This journal is a continuation of the journal about the deletion of my art piece feating the Norway shooter, Anders Breivik.
Recently, two popular dA artists,
, had supported the idea that a simple depiction of a person can't be considered hate-art, and drew their own portraits of the man, calling people to discuss the problem. I thank them for inspiring discussion about the matter and you can check their art here: fav.me/d4mb70c
and here: fav.me/d4mb3xu
I've taken a look at the comments, and - not surprisingly enough, most of the comments were along the lines of "well, the artist is a huge Neo-Nazi shitstain, so dA is right to remove his work, because this guy clearly supports Breivik, and therefore, through the eyes of the author, it's glorification of a killer".
I'm not going to deny that I support Breivik's actions. However the artwork itself wasn't telling it. Art is about the eye of the beholder, so I've always thought that it's the viewer who should form the opinion on the artwork, and not base it on the artists opinions or motives behind it.
However, the comments made me think about this. People are saying, that if I, because of my ideology, draw something, this ideology imprints all over the art and makes is as illegitimate as it is. Basically, everything I draw, is put into the perspective of my personality and should be judged accordingly. While it is partially true, it can go to a ridiculous length. It can be boiled down to: "you can't express yourself, because all you can express is hate. And we allow only an expression of very certain things. Go rot".
And then the art world becomes closed to the person. He can't express themselves in a world where everyone else can, even the "oppressed" and "discriminated".
I imagine, that before Anders went on with his plan, for at least a decade he tried to reach out with his point by other methods. He wrote, he participated in forums, he most likely outed himself to other people. But, he'd most certainly often met the same kind of "you believe in this, you're a bad person, you don't have the right to say this, to think this".
And when all options are run out... well, it's time to take the gun.
I'm not saying that a removal of an art piece would cause me to go on a homicidal quest, that would be silly. And even if it did, I'm not the kind of person to announce it on the internet. However... However such instances are those that bore a person's logic down and make emotions and anger take over. One by one.
However, labeling such work as the one gets deleted, as "hate art", only breeds more hate in ME. It's doing the opposite of what's intended. I won't learn from it - I'd just get more bitter and angry about the world where I even can't upload a portrait of man to share with others. Why shouldn't I seek to destroy such a system then?
You see, everyone says: "why would a person do such a horrible thing? Why'd he go and kill, when he could try and do something less harmful?". Well think about it. Think long and hard about it. You try to do something "less harmful" to explain your position, to gather likeminded people, and then bam! - your non-harmful ways are locked down. What would a person feel, what idea would they get?
They'd get the idea that it's all bullshit and there's no other way to express yourself, but with bullets. Because the logic is here: "hey I tried this your way, and you've spat in my face".
If you tell a person they're bad, at one point they'll believe it.
Basically, censorship does one thing - it solidifies the censored in their conviction and opinion, that's what I'm getting. It also closes the route of communication, and opens the route of violence. I've always told that any totalitarian goverment should never have open and transparent censorship. The only way to keep people happy is by allowing them to blow off steam in a manner that's unintrusive, and the first option available to any.
Censorship creates extremists. Political correctness and hypocrisy creates terrorists and radicals. I'm not trying to intimidate anyone, but actions do have consequences. If you don't have an outlet in the way of someone listening to you, you'd certainly try to get in touch with them with the louder sound of gunfire and explosions.
I'm thankfully, a rather smart person. By my own admittance, but still. As a media person, I know all about info outlets. But say, if it's someone not as smart or rational or gathered. And they deal with this shit over and over and over - wouldn't they decide to end it in a rather flashy manner?
When Breivik killed over 90 people, other people woke up and read his manifest, and despite censorship, it got leaked. But for people to hear his opinion, he had to firstly kill someone. So who'd created these murders, if not those, who've failed to let him address his audience while feeling safe? Not fearing reprecussion, jail or worse, for simple words as we've seen in the UK tram lady case?
As I said. Such things might be small, insignificant, but like the droplets in the ancient chinese torture, they're sill taking their toll.
Time after time, before the cup is full and patience is thin.
And to those who've addressed my hypocrisy that I expect freedom of speech, but am really against it - well whoop de fucking doo, I play by the rules, because liberalism is on the rise. Cry me a river.