Even though others might burn the flag specifically to protest the government, that does not make their act any less of a celebration of their rights.
As Penn Jillette says after he burned the American flag “even though the flag is gone, the Bill of Rights remains”. Those that seek to outlaw flag burning should appreciate that message and reconsider their reasoning.
Art is speech. Art is expression and expression cannot be limited by the government unless it starts to cut into the rights of others. That's not something I made up, there is legal precedent from our country's highest court's interpretation of our founding documents to back up that opinion.Tell my why I should when it's not relevant to the thread. Are you also going to claim that the founding fathers meant to encode "freedom of art" but just forgot to write it down? You already have a definition of speech which is what is actually guaranteed.
Kind of hilarious we've been baited into spending several days talking about flag burning, something very few people ever even talked about before Monday, instead of the other issues going on.
Boxing. Wow you'll go to any lengths reaching for a point you can't actually make.
Because in the entire history of humanity, across all cultures of every continent, you probably won't find a single instance of people considering the burning of the American flag as art. If you do find an instance of it, then those people were r-worded [bless and do not curse].
What have I waffled on? I said something on page 1 and haven't wavered a bit.
Tell my why I should when it's not relevant to the thread. Are you also going to claim that the founding fathers meant to encode "freedom of art" but just forgot to write it down? You already have a definition of speech which is what is actually guaranteed.
Here's one instance of the flag being destroyed artistically by Penn and Teller on television, to make a very specific point. I do hope you have 5 minutes to spare to watch the video and tell me what you think of their point.
Here's the definition the framers would have known, from an 1828 Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language:Art is speech. Art is expression and expression cannot be limited by the government unless it starts to cut into the rights of others. That's not something I made up, there is legal precedent from our country's highest court's interpretation of our founding documents to back up that opinion.
It is absolutely relevant to the point of this this thread but I can see why you'd rather avoid that aspect of it since it defeats your argument.
It's as if I said "it's illegal to print money" and you respond "but the U.S. Mint does it". Whatever.What -- it's people punching each other in the nose... perfectly legal.
There's at least one mod that doesn't care for the word, but the people would be "slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development" -Webster's New CollegiateInteresting excuse you've got there -- it never happened, but if it did, it doesn't count because the people who did were.... what? say it.
Regarding art I haven't said anything to waffle about, in spite of the fact that you are desperately wanting to discuss art in a thread about flag-burning.Definition of art.
So art is not protected by your definition of the First Amendment? The government can censor art if it chooses to, according to you?
believe that, and flag burning is the least of your problems.
I looked up Penn & Teller on Wiki, it says they're a magic act. Doesn't say they're artists. No one in the video claimed what they did was art.
The tag, "it's art" cannot be used to justify any action to the whim of the offender.
I've thought and spoken about art myself, doesn't make me an artist. But okay, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. After all I'm sure Las Vegas is second only to Renaissance Italy when it comes to great artistic achievement.Both of them would do so very vehemently if questioned as they both have given a great deal of thought to the nature of art and speak frequently about it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?