args

Hate speech against Modern Art should be considered Artist

Dear Opponent, I am not confused in any way as to the meaning of "Freedom of Expression". I will, though, admit that I misunderstood and under-read your first argument, and believed that you, in fact, were placing unrealistic standards upon art, and I apologize for my mistake. Furthermore, I did not intend for it to be placed in an analogy with you deciding to "kick a guy in a wheelchair" and claim that it is "freedom of movement." (Which, in fact, does not exist in our current bill of rights, but I do not wish to debate about that, only the topic at hand.) Anyway, I simply, believing that you were imposing the "unrealistic standards" that you mentioned earlier, meant for it to be read into as follows; You may not like another person's painting, or sculpture, or any sort of art piece, and you most certainly could complain about it, and you are constitutionally given the unalienable right to do so. You may publish your grievances, you may protest, you may do anything you like. I just believe that in the end of it all, art is art, and there will be standards, but each person will have separate standards that they deem fit in their own minds, because you can think whatever you like to. I do not have standards. I think that art is not a material thing, such as a painting. A painting could be considered a work of art, but not art itself. Art is a way to express your thoughts in a way that you, and other people may understand. You may paint a skyline scene, or a stable scene, or you may paint an abstract of calming colors such as blue and purple, in order to display your mood. In the end, I agree, you are correct about there being several people imposing those standards, but I do not think that it is as prominent of a problem as you think. Thank you.