Oh My - Controversial Artwork Destroyed!

[nguirado]

Originally Posted by sweevo

See, you're trying to argue "we don't know how it happened, so it must have been a god, and moreover the same god I believe in".

You are arguing a logical fallacy. Appeal to ignorance / god of the gaps.

Logical fallacies are fallacies. They are not rational.

You're making a material assumption. You make the assumption that the universe is only and can only be material (no God, Justice, Love [chemical processes], soul, etc.). I'm making a divine assumption.

Reason, by the way, isn't materialism. It's a tool wherein you plug in premises (your assumption that the universe is/ can only be, material, for example), follow some rules (such as non-contradiction), and come up with non-emotional (unless your premise is that emotion makes something logical), objective conclusions.

This is off-topic. I won't reply anymore. I just see people make these mistakes and wish to correct them.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by nguirado

You're making a material assumption. You make the assumption that the universe is only and can only be material (no God, Justice, Love [chemical processes], soul, etc.). I'm making a divine assumption.

Reason, by the way, isn't materialism. It's a tool wherein you plug in premises (your assumption that the universe is/ can only be, material, for example), follow some rules (such as non-contradiction), and come up with non-emotional (unless your premise is that emotion makes something logical), objective conclusions.

This is off-topic. I won't reply anymore. I just see people make these mistakes and wish to correct them.

Sorry, but the mistake that is being made is yours in assuming something that cannot be demonstrated.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by weateallthepies

Surely he'd get a Christian response...forgiveness...turning the other cheek and so on.

I don't think the artist is naive, obviously the art was going to offend some people. I just don't believe that violence is an acceptable response to being offended, nobody has the right to not be offended.

Knowing my faith, I think the odds of "turning the other cheek" are only about 50-50, unfortunately. That's one of the principles that is the hardest for for humanity to internalize, it seems.

I agree that violence is not an acceptable response to being offended, and what that woman did was criminally wrong. My point, though, was that violent reactions to art and the artist that are perceived to have committed sacrilege have become the norm - no matter what the religion. Not to have have expected that is either naive or disingenuous on the part of the artist.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

....

I agree that violence is not an acceptable response to being offended, and what that woman did was criminally wrong. My point, though, was that violent reactions to art and the artist that are perceived to have committed sacrilege have become the norm - no matter what the religion. Not to have have expected that is either naive or disingenuous on the part of the artist.

That people cannot find other ways to respond to intellectual provocation than crude violence is a sad thing to contemplate indeed.

Art has provoked for centuries in one way or another* - at least in Europe (ex classique: Rembrandt, Monet, Debussy**), most probably also elsewhere (undoubtedly - it's just that I can't think of any well-known examples right now ).

Art tends to challenge established ways of thinking or doing. It is the pure creative mind at work, doing things no one thought of before. By its nature it's provocative.

We are so very lucky in this time and age - at least some of us - to live in socities that encourage and support free expression of thought. Societies where a civilised and non-violent exchange of ideas can happen. Well, that is what civilised means to me - that everyone can speak their mind freely and that no one gets hurt or killed. That we can talk together even if we don't like each other or our ideas.


* I'm trying to evade the question that the universal point of art is to provoke - I'm not sure it is a universal point, but since art tends to be at the avant-garde of thought (or ought to be?), I believe it is by its nature provocative.

** AFAIK L'après-midi d'un faune caused noticable controversy.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Ea

Art tends to challenge established ways of thinking or doing. It is the pure creative mind at work, doing things no one thought of before. By its nature its provocative.

We are so very lucky in this time and age - at least some of us - to live in socities that encourage and support free expression of thought. Societies where a civilised and non-violent exchange of ideas can happen. Well, that is what civilised means to me - that everyone can speak their mind freely and that no one gets hurt or killed. That we can talk together even if we don't like each other or our ideas.

Well said.

[recluse]

I agree that Art was meant to enlighten. To be controversial.

However, it is frequently used to intentionally offend and to incite.
And when the offended parties finally react, it is held up as proof that the offended are savage animals.
It is simply the lowest form of hatemongering.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by recluse

I agree that Art was meant to enlighten. To be controversial.

However, it is frequently used to intentionally offend and to incite.
And when the offended parties finally react, it is held up as proof that the offended are savage animals.
It is simply the lowest form of hatemongering.

I would like to know more about the difference between controversiality and offensiveness/incitement.

Also, I would really like to hear more about current examples of blatant, intentionally offensive and inciting works of art that can be easily deemed hatemongering rather than thought provoking comments on current issues.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ea

Also, I would really like to hear more about current examples of blatant, intentionally offensive and inciting works of art that can be easily deemed hatemongering rather than thought provoking comments on current issues.

