Oh My - Controversial Artwork Destroyed!

[recluse]

In a civilized world, the offensive artwork would not have been displayed out of consideration and empathy.

The town did protest before the incident.

[GA Russell]

astra, civilized people don't deliberately offend.

[sweevo]

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.

You're still arguing appeal to ignorance / god of the gaps logical fallacy. But now you seem to be adding the negative proof / burden of proof logical fallacy.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

astra, civilized people don't deliberately offend.

Of course they do. Every action will probably offend somebody.

And art designed to make people think will probably offend a lot of people.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by recluse

In a civilized world, the offensive artwork would not have been displayed out of consideration and empathy.

And that place is called "The United States of the Offended" (ironically, a term coined by a right-winger to describe actions of the left.)

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Bigotry is:

"stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

(Both from dictionary.com.)

That's not a very good definition. The intolerance might not be complete, and it might affect only 1 group.

I know a couple bigots that were only self-identified when they opened their mouths about a particular group.

[happy_terd]

stupid double post on edit to fix a quote.

[happy_terd]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Bigotry is:

"stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

(Both from dictionary.com.)

By that definition sometimes it is OK to be a bigot then.

There are creeds, beliefs, and opinions out there that are evil.

The nazis had a set of creeds and beliefs. So do the KKK.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Ea

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).

No, what I'm saying (using my example of the statue of Mary) is not that I know how to be "properly offensive" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) better than others. What I am saying is that the target of the artist's ire is misdirected. Instead of digging deeper into the reason for his rage/anger/whatever that is propelling the creation of the artwork, he/she is taking the easy out and the sure means of obtaining free publicity.

Anyone can pick up a handful of shit and throw it on a religious icon. To me, that is not art. Showing worshipers made of shit kneeling at the statue shows me the point the artist is trying to make. I may not agree with that representation, but it will make me think WHY the artist created that artwork. A statue with a piece of shit on it; heck, pigeons create that everyday - are they artists?

And yes, I think that most artists who set out to deliberately "offend" one group or another with their artwork do it for publicity - IF their obvious message is merely to smear a religion without any underlying note of slyness, comedy, irony, or reason. For example, the Buddy Christ image - it is definitely making fun of Catholicism but there is a truth behind it: glorifying a act of crucifixion is just plain weird. Believers don't normally think twice about it, but when you look at the Buddy Christ it makes you think about why we worship what we do without thought.

Color me cynical but there are a lot more unrecognized artists out there with bills to pay than there are recognized ones with unpaid bills; if an artist is the center of a controversy, publicity follows and there are always some patrons willing to fund someone who causes a political/religious stir. If I was starving for my art, I would be looking for ways to get my work noticed and distinguish myself from the herd.

It is very easy to claim to be making an artistic statement; whether it actually is one or not is quite another story. Just because a person is self-described as an artist does not make all their output "art".

[TGS]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

astra, civilized people don't deliberately offend.

This is nonsense - civilized people offend each other all the time in art, literature, film, comedy. What might be more accurate to say is that civilized people don't go smashing things up or hurting and killing people because they have been offended.

[Over]

Originally Posted by sweevo

Why?

Why do people who hold irrational, harmful beliefs think I should automatically respect them?

Just because you aren't understood by others, it doesn't mean you don't have to be respected.

Lot's of harm has as a basis in ignorance or lack of understanding. If people learned to respect (not necessarily believe or condone) other people's beliefs, a lot less injustice and harm would be done.

[Ea]

(emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Anyone can pick up a handful of shit and throw it on a religious icon. To me, that is not art. Showing worshipers made of shit kneeling at the statue shows me the point the artist is trying to make. I may not agree with that representation, but it will make me think WHY the artist created that artwork. A statue with a piece of shit on it; heck, pigeons create that everyday - are they artists?

...

...

It is very easy to claim to be making an artistic statement; whether it actually is one or not is quite another story. Just because a person is self-described as an artist does not make all their output "art".

As I read you, you are debating from the basis that you, and only you, know what art is and what is not. And apparently you know better than the artist what he/she ought to have created instead.

[astra]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

astra, civilized people don't deliberately offend.

Oh, they do. They are people after all (nasty creatures). It makes them very unpleasant people that a civilised man can ignore.
However, a physical threat vs. verbal abuse. That's where you can draw a line between civilised man and uncivilised. One can talk/makes faces/create art as much as one wants but doesn't one dare to touch another human being.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Ea

(emphasis mine)

As I read you, you are debating from the basis that you, and only you, know what art is and what is not. And apparently you know better than the artist what he/she ought to have created instead.

Nope, you are apparently deliberately missing my point and keep trying to put words in my mouth that I am not saying.

No where have I said that I am the supreme arbiter of what is or isn't art, nor do I consider myself to be that. I gave my opinion on why the work under discussion wasn't art, and merely gave a suggestion for a work containing both shit and a statue that would both offend AND have layers of meaning that would challenge the viewer.

I'm saying that everything that is called "art" is not necessarily "art". Sometimes the Emperor actually isn't wearing any clothes and it's up to us as intelligent beings to refuse to be sheep and keep on ignoring the fact. Who decides what is "art" - the work's creator or its viewer? Do you automatically accept everything as "art" just because you're told that's what it is?

What is the difference between an "artist" throwing shit on a statue, and a pigeon shitting on a statue? Both are doing it deliberately. Why is one "art" and the other isn't? Are we required to be so politically correct when viewing "art" that we can no longer say yea or nay to it without being viewed as some sort of Philistine?

I'm saying that it is not uncommon for artists to create work that deliberately offensive in order to gain public recognition, and that the thought behind the work is not to create a piece of "art" but to create publicity. Do you disagree with that?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Nope, you are apparently deliberately missing my point and keep trying to put words in my mouth that I am not saying.

No where have I said that I am the supreme arbiter of what is or isn't art, nor do I consider myself to be that. I gave my opinion on why the work under discussion wasn't art, and merely gave a suggestion for a work containing both shit and a statue that would both offend AND have layers of meaning that would challenge the viewer.

Well in post #160 in this thread you did say what was not art. If it is just your opinion that something is not art then this is a very weak argument and does not lead to the conclusions you came to. Everybody have different opinions about what is art. So you know that some people will think that something is art even if you do not think it is art. So then you should respect this opinion and not defend the destruction of something that you happened to think was not art.