Let's all be careful out there.
Let's all be careful out there.
What's the truth? That the world is full of violent, reactionary pricks? There's a reason I act and talk nice and still carry a fistload. Not only is freedom of speech continually reduced by the Feds, but it is reduced in a practical sense by all the thick-skulled knuckle-draggers who would reverse the slope of your nose for voicing dissent.
Reminds me of the 60s when both the civil rights movement & the Vietnam war were violently divisive. Just as with the My Lai massacre, I can not understand why American troops are being put into situations where "friend or foe" decisions lead to the committing of atrocities. We are becoming again a nation polarized between those who still believe Bush to be honest & those who find deceit in governmental statements. Decent people are being cowered into silence by todays version of the Nazi storm troopers (my wife is afraid to sign petitions for fear of the FReepers). And if you think these are only random acts of violence, check out the internet hate sites which target people for abuse or worse.
"United we Stand"
This is BS, and I'll tell you why:That's right, she's just here to make a buck off everyone's misfortunes in Abu Ghraib.Quote:
Originally Posted by the article listed in the first post
It isn't a right-wing/left-wing issue. It doesn't matter if you support the Iraq war or think it's loathsome. It's about someone clutching after public issues purely for the sake of profit.
She is a war profiteer, hiding behind the cloak of art (and now victimhood).
I have no problem with the gallery, the art work or the owner. But one of the problems we have today is that while everyone has the freedom and right to pretty much print or say what they want, those same people must recognize that they have to accept adverse reaction to material. If the material incites a riot and they get caught up in the middle, they should not be surprised if their nose gets broken. That is not to say the person breaking the nose is right because they are not. It is the same as a member of the Ku Klux Klan wearing a robe walking through the middle of a predominantely African American neighborhood and not expecting to be assaulted. He has the right, but shouldn't be surprised by the reaction he receives.
Reaction to images, editorials, movies or stories is not always rational. But on the other hand, I think anyone who produces controversial work expects and wants to get a reaction. In the case in point, the gallery owner due to the controversy will get far more individuals in to see the work. The art may or may not be garbage, but those viewers may see something else at the gallery they do like. The gallery has its name in the news, the artist gets pub. The price paid is going to be adverse reaction.
The ironic thing is that protest and reaction to art never has the desired effect. All the protests and controversy surrounding the movie "The Passion" only fueled interest and turned it into one of the biggest grossing movies of all times. I remember the art show in NY that contained the modern piece, "Piss Chirst" (hope that was the title). Most of the reaction took the art work completely out of context and articles in NY Times talked about how the numbers of visitors increased as the controversy grew.
Just an added note here. The person that owned the gallery and got punched in the face was a woman.
In my opinion, whatever you think of the "art", the act of punching a woman in the face is pretty brutal. I saw her face and it wasn't a slap. It takes a special person to walk in and punch a woman in the face.
I think protesting the "art" is appropriate is you feel the need, but physical violence to the person is criminal.
I agree that punching the gallery owner regardless of gender was a despicable, criminal act and was wrong. But I don't think the gallery owner should be so surprised at the reaction she has received over displaying art that invloves issues that are so devisive to the country. It doesn't matter if she is not taking a stand one way or another, by putting the art on display she is by default taking a side and making a statement.
Another case in point was the conservative Denver talk show host who was pretty far to the right and got murdered for his views. Not a proper reaction to someone elses views but I guess it comes with the territory.
In a perfect world, people who disagree might come in have a cup of tea, voice their displeasure but respect the gallery owner for displaying the art and the artist for creating it. But it ain't no perfect world. Yes getting punched in the face was very, very wrong, but on the other hand, if you get in the middle of such a volatile issue don't be surprised if someone does punch you in the face.
But... was it really art???? Remember the thread about the difference between taking *snapshots* and being a photo artist??? Why now, are these pictures suddenly given the lofty position as art?
I think she knew full well when she posed these as art that she would receive a violent reaction. It will be interesting to see who she sues over it!
I am a defender of free speech; I was part of the generation who fought hard for the right of 18-year olds to vote (only to see the ennui of the current bunch of recipients of this right). But I am also pretty leery of the anti-America types who will take the freedoms figuring that because the word starts with 'FREE' that they (the freedoms) come with no responsibility.
Help me out here - can you describe what exactly is an "anti-America type"? Is there a field guide one may purchase? I would just like to know how to spot one. Where do they nest? Where do they feed? Have any been bred in captivity? Do they have unique mating rituals? Do they really exist, or is this a new example of one of those Urban Legends?Quote:
Originally Posted by BWGirl