Maybe the second and subsequent printings of "the cartoons" comes pretty close. Not that I am suggesting that causing offence by words or by images warrants a physically violent response, simply that some of the re-printings seem to me to have been motivated by the wish to provoke a response from the Islamic community.

[recluse]

Two examples from New York City were a painting of the Virgin Mary splattered with excrement and a crucifix immersed in urine.

Don't see how that could be mistaken for intellectual stimulation.

[alecE]

Crucifixion as practiced by the Romans could be 'fine-tuned' to prolong of shorten the dying of the victim. Depending on how high the victim's shoulders were in relation to the horizontal part of the cross, the ability to breathe was more or less restricted. The lower the victim's shoulders, the harder it was to breathe. This could only be ameliorated by straightening the legs. Hence the deliberate fracturing of the femurs to precipitate death. Some experimental data may be gained by trying to breathe whilst suspended in a crucifixion-like pose from suitable equipment in the gym. Don't try this at home kids.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by TGS

Maybe the second and subsequent printings of "the cartoons" comes pretty close. Not that I am suggesting that causing offence by words or by images warrants a physically violent response, simply that some of the re-printings seem to me to have been motivated by the wish to provoke a response from the Islamic community.

has anyone actually seen copies of these? I keep hearing conflicting stories, ie; the artist had no intention of depicting jesus

Originally Posted by alecE

Crucifixion as practiced by the Romans could be 'fine-tuned' to prolong of shorten the dying of the victim. Depending on how high the victim's shoulders were in relation to the horizontal part of the cross, the ability to breathe was more or less restricted. The lower the victim's shoulders, the harder it was to breathe. This could only be ameliorated by straightening the legs. Hence the deliberate fracturing of the femurs to precipitate death. Some experimental data may be gained by trying to breathe whilst suspended in a crucifixion-like pose from suitable equipment in the gym. Don't try this at home kids.

experiments have already been done. there was actually a different story I was looking for, but this is the one I found

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

I agree that violence is not an acceptable response to being offended, and what that woman did was criminally wrong. My point, though, was that violent reactions to art and the artist that are perceived to have committed sacrilege have become the norm - no matter what the religion. Not to have have expected that is either naive or disingenuous on the part of the artist.

It's fortunate, then, that this was a lithograph, so the artist can run off as many copies as he wishes.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by TGS

Maybe the second and subsequent printings of "the cartoons" comes pretty close. Not that I am suggesting that causing offence by words or by images warrants a physically violent response, simply that some of the re-printings seem to me to have been motivated by the wish to provoke a response from the Islamic community.

I think they were more motivated by a desire to show that threats would not deter exercise of free speech.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by TGS

Maybe the second and subsequent printings of "the cartoons" comes pretty close. Not that I am suggesting that causing offence by words or by images warrants a physically violent response, simply that some of the re-printings seem to me to have been motivated by the wish to provoke a response from the Islamic community.

I actually remember the original piece in Jyllandsposten as I happened to see that issue of the paper when I was visiting relatives. From a "Danish" point of view, I remember three of the drawings as potentially "provocative" and I honestly was a little surprised it made no stir at all, nationally, in the following months. I believe Jyllandsposten was champing at the bit to get their teeth into the discussion, but nothng happened until... was it February the following year?

I can't say that much about the re-printings, but my gut reaction from a POV as a Danish citizen is: jeez..., can't we talk about things? Because that's what we do here as far as I'm aware, no matter how offensive one is. (and I know it might be different elsewhere)

Originally Posted by recluse

Two examples from New York City were a painting of the Virgin Mary splattered with excrement and a crucifix immersed in urine.

Don't see how that could be mistaken for intellectual stimulation.

To me that sounds as your subjective, personal opinion on what was presented as pieces of artwork. I only know very little about them - and too little too judge them quickly here - but so far I am not convinced they were / it was hatemongering.

[beppe]

Being in Italy in these last years one can see all sort of artists and their works of art marching compact, each one finding the easy target for their satyr and competing among themselves for better and always original forms of expression. Not only the creative side but also the management side, that is organizer of prizes, festivals, events, pizza carnivals and the like.

The target of this is called The Cavalier in a 18th century tradition (Così fan tutte of Mozart, Munchausen, Barry Lindon, ...). Luckily, we are absolutely incapable of taking ourselves seriously, so everything always ends with glasses of wine and merry go arounds.

The first not to take this war of the 15 years seriously is the target itself. As always we cannot be taken as an example of anything except of ourselves.

What I mean is that artists do what pleases them, both the geniuses with the great acclaimed masters, and also the polemic surfers and provokers. To distinguish between the two categories objectively is impossible. Only time will tell.

Certainly a king that hits the buffoon is not a nice sight. And the courtesans that applause the king are pathetic.

I liked very much the initial arguments of Ea. They stand, in any situation. Following them ensures respect. Brings reason, progress.