An artist's freedom of expression has been loosely invoked the past several weeks in these shores. That artists can produce and write anything as an expression of artistic ideas has been a source of heated debates over media and social networking sites.
We had Mideo Cruz who desecrated an image of Jesus as a social commentary on how religious icons are used to worship the divine. Then came James Soriano, a student from Ateneo De Manila, a school known for its high scholastic standards, who with boldness proclaimed in a newspaper article that Filipino, our national language, is but a language of the street that one uses to communicate with the domestics.
To become an artist, it seems one has to be insensitive. To become an artist, one has to have the thick skin to brave criticisms. As an artist, one has to lose humanity to gain entrance to it. As an artist, one has to present reality in its basest form. But then what happens to art when all considerations are given to the artists' freedom? What happens to the audience of art when the artist cares only for his personal gratification and damn-you-all expressions?
If we have been up in virtual arms against the "works" of Mideo Cruz and James Soriano for their "slips," what do we say then to the critics from the other shores who find the works presented below as offensive?
The above photo shows rape and sexual abuse to be fashionable if you wear the right kind of brand: Calvin Klein Jeans. This ad was banned.
The above photos of 10-year-old girls with provocative glances which appeared in Vogue Magazine raised an uproar recently. Too young to be objectified. The critics ask, where is this world going?
This photo appears today at Yahoo. Domestic violence is cool, it seems to say. Are we justified to shout FOUL!?
Do I need to make a comment on the photo above?