Oh My - Controversial Artwork Destroyed!

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

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

I think the cartoons mentioned there were the ones in a (?)Danish newspaper depicting Muhammad.

The ones that got torn up can be seen here: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-10-02-EC0201f.jpg

I haven't come across hi-res versions on-line.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by beppe

....

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.

Great post, Beppe, thank you

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Ea

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)

I mostly agree, but I think there is a difference between producing some image that has a serious point knowing or expecting it to offend some people - which I think the original production of the cartoons probably had - and producing an image for the specific purpose of offending some people - which I suspect the subsequent production was motivated by. The much valued "right to offend" is often used to justify both kinds of acts, which I think risks bringing it in to disrepute.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think the cartoons mentioned there were the ones in a (?)Danish newspaper depicting Muhammad.

The ones that got torn up can be seen here: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-10-02-EC0201f.jpg

I haven't come across hi-res versions on-line.

yeah, I meant the current ones, thanks . and it is completely impossible to get an idea as to what is going on

[TGS]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think the cartoons mentioned there were the ones in a (?)Danish newspaper depicting Muhammad.

The ones that got torn up can be seen here: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2010-10-02-EC0201f.jpg

I haven't come across hi-res versions on-line.

There are reproductions of the cartoons here.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

yeah, I meant the current ones, thanks . and it is completely impossible to get an idea as to what is going on

Agreed!

[recluse]

It appears we agree to disagree, Lady Ea.
My opinions are mine and mine alone.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by recluse

It appears we agree to disagree, Lady Ea.
My opinions are mine and mine alone.

I must admit I really would have liked to see more examples to support your opinions.
Edit: I don't exactly agree to disagree, but I have nothing to argue against.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by recluse

It appears we agree to disagree, Lady Ea.
My opinions are mine and mine alone.

are you talking about the current cartoons? have you seen a better version than has been posted here?

[Xanthe]

Personally, I am offended when my particular religious icons are desecrated by those who don't share my beliefs. But a lot of the times the basis for my offense is not that the artist is making a sincere statement of their beliefs, it is because they are using the icons as a cheap target for quick publicity. It's really easy to throw shit on a statue of the BVM and call it "art" and then pretend to be all outraged and/or saddened when people react negatively (or violently) to it. I don't mind being offended, if what I am offended by makes me question the reason I feel offended and gives me a better understanding of how my religion appears to others.

Using that example, and knowing who the statue of Mary is supposed to represent, throwing shit on it makes no sense. Now, if the artist was protesting against things that have been done in history under the banner of Mary by people who obviously never understood what she represented, then his target of Mary again makes no sense and is again just a cheap shot because he (or she) is apparently unable to artistically render the true target of his/her ire - namely the humans who carried out outrages (as determined by the artist) in Her name. By using the statue of Mary as the centerpiece of his art, he instead shows the limitations of his imagination and his failure to be truly "an artist".

Cheap shots that only make you react and not think are the work of poseurs, not artists, IMO.

[recluse]

I am aware of more examples, Lady Ea, but I don't remember the names of the artists or their works.
I wish I had a computer so I could offer links to better illustrate my point.

I have only the descriptions of the work in question to go by, Kindlekitten.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Personally, I am offended when my particular religious icons are desecrated by those who don't share my beliefs. But a lot of the times the basis for my offense is not that the artist is making a sincere statement of their beliefs, it is because they are using the icons as a cheap target for quick publicity. It's really easy to throw shit on a statue of the BVM and call it "art" and then pretend to be all outraged and/or saddened when people react negatively (or violently) to it.

Using that example, and knowing who the statue of Mary is supposed to represent, throwing shit on it makes no sense. Now, if the artist was protesting against things that have been done in history under the banner of Mary by people who obviously never understood what she represented, then his target of Mary again makes no sense and is again just a cheap shot , because he (or she) is apparently unable to artistically render the true target of his/her ire - namely the humans who carried out outrages (as determined by the artist) in Her name. By using the statue of Mary as the centerpiece of his art, he instead shows the limitations of his imagination and his failure to be truly "an artist".

Cheap shots that only make you react and not think are the work of poseurs, not artists, IMO.

Basically you are saying that you know how to properly offend the image of, for example, the Virgin Mary, but that artists who attempt to do so don't "get it"? And are thus not real artists, because they somehow fail on your POV...

Also, you are apparently saying that the offensive artists aren't really making an artistic statement, but are only seeking media attention and are not really serious about what they do (but apparently you know).

[recluse]

I really can't see how throwing excrement is an act of artistic expression.
It is the common response of angry simians, though.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Ea

Also, you are apparently saying that the offensive artists aren't really making an artistic statement, but are only seeking media attention and are not really serious about what they do (but apparently you know).

I'm certain there are artists who would like to provoke ANY reaction, and don't really care what that reaction is. If a poet were to stand on a corner in New York, in a primarily African American section of town, and recite poetry prominently featuring the "N" word, who would we blame for the resulting butt-kicking he would receive? The poet or the pummelers? It may not be "OK" to beat the tar out of him, but doesn't the artist have some culpability?

An artist might be making a "serious statement", but he'd be smart to choose a sympathetic forum to display it, or risk the obvious reaction. I'm not defending the woman who destroyed his art, or suggesting he doesn't have the freedom to create it. Provoking a reaction is a legitimate artistic choice (as in the cartoonists who chose to create Muhammed cartoons after the death sentence was placed on one artist). But they shouldn't try to provoke a reaction and then act surprised when they succeed.

[astra]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Provoking a reaction is a legitimate artistic choice (as in the cartoonists who chose to create Muhammed cartoons after the death sentence was placed on one artist). But they shouldn't try to provoke a reaction and then act surprised when they succeed.

In a civilised world there should not be any violent reaction.