I notice the dictionary definitions tend to try to haul the other meanings back to phrases like ‘dictating a moral stance’, which feels a clue to how strong the desire for absolute standards can be.

I think we handle the absoluteness part best by limits on behaviour. Discussing, espressing, etc., degrees of ok; doing, degrees of not ok. By the time the child hits, we feel clear there need to be repercussions, even as we may feel counseling and opportunity to educate themselves beyond is as much an appropriate part of this as punishment and restitution.

Sanction as far as art goes would seem to begin with people talking about it, definitely not limited to established critics. In the nature of the sharing in making art is to care how other persons respond to it — even (or especially) if the art is meant to be defiant.

I’m thinking for a moment how acute such public expressions of taste can be. There was a moment while I lived in Britain where Damian Hirst, Serrano’s crucifix, etc. had come to a lot of attention, not particularly meaningful attention. Then Rachel Whitehead came along and won a Turner prize, the first ever for a woman, for her castings of real buildings.and living spaces.

Stark, uncomfortable, literally ‘negatives’, there was controversy of course, but lots of interest. Persons were drawn to contemplating meanings in larger mental and emotional spaces not always in view even as they came out of daily life, indeed more powerful and interesting than thumb-in-eye visual slapstick. BBC etc. sensed the interest, and gave a wide audience plenty of chance at least to see the surfaces of her work. Even the media system worked in this case, and there was a good vibe about the public discussion.

I can remember feelings of it all, and like the way that more ‘ordinary’ persons could respond when the art is good enough as well as accessible enough to give them the chance for it.

i think I also like all the gradations and dimensions possible in ‘sanction’, that allow the value and presence to be protected for all sorts of things that might not survive public misunderstanding. Sometimes it is the viewer who needs to earn the privilege, surely.

On another plane, the Germans protect the films of Leni Riefenstahl, among others, so that they can be seen again and again across generations, and their lessons taken. Here interpretation that’s given alongside is a very visible part of the sanction, and also a future-reaching opportunity, as it can improve from simply rejecting.

Hoping I didn’t drift away from your meanings, John – think we’re both quite interested in protecting for a much wider range, what you mention for Shakespeare.

You see, regardless of how graphic or explicit the game or art is, not even the most simplistic child will confuse it with reality. Art (including games) is a shadow. It evokes feelings and concepts, but never truly represents it. It should be restricted for kids so when they get a hold of it (and a lot will, no matter what you do) they have a sense of it being “bad.”

But censoring art because it might adversely influence a neglected child is absurd. You would also have to censor the news, because that represents far more potential for negative influence. We’d also absolutely need to destroy all copies & references to Shakespeare, plus all operas ever written. All contact sports would need to stop as well, especially hockey & boxing.

If we teach children to be angry, it’s more likely that they hit someone.

If a particular child hits you, of course the primary judgement falls on him.

There are two influences, in such a case. They stack, so that we have both to work on.

In a time where we have more question about trust and society, it can look different, but I don’t really think that it is different.

Just my opinion, and a good day to you.

Let me make a point clearer (?), though. I’ve held back from comment on this topic because I actually have some mixed feelings myself, after encountering Mitch’s moves on this however much I may appreciate other things I see him start up, so that I really should be addressing him.

I’d brought out earlier what seem to be his facts, that this performer did write and perform some noxious songs five to ten years ago, did sign the agreement not to do more, does seem to go by it because he got back the ability to have a visa, and as pastafarian above suggests, perhaps no one seems to hear the bad songs any more from him, with the American-mythic peaceful rasta vibe returning.

I got back pointers to a good article and some bad lyrics, and that seemingly, Capleton had ‘recorded’ after the agreement. Someone entirely different was said to have actually performed such music after the ban, which was just thrown in.

It occurs to me by now that what’s far more likely is that this one last bad Capleton recording was _released_ after the deadline, because the backers wanted their money.

I think it’s a very fraught topic as to whether someone of the actually serious original offense ought to be encouraged, and how far, and in what ways. I think the legal restriction as you argue against surely fits, if hate speech continues.

If it hasn’t, then campaigns to inform feel a good way to handle matters, and people can make their own decisions based on behaviour and other things that are actually out there.

What I have had a problem with apart from the speech issue is the shifty, programmatic insistence that somehow reform is not possible, and that the original performer needs to be entirely blackballed. If it happened, I am not sure this would do anything positive for the underlying issue of Mitch’s stated concern, which is the persecution culture in Jamaica, unless the cutoff of money did so, but there are other performers, and that may not be significant. Better if you influence change of practice, and by that way eventual change in attitude, doesn’t it seem? And likewise the similar problem in rap lyrics here.

It’s not an easy issue, nothing to be resolved quickly, and I’ll stop again with it. Just mention that with the video games thing, the picture appears to sharpen up a bit if people with originally aggressive tendencies play them.

That sort of is and isn’t in the general space; probably depends a lot on whether you are the victim. I don’t know yet of any individualized solution to this kind of problem that isn’t far more draconian than settling on a societal sense of balance. And now I think we’re back to suzy’s sight on relations of individuals and societies, how you might communicate to improve them; also Eric’s interest in Jamaica.

My thoughts exactly. Censorship is never a good thing.

Don’t confuse the culture in a society with the society itself. The society is the framework, the rules and structure, the cultures are the various behaviors people have in that. That’s how I define it anyway. So, when I hear you talking about changing society, it sounds like you are advocating altering our legal system to be more sexually repressive. Which would be like making violent video games illegal in order to prevent violence. Basically, it would be ineffective, annoying, and oppressive.

I think it’s a denial to blame society for a basic human behavior. If one doesn’t accept and understand ones own biology and instincts then one is far more vulnerable to being manipulated by them. We live in a ‘market’ based society which will exploit anything that can attract attention. So, as long as we allow it to work, they will use it.