At JI, a lengthy rumination on art by a new JI perm. The post is a response to an as-yet unposted piece by another JI perm, which posits: "Art is dangerous. The person who fully engages with any piece of art runs the risk of being changed/transformed in fundamental ways." Literature maybe, but art? Is this potential transformation — which seems to sneak up on unwary gazers and readers — sufficient cause to ban or censor books, paintings, or sculptures? If anyone has a link to Matt's further discussion of the "theology of art," feel free to post it. I sense a post on the theology of censorship lurking somewhere in the ether.
Dave - Liz beat me to the posting punch so I reproduced my thoughts in her comments.
Posted by: matt b | Sep 09, 2008 at 03:12 PM
I am not sure if I get larger point but I would agree that art can transform a person's consciousness.
Insofar as that might be dangerous, freedom of speech is probably the most reliable cure. As long as there are competing ideas, there is a pretty good chance that society will be alright.
Posted by: Hellmut | Sep 10, 2008 at 08:26 AM