args

Illegal art should be made accesible

By saying that illegal art should be accessible you are just encouraging people to loosen the definition of what constitutes art to cover a lot of inappropriate or obscene material. How are you going to make it accessible? By having special, physical galleries for housing this banned art? or opening special forums on the internet, what sort of art do you think should be accessible, art like Bill Hensen's child photography/pornography? There is illegal art that violates copyright laws that are set up to protect intellectual property, is this the sort of art that you think should be accessible and if you do make this accessible, doesn't it just spit in the face of the offline codes of legal and moral practice that protect artist's rights to show and profit from their own work? You need to define what exactly the illegal art that you are trying to popularise is because alot of material could fall in the category of "banned" or "illegal" art and alot of this material is banned for good reason, child pornography is banned and one of the materials completely banned under internet censorship even, so if someone takes your argument and calls it art, does that mean we should throw it on a website or in a gallery and let people be educated by it? Publishing and popularising material like this is not justified by suggesting it stimulates debate and discussion, the debate and discussion can occur without some of these offensive "art" pieces being legitimized by being displayed and accessible, as is evident by this debate itself. Limiting access to obscene or offensive material is hard enough to regulate without the ability to just limit people's access to physical property today considering the digitisation of almost everything on the internet, encouraging access to something so loosely defined as "art" or "illegal art" will be problematic and give an opportunity for people to abuse the system.