Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sob
Okay, here's a scenario. Note that it's not a personal attack, but a hypothetical:
Let's say a family member of yours died in a car wreck. Let's further say that the cause of the wreck was alcohol-related. Doesn't have to be your relative who was drinking.
Would you be okay with a picture of your bloody relative, lying in the road, being posted widely as an admonishment not to drink and drive? After all, manx says it's okay. To quote him, "Art does not need to make you feel good. Art simply exists to make you feel.
And based on the passion of your response to this art, it seems it has been very successful."
|
I don't know if you were addressing this question to me - I believe not as you deemed it acceptable to answer it on my behalf.
I would _certainly_ be "okay" with a picture of my relative (not necessarily a bloody, lying in the road picture of my relative) being used as an admonishment to not drink and drive. In fact, if someone else didn't create such a statement, I would do it myself.
But you are clearly making some assumptions about the word "okay". Is it "okay" that whomever created the Bush/Dead Soldiers montage did so? Is it "okay" to whom? The soldiers families? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it "okay" to you? I don't care. Is it "okay" to me? Sure.
Something being "okay" is very different from something being illegal. There may be legal ramifications in using someone's likeness without either their permission or the permission of the family. But the legality of the action is very distinct from the subjective consideration of whether it is "okay".
My statement on art is entirely applicable. And I would add that art does not have to be "okay" to anyone at all. Maybe it is illegal art, maybe it is not. Regardless - it was effective art.