Sparks, you are right that the world is not the ideal place many(most) of us would like it to be. But that does not excuse any of the actions you listed. She should be able to display a politically divisive image without getting assaulted. Just because the world sucks doesn't mean we need to hide from it, or accept getting assaulted. Maybe she should have a shotgun in the gallery and use it defend herself - it seems to be a method her detractors understand.
Originally Posted by sparx
Francesco, I agree that it would be nice to see all to good that has come out of the US occupation of Iraq. But a gallery owner is not required to provide a balanced display.
I think what it comes down to for me is that we should fight censorship, whether it is by the government, or a group of private thugs. Neither is excusable.
While violent attack should not be condoned, there are times when one should exercise certain degree of restraint and common sense. Displaying a potentially inflammatory art work on the window, IMO it is somewhat naive and/or demonstrates a totally unawareness of real life. While we all would like that there was no discrimination, no wars, etc, etc. That is not the way it is, and when we exercise our freedom we should do it with responsibility and many times try and foresee the possible repercussions.
While the guy who hit this woman should be taken out back an beaten the crap out him, in a way I understand what bjorke is talking about. If our supposed enlightened press can take an image out of context of a totality of work like Andres Serrano's "Christ in piss" and make totally dumb and untrue statements, what can we expect of those who are barely a few millionths of a percent above monkeys?
I guess I disagree with Jay and those who say the woman had no blame in this. Sure, she should not expect to be physically attacked, but then as the old an trite example of yelling fire in a crowded theater explains so well, freedom does have responsibilities and sometimes requires a little bit of sensitivity and awareness of society.
No one said She deserved to get smacked in the face. But she should have known the hanging of the picture, where everyone walking by would see it, would draw some response, negative and positive. She cannot be so naive, as to think it would not draw a reaction. The egg, the trash, the threats, all come about when you actively take a side. Posting this painting in the window sounds to me like she:
Originally Posted by jdef
A)hoped the painting would draw a crowd to her gallery
B)was making a statement
C)Had no where else to hang a blatantly political piece except the window.
If one is going to spout free speech they must also accept those who have views different from there own. COmparing the right of the KKK to march and voice their opinion, and the hanging of art is perfectly legitimate. Both are forms of what makes this country so great. You can hang your photo and voice your opinion and no one can deny you that right as long as you are doing it in a peacable manner. The KKK have the right to express their views just as much as you have the right to express yours. They are guaranteed the right to march, just as much as the NAACP, AIM, Green Peace, or an anti war peace rally. You cannot pick and choose who you will allow the freedom to express themselves. You may not agree with what they say, or stand for but yes you have to support their right to say it. Voltaire was right.
The gallery owner should not have been hit. If the assailant yelled at her and voiced his revulsion of the picture, that would have been totally acceptable. He crossed the line. He had no right to hit her.
Just for the record. I am not a member of the KKK, and find their message offensive, but I do and always will support their right to voice their opinions. The right to publicly voice our opinions without the threat of censorship is a beautiful thing.
Those who would make good nazis are the ones who wish to stop others from offering their opinions or expressing their views, because they do not agree with them.
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
c6h6o3 wrote: " in general, all over the world, public sentiment is changing from one which embraces diversity, creativity, inclusion and personal liberty to one which is defensive, fearful, divisive and angry."
would that it were true that world sentiment embraced such positive elements as diversity, creativity, inclusion and personal liberty now, or ever. those have always been ideals sadly lacking in reality. those wonderful folks who made the 20th century such a delight with world war, genocide, racism and sadistic oppression on a monumental scale cannot be dismissed or forgotten. such viciousness persists with virulence and myopic singlemindedness. we (in the U.S.) must count ourselves extraordinarily lucky to live in a country as enlightened as it is despite the fact that for the present and the future it is a certainty that horrible behavior will continue to occur here as it does elsewhere. let's hope that it remains, as i think it does, only the province of a pathetic minority and never the general public will.
A painting of US soldiers torturing prisoners - how many other interpretations can there be of that? Surely there can be no positive interpretation of it, vis a vis the US military and their presence in Iraq. The KKK's intentions are certainly more obvious but are not those of subtle intentions perhaps more dangerous, more thought provoking, more easily excused? Is it art because it is a painting? This is a question I struggle very hard to answer. Sometimes people hide behind art, or hide behind lofty moralisations rather than to actively participate and get dirty. I hope the person who attacked the owner gets caught and gets to do time. I hope something for the "artist" as well...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Jay, I am glad you called him a painter.
Do not feel sad for my views, they are mine and I am happy to share them - feel sad instead for the majority of soldiers who are honourable and have nothing to do with those bad eggs in that prison BUT who have been pronounced guilty by association, and reminded of it time and time again.
I believe the urinating soldier thing was proven to be a hoax.
One of the purposes of "art" is to evoke an emotional response. This painting certainly has done that.
Whether it's any good is another story.
I kind of agree with both sides here. Everyone agrees that she should not have been attacked. But we are torn on the concept of responsibility for ones own actions.
It's not a perfect world. The getting in peoples faces during heated times, is an example perhaps of bad judgement. We still need to be conscious of our own decisions, and sometimes the consequences of those decisions is not what we may have anticipated.
On top of that some people like to be controversial to gain attention. Sometimes they get more attention than they bargained for.
Don't have an answer.
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
AT NO TIME DID ANYONE SAY SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SHE WOULD BE ATTACKED. THE WORD WAS KNOWN WHAT REACTION SHE WOULD GET, NOT THAT SHE WOULD BE ATTACKED. JDEF, SO YOU WILL UNDERSTAND AND NOT USE THAT EXCUSE AGAIN, WHICH YOU HAVE WITH OTHERS.
See woman open gallery.
See woman accept art work for gallery.
See woman except a political painting in gallery.
See woman place painting in front window of gallery.
See people throw eggs.
See people leave trash.
See people make nasty calls.
See people make threats.
See people do this for 2 weeks.
See woman get punched in face.
See woman surprised by the reaction.
See woman say she had no warning.
For those who said did you see the painting? Well yes. I saw it briefly as I drove by on the way to a fish market near the Maritime Museum. that was at the beginning of last week. Eggs on the window, and the painting in the front window prominently displayed so that from two lanes over I could see it plainly. It was my son who noticed it first. My comment at the time, "someone is upset." I didn't think anymore about it.
All through history art has engendered emotions. Some paintings are even painted to incite extreme emotional reactions. The French revolution is an example. Caravaggio in the late 1500's was murdered for his paintings that slapped at the sensibilities of the Catholic Church. It is nothing new. It is not singular to the USA. It will continue in the future.
I never said she deserved what she got or intimated it in any way. To twist words to make it sound like we did, is just creating a point to argue from, is crazy. None of us here thinks she deserved to be punched. I for one think she was just a bit too naive or very brilliant. This will ensure that her gallery will have a steady flow of traffic once it does reopen. Who is to say what was behind it. It happened. What is good if there is any good, is it was only a punch in the face. And that is not to say that I am about to go out and do worse or am in anyway encouraging or condoning someone to go and do worse to her. Do not twist the meaning of what I stated.
We are all different, and we all make things differently. We all have the freedom to choose, even if it is to dissent in a country that will not allow it. What we understand is that if we choose to do something that is known to bring a reaction, we should not be surprised by it. If we were all the same, what good would photography be? We would all be making the same exact picture. Scariest of all, you all might be just like me!
I do not deny that a US citizen has been beheaded by madmen and videotaped. Where do you get off saying I deny atrocities were committed? The nerve!! Who do you think you are?
I'm sorry I read the article and missed the part about her being surprised or say she had no warning. I also have a hard time understanding how that is relevant.
Originally Posted by Aggie
I know that you cant be advocating that once she realized she was pissing some people (or low lifes) off she should have voluntarily censored herself
That, of course, would be bull sh!t and completely counter to what America stands for.
"These Colors don't Run"