RE: How Far, How Far We've Fallen: An Open Discussion Pertaining To The Decline Of Society
First you need to answer a question - what is the purpose of art?
I think it's purpose is to invoke an emotional response. In this case it has done that, and perhaps your reaction is the response the artist was angling after, perhaps not.
Whilst the images are indeed disturbing, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want them outside my window, I don't think they will harm children, unless the adults around them make a fuss over it.
To kids it's just another image, and one they are not really interested in.
Should it be there? I guess it depends on why it is there. I'd suggest these are a protest of sorts, an indication that al is not well in the European Union. the images a metaphors for something a whole lot worse than a single man being harmed.
This could have been done by a protesting artist. you wold probably find it is a group who did this - up to 10 people working as a team.
I could also be very wrong
Do you not think that repeated exposure to such imagery will cause a child to consider it the norm, therefore desensitizing the child to such acts of brutality and cultivating apathy that has become the main force in our world that prevents change?
Desensitized
Evidence of desensitized behavior
Comfortably Numb
The Effects of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-Life Violence
Desensitization to Media Violence: Links With Habitual Media Violence Exposure, Aggressive Cognitions, and Aggressive Behavior
The Problem With Exposing Kids To Sexual And Violent Content
I think that that is one possibility.
But maybe this artist is trying to tell us something?
I think it is interesting that #pizzagate is just shoved off by some people as a theory, yet those of us who are intellegent know that our world harbours dark entities and underground cabals.
Obviously whoever did it thought it was worth seeing.
I think instead of attacking it we should ask ourselves why there was a need to paint it.
If ritual sacrifice (brutal murder) is happening in or world, I think it is wise to tell children of the world they are living in.
People are brutally murdered everyday, including children.
Hiding this from them when they are wise enough to see is essentially lying.
Nothing like exposing children to the horrors of the world so as not to lie to them, because we don't want to lie to our children, because all lying is essentially evil immoral and wrong, right, regardless of circumstances, when the gestapo comes and asks if you're a jew, if you're a dissenter, you don't lie to them because lying is evil.
lol.
Lying is a poision - it corrodes truth.
And now you are saying that truth matters not and that intellegent children should be lied to.
nice.
When one lies to others, he lies to himself also.
They would have to be subjugated to repeated and prolonged bouts of viewing these images. That yo are talking about is brainwashing.
If the children were isolated, and the images were not explained, and not other stimulus was given to them then yes, they might become desensitized.
But if their parents explain that this is expressive art, it's there for a reason, and then they go and see a Bambi movie, what is the child going to remember?
It's going to remember Bambi because that is the imagery it connects with.
The easiest way to traumatize a child it to tell them they must* be traumatized when they see these images.
There are much better tools to create apathy and a higher tolerance of violence if that was the aim.
In those studies, where did you read "isolation"?
You didn't. So you're reaching if you want to argue that negative images and violence in imagery doesn't negatively affect children.
In those studies where did you read that explaining away what is happening would have created a different response? You didn't, you are expressing your opinion based on conjecture that explanation will somehow work on the subconscious, on the unconscious and finally on the conscious and evoke a different, more visceral and normal response.
There are countless ways to traumatize a child, to argue that the easiest way is through telling them that they will be traumatized by the sight of disturbing images is probably a half truth, to tell them something that nonsensical will probably be meet with a side eye, that would have probably been my reaction, so I cannot speak on what other children would have done. You really believe that children aren't traumatized by violence in movies and art? You really believe that it's ok for children to watch violence, sex, mutilations, faces of death and other deranged things, and that telling them that they will be traumatized by those things will actually traumatize them easier? Have you even considered the absurdity you are arguing?
Prove it, show us the tools you're talking about, mr I have an opinion and it's not my asshole.
Those studies show that there is a diminished response after just 20 minutes of video games, but a mural on a building IN PUBLIC (READ socially acceptable behavior) will not affect children.
Where did you read "brainwashing"? You didn't, all those studies were sensible to say the least, not over the top, not 20+hours of violent video games, not 2+hours long videos, not 300 foot mural in the middle of the world, a lot less than those things affected people, not even children which are much more malleable in their impressions.