Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on October 04, 2010, 07:16:24 PM
-
I'm posting this is the Politics forum because the Colorado art museum is taxpayer-funded, and that's where I take issue with this exhibition of "art". If this **expletive deleted** "artist" wants to have his "art" in private galleries, let him do so.
I love the challenge near the article when Don Surber suggested the "artist" show some courage by doing the same thing with a painting of Muhammad. I suspect the "artist" would be dead by the end of the year.
Article is here (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/04/outrage-art-exhibit-depicting-jesus-sex-act-boosts-gallery-visits/).
-
Setting up Jesus in a situation like that? My, how edgy. Absolutely no-one has done anything like that before. I wonder why no-one else thought of it first.
-
Oh, great, yet another piece of ****---er, .... "art." I get the First Amendment, but is there no one in any "art museum" who has good taste? And why are some artists so intent on provoking Christians?
-
And why are some artists so intent on provoking Christians?
Free publicity.
-
And why are some artists so intent on provoking Christians?
Because Christians are "tolerant", unlike Muslims, who would behead the guy in a NY minute.
What I want to know is why the directors of a publicly-funded museum didn't see a problem with this?
-
Because 90% of the population are Christians.
-
Because Christians are "tolerant", unlike Muslims, who would behead the guy in a NY minute.
What I want to know is why the directors of a publicly-funded museum didn't see a problem with this?
Because a good deal of the Artsy Fartsy community are left wing hypocrites. I enjoy art and even have an ability to discern the difference between actual aritistic talent and the self centered arrogance of those who believe art should challenge the status quo using outrage rather than muse or actual talent.
-
Enrique Chagoya's "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals," created in 2003, is a multipanel piece in which "cultural and religious icons are presented with humor and placed in contradictory, unexpected and sometimes controversial contexts,"
A hundred bucks says a certain major religious icon is not part of the exhibit.
-
Last time I went to the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, I saw the art exhibit there. That was some real art.
-
why are some artists so intent on provoking Christians?
Because something like this is guaranteed to get a a bunch of people all hot and bothered but not to the point acting out or hurting anyone. They'll blog about and maybe write a letter or two. If a major media personality picks it up the museum might give the artist the boot but by then he's made a name for himself and it only cost him upsetting a bunch of people who never would have liked his "art" anyway.
What I want to know is why the directors of a publicly-funded museum didn't see a problem with this?
I don't see a problem with it. I'd be sympathetic to arguments against publicly funding any museum art exhibits but once you're past that - I see no reason to shy away from subject matter that some people could be offended by. People are too easily offended, that would make for pretty boring art.
-
I disagree.
One of two things need to be happening:
1. No funding of museums/musea with public money.
2. If museums are funded with public money, the public (via whatever mechanism) needs to control the content.
Now, you must understand that I personally am not offended by this content. That's not relevant.
What is wrong here is how public museums and public academia function. They get to drink public money, but people who are not accountable to the general public in any way control content.
-
why are some artists so intent on provoking Christians?
Because there are no roving Baptist hit squads.
-
What is wrong here is how public museums and public academia function. They get to drink public money, but people who are not accountable to the general public in any way control content.
Quite right. If this were a private gallery and those who pay for its operation (customers) were outraged, the owner(s) of the gallery would pull the "art" rather than risk losing customers.
With taxpayers footing the bill, the "art" can outrage 50-70% of the people who pay for its operation, but getting the "art" pulled will be next to impossible, and getting the director booted would require a massive, coordinated public effort.
Perhaps someone with the requisite skills could duplicate the work, except depict Muhammad rather than Jesus, affix the "artists" name to the piece, and circulate it in the Middle East. Put a bio of the "artist" on it as well, with his address so people can order prints.
-
Because there are no roving Baptist hit squads.
Dude, if Baptists had roving hit squads, I would so totally be one. Besides, the food is pretty good, so there's that.
-
Dude, if Baptists had roving hit squads, I would so totally be one. Besides, the food is pretty good, so there's that.
You must have a lot of love for chicken spaghetti.
-
Because there are no roving Baptist hit squads.
And that's the problem!
At least you have a reasonable expectation that, after they kill you, they won't dance on your grave.
-
Because there are no roving Baptist hit squads.
Don't give Westboro any ideas.
-
Because there are no roving Baptist hit squads.
:laugh: :laugh:
-
Don't give Westboro any ideas.
As if they would have the stones. ;/
You must have a lot of love for chicken spaghetti.
Say what? :O That's one heresy I can't convert to, hit squads or no. No amount of smiting the infidel can atone for white meat spaghetti.
-
I have never had chicken spaghetti, and it sounds intriguing. Is this a Midwest thing? Can someone point me to a representative recipe?
-
I have never had chicken spaghetti, and it sounds intriguing. Is this a Midwest thing? Can someone point me to a representative recipe?
It is a foul concoction of noodles, chicken (rumored), and scads of onions.
-
I have never had chicken spaghetti, and it sounds intriguing. Is this a Midwest thing? Can someone point me to a representative recipe?
It ain't my midwest. I never heard of it either.
I bet somewhere out there, an artist is drawing Jesus eating chicken spaghetti at the Last Supper. Blasphemer.
-
http://thepioneerwoman.com/cooking/2007/06/chicken_spaghet/
If this is what you are talking about, I would eat this in a heartbeat.
-
Cheddar cheese on spaghetti? Further proof that all casserole recipes should be destroyed, for the good of mankind. How can a loving God permit such atrocities?
-
A thread where the usual "detcord" answer has real purpose?
-
A thread where the usual "detcord" answer has real purpose?
Detcord for the "artwork" or for the chicken spaghetti?
-
Either? Both? For the "artwork" primarily though.
-
Chagoya said he's surprised by the response, saying there were no objections when the piece, which also includes comic book characters, Mexican pornography, Mayan symbols and ethnic stereotypes, was shown last year at a museum in Denver.
So perhaps there is a cultural difference between the two cities? It's a wonder he didn't think of that.
And apparently there is more to be outraged about than just kneeling Jesus.
Seeing as how there is admitted pornography in the exhibit I cannot understand why the laws that require the hiding of such from children's eyes is not in play. But what the heck, we all know I'm sort of a concrete thinker in those regards.
stay safe.
-
For the same reason, I assume, there's no click-through warning on the Guttenberg Project?
-
Cheddar cheese on spaghetti? Further proof that all casserole recipes should be destroyed, for the good of mankind. How can a loving God permit such atrocities?
It is just noodle casserole. It is not spaghetti. If it were normal spaghetti and meat sause with chicken instead of beef, I might could get behind it, but it is just another casserole. I generally hate casseroles.
-
HEY!
How come nobody mentioned this before? (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.publiusforum.com%2Fimages%2FThe%2520Legend%2520of%2520Bud%2520Shark.jpg&hash=159d659f0039b8072f7b603c589fe6143ca85b94) Seems all the hoopla over gay Jesus is just a cover to avoid having to mention that Mohammed likes porking the pork. The only place I found that mentioned it directly was http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/306421.php , and I got there from a brief mention here http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com/2010/10/he-may-or-may-not-be-lousy-artist-but.html .
So maybe we could start a pool on how soon the artist starts receiving death threats? Proceeds to go towards the purchase of the SS APS.
stay safe.
-
So, accusations from this thread notwithstanding, he attacks Muhammed too?
-
Hmm. Never saw the "art" before, and the news stories didn't mention Muhammad. This should be interesting.
-
I guess flaming head guy with the porcine hooches is Muhammad?
-
Well someone snapped and took a crowbar to it.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=156905&provider=top&catid=188
I hope she gets charged for her crimes. As much as I and others disagree with the subject of art work, the artist and business is protected by the 1st amendment just like we are.
-
If I were her counsel, I would start prepping my defense that the destruction was an artistic act.
-
It's probably better that the woman took a crowbar to the exhibit. A muslim might have taken out the whole building, and then then we'd have to listen to an Obama speech about Islam being a peaceful religion.
-
Well someone snapped and took a crowbar to it.
http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=156905&provider=top&catid=188
I hope she gets charged for her crimes. As much as I and others disagree with the subject of art work, the artist and business is protected by the 1st amendment just like we are.
And the towel-headed guy with the dancing pigs is still not mentioned.
stay safe.
-
I'm posting this is the Politics forum because the Colorado art museum is taxpayer-funded, and that's where I take issue with this exhibition of "art".
Taxpayer funding of something does not give you the right to get the art removed. You have the right to vote against the representatives charged with overseeing the committees that deal with art funding allocations... If they're your representatives.
Setting up Jesus in a situation like that? My, how edgy. Absolutely no-one has done anything like that before. I wonder why no-one else thought of it first.
Huh. That's how I feel about 95% of publicly funded art.
Local news article: http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=29671
-
Taxpayer funding of something does not give you the right to get the art removed.
And he didn't say it did, either.
If I were her counsel, I would start prepping my defense that the destruction was an artistic act.
Since the goal of modern "art" is either to disappoint the viewer by the total lack of meaning or content (Jackson Pollack), or to shock, insult or offend the viewer, galleries and museums ought to encourage the smashing of "installations" with crowbars. Neh?
-
The artwork style reminds me of the old ZAP comix (http://www.google.com/images?num=10&hl=en&newwindow=1&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&q=zap+comix&wrapid=tlif12865058306852&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=e4WuTNDoD8Kclgf0-8znDw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQsAQwAA) featuring Wonder Warthog and those Fabulously Furry Freak Brothers and the work of R. Crumb
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/07/montana-woman-arrested-damaging-jesus-porn-art-colorado/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/07/montana-woman-arrested-damaging-jesus-porn-art-colorado/)
Montana woman takes crowbar to "art" and crowbar wins.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/07/montana-woman-arrested-damaging-jesus-porn-art-colorado/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/07/montana-woman-arrested-damaging-jesus-porn-art-colorado/)
Montana woman takes crowbar to "art" and crowbar wins.
How much do you want to bet she's not a Muslim?