brgnorway 0 Posted February 22, 2004 Good post Denoir - I just happened to think of something obvious when I saw you write this : Quote[/b] ]Forced to make statues for Saddam? Ha! I wonder how many heads he stepped on to have the privilege to be chosen to make statues for Saddam. .......and it makes perfect sense. If you've been making and have been apreciated as an artist under the patronage of Saddam - you really need to position yourself when the rulers change. Many of us would be inclined to say that there is no need for him to fear the "coalition of the willing" or the new puppet regime. However, fear is based on experience and most of that from Saddams regime regardless of direct threats he may or may not have experienced. It's called cognition and makes you grab for a similar or most similar knowledge based on bla bla bla experience. This is also the main reason why refugees coming to Europe almost never give up their true identity - an experience based lack of trust towards especially the police and authoroties in general. So, my point is that the artist's motives for making this piece of shit is probably he want's to make a living in the future; because the iraqi puppeteers see red when faced with former Saddam artists. The work of art/shit might just give him credibility to receive future work as his loyalty are now clearly placed within the new patronage. One could also argue that making the bla bla bla artwork also gives him an oportunity to make a statement towards the general public. I suppose in these anarchic times in Iraq a former Saddam artists life isn't much worth at the wrong teaparty? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pipski 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Turn of a phrase or not - it's still on public display - hence the subject of interpretation That was not my point. My point was, to put it another way, what anyone's opinion is of its artistic merits is not really very important. As it stands it looks fairly typical of the kind of art that is popular in that part of the world, it doesn't look very fashionable when measured with our yardsticks but that is immaterial. This is what I was trying to get across. I've no wish to dispute your right to dislike it - especially as I think it looks pretty naff myself. You still seem to think I was labouring under the belief that it was a mantlepiece ornament or something. Quote[/b] ]Point isn't nessecarily what he had to do during the Saddam era Quote[/b] ]Yes, he used to make statues of Saddam and now he is making statues of US soldiers. In short an ambitious opportunistic collaborator... The point IS what he had to do during the Saddam era if people are going to bandy around accusations like "ambitious opportunistic collaborator". Quote[/b] ]But there are inconsistensies with what you said solely because when you throw out words that are taken out of the usual contexts it looses it's meaning. Usually, reactionary is a word coupled not with left- or rightwing - but with conservative which is not the same as right wing I disagree. I am not using the word `reactionary' "out of context'. I used it in a precise way in a context it exactly fits. You are judging the guy based on pure speculation about his motives for doing what he did. You have nothing to back it up apart from opinion and conjecture. Your conclusions were not arrived at through the analysis of his words or his actions but purely drawn from your own (clearly strong) feelings about the American-led occupation of Iraq. Quote[/b] ]Although impresise designations like that have several core values in common it would be a gross mistake to say they are one and the same. If by "impresise designations" [sic] you are talking about the terms `left' and `right' wing then I couldn't agree with you more. For the record I didn't accuse you of being Stalinist, I just found Stalinist elements in your reaction to this news article. If you look back at the phrasing of my original post you'll see that I never accused you of that. This is not me fencing semantically, I was very careful in the phraseology I employed NOT to liken anyone to Stalin. `Cause that would be somewhat unwarranted. Quote[/b] ]hasn't probably struck your mind that even many conservatives in European nations are against what's happening now? Oddly enough, it has. Seeing as how I live in Europe and am European, I am very well aware of that fact. Again, I am not proposing a vote of thanks to TBA, nor am I personally in favour of the way the war was engendered and conducted. I simply think that a few people in this thread started slandering this man on no fair basis and stepped in. Quote[/b] ]call him "stripy" which in Norway used to be a person with one leg firmly planted in each "camp" . Not heard that term before. However, again, - and this is the point we keep coming back to - if you want to accuse this sculptor of being stripy / an opportunist / anything of that sort, you need to: a. prove the statues he made for Saddam were made voluntarily and that he profited from them. and b. prove that he's benefiting in some way from making statues for the Americans now. It may be that both those points are true but I've not seen anything to make us assume so, have you? If so, what? Remember, we are talking about the actions and beliefs of ONE MAN, not the whole country. Hell, if there are people who still believe the world to be flat in this country then is it not possible that there is an Iraqi sculptor who just wanted to show that he sympathised with the losses suffered by the Americans as well as his own people? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Turn of a phrase or not - it's still on public display - hence the subject of interpretation That was not my point. Â My point was, to put it another way, what anyone's opinion is of its artistic merits is not really very important. Â As it stands it looks fairly typical of the kind of art that is popular in that part of the world, it doesn't look very fashionable when measured with our yardsticks but that is immaterial. Â This is what I was trying to get across. Â I've no wish to dispute your right to dislike it - especially as I think it looks pretty naff myself. Â You still seem to think I was labouring under the belief that it was a mantlepiece ornament or something. Quote[/b] ]Point isn't nessecarily what he had to do during the Saddam era Quote[/b] ]Yes, he used to make statues of Saddam and now he is making statues of US soldiers. In short an ambitious opportunistic collaborator... The point IS what he had to do during the Saddam era if people are going to bandy around accusations like "ambitious opportunistic collaborator". Quote[/b] ]But there are inconsistensies with what you said solely because when you throw out words that are taken out of the usual contexts it looses it's meaning. Usually, reactionary is a word coupled not with left- or rightwing - but with conservative which is not the same as right wing I disagree. Â I am not using the word `reactionary' "out of context'. Â I used it in a precise way in a context it exactly fits. Â You are judging the guy based on pure speculation about his motives for doing what he did. Â You have nothing to back it up apart from opinion and conjecture. Â Your conclusions were not arrived at through the analysis of his words or his actions but purely drawn from your own (clearly strong) feelings about the American-led occupation of Iraq. Quote[/b] ]Although impresise designations like that have several core values in common it would be a gross mistake to say they are one and the same. If by "impresise designations" [sic] you are talking about the terms `left' and `right' wing then I couldn't agree with you more. For the record I didn't accuse you of being Stalinist, I just found Stalinist elements in your reaction to this news article. Â If you look back at the phrasing of my original post you'll see that I never accused you of that. Â This is not me fencing semantically, I was very careful in the phraseology I employed NOT to liken anyone to Stalin. Â `Cause that would be somewhat unwarranted. Quote[/b] ]hasn't probably struck your mind that even many conservatives in European nations are against what's happening now? Oddly enough, it has. Â Seeing as how I live in Europe and am European, I am very well aware of that fact. Â Again, I am not proposing a vote of thanks to TBA, nor am I personally in favour of the way the war was engendered and conducted. Â I simply think that a few people in this thread started slandering this man on no fair basis and stepped in. Â Quote[/b] ]call him "stripy" which in Norway used to be a person with one leg firmly planted in each "camp" . Not heard that term before. Â However, again, - and this is the point we keep coming back to - if you want to accuse this sculptor of being stripy / an opportunist / anything of that sort, you need to: a. prove the statues he made for Saddam were made voluntarily and that he profited from them. and b. prove that he's benefiting in some way from making statues for the Americans now. It may be that both those points are true but I've not seen anything to make us assume so, have you? Â If so, what? Â Remember, we are talking about the actions and beliefs of ONE MAN, