Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Some visual artworks constitute hate speech because they can perform oppressive illocutionary acts. This illocution-based analysis of art reveals how responsive curation and artmaking undermines and manages problematic art. Drawing on the notion of counterspeech as an alternative tool to censorship to handle art-based hate speech, this article proposes aesthetic blocking and aesthetic spotlighting. I then show that under certain conditions, this can lead to eventual metaphysical destruction of the artwork; a way to destroy harmful art without physically destroying it.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daisy Dixon (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: