Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
were not most people appalled by the censorship the administration at
the one school was implementing? why do we think it acceptable if we
do it at the class level? your last question merits discussion. we
seem intent on finding "warning signs" but we turn around obliterate
any chance that those signs would be evident in the art work. we seem
to outlaw so easily. that's the easiest thing to do but it is the
most detrimental. we outlaw the things we find most difficult to talk
about. that's when they become problems. why don't we just learn to
talk about these things. by not having credible discussions ("I don't
like them and don't want to be ill from looking at pictures
like that" does not give the child a chance for a credible
discussion), we let other shady avenues of discovery be the providers
of truth. isn't it better that they discuss information with us first
and not people in chat rooms?
salvador wilcox in only-53-nice-days-a-year-pittsburgh
>To: MPBC90, artsednet.edu
>Subject: Blood and knives
>Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 18:48:18 EDT
>While reading about the little boy and his drawings about blood and
>and squished people, I'm remembering my standing rule about artwork
>elementary classes. No blood, knives, guns, or guts. The kids all
>and they gleefully tell each new student who arrives. If I didn't
>rule, I couldn't hang much on the walls because they would be bloody
>awful (you know how little boys are). I tell the kids it's my rule
>don't like them and don't want to be ill from looking at pictures
>Then some start asking if a sword is a knife, if a cannon is a gun,
>judgment depends on how it's used in these circumstances.
>Maybe I'm missing the opportunity to see problems?
>Terry in Garland, TX
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com