Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't you see? This is a brilliant piece of conceptual art. The transgressive artist boldly expresses himself thru his guerilla style attack on the homophobic, misogynist, racist, ethnocentric bastion of western civilization: the church. The woman who "destroyed" the piece represents the ignorance and intolerance of the establishment who literally smashes the artist's vision and in time honored fashion, stomps her boots over the oppressed people of the world.
No, she did not have the right to do this. But this just gives this hack of an "artist" exactly what he wanted: notoriety, martyrdom, and street cred.
If he really wanted to be bold and provocitive, he could have shown any of the following engaging in gay oral or anal sex:
-Martin Luther King
-Barack Obama
-Mohammed
-Nelson Mandela
-Sean Penn
-Ted Kennedy
-Cesar Chavez
-Al Sharpton
-Jesse Jackson
-Keith Olberman
Now that would really have stuck it to the cultural establishment. But that's not what he wants. He is the worst kind of conformist. He goes along with the prevailing world-view of his little self-contained and self-referential world of "artists".
The really sad thing is most contemporary art falls into this same tired old trap.
Fact: Chagoya has a right to make the image in any way that his mind sees fit.
Fact: Folden had no right to damage the picture.
These are unarguable. If someone tried they have a diluted perception of the Constitution.
I do think that the Loveland city council had a responsibility to allow the the image to be displayed. It can be argued that it could go someplace else but probably everyplace there would be the same reaction. The council failed to see cause and affect and when emotions are that high usually there is trouble.
I don't know the Loveland Museum Gallery but I know that Loveland has a large Catholic culture. The museum was irresponsible in the manner that the art was displayed and the way it was secured. We have to remember that when we defend any of our rights we have to be responsible. When the council said that image stayed they should have put in security measures maybe at the artist expense, he is responsible for his rights as well. The image should have had display times, The image should have been in a different area and under a better glass with security in place that would prevent a person with a crow bar from entering. Emotions were to high not to foresee this type of action was manifesting.
As for the woman she needs to be prosecuted and held criminally and financially liable for her actions. What is more reprehensible then an image that I can chose to or not to view, is one person telling me I can't at all. One person cannot dictate the rights of another. Under the same logic that she used we would have book burning, forced belief in a specific deity, and control of individual thought. I question if this religious minded woman even understands her own bible because control of expression is what that killed Jesus.
Agree with me or disagree but don't act or chose for me. When you do that you take away every one of the bill of rights and make them only words on a parchment.
Well as usual the "Christians" want to cherry pick what they like and don't like about fundamental Americans principles. Why should we be surprised? They do the same thing with the bible too.
Read it and weep liberals. You don't hear this woman, or anyone else, threaten the artist with death do you? I'm glad she destroyed with crap called "art". It's about time someone actually stood up for Christianity, amen for her. If this had been muhammad the pedophile, you think an angry Muslim would just stop at destroying the thing? Heck no, there'd be a fatwa on the artists head calling for his death!
So if I want to make a painting depicting Muhammad having gay sex with another man...then I should not expect any violence or vandalism?
Okie-dokie...
No, you shouldn't expect any. This is the U.S. of A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amerifree
Too bad she didn't smash the artist with her crowbar instead.
Right, because that's how much you care about free speech in this country.
You honestly believe that if someone says or does something that you disapprove of, even something that has absolutely no impact on your general welfare, it gives you the right to physically assault them? Really?
And, what is with the immediate rush to defend every act of non-Muslim violence with a suggested example of Muslim violence. Is this the new justification for everything now?
Well as usual the "Christians" want to cherry pick what they like and don't like about fundamental Americans principles. Why should we be surprised? They do the same thing with the bible too.
can you give us an example of us "cherry pick"ing Biblical principles?
To the others: maybe if she had bombed it she could have been picked to ghost-write a president's book, as Bill Ayers, the terrorist was.
So if I want to make a painting depicting Muhammad having gay sex with another man...then I should not expect any violence or vandalism?
Okie-dokie...
Too bad she didn't smash the artist with her crowbar instead.
So you're saying the reactions of Muslims to perceived insults is good and proper?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist
I personally disagree--but the law is the law. Technically, this "artist" had the right to make it. Technically, the woman was wrong to smash it.
Personally, I love the fact that she destroyed it. I don't necessarily condone her actions, though. I would again point out that if she were a muslim she'd have probably gone after the "artist".
Read the article. It was torn, not destroyed. The crowbar broke the plexiglass case, then she managed to put a tear into one of the panels of the artwork. You might also learn that the artwork was not all about Jesus nor was his figure the only character on it or the focus of it. It seems it's like a bunch of comic book panels with various characters.
Huh? The woman was arrested and will likely be convicted. It's a victory for liberal ideas and freedom of speech.
Quote:
It's about time someone actually stood up for Christianity, amen for her. If this had been muhammad the pedophile, you think an angry Muslim would just stop at destroying the thing? Heck no, there'd be a fatwa on the artists head calling for his death!
Yeah, yeah. Play the Muslim fear card. It's meaningless, but I see it used whenever someone can't come up with a rational response to a discussion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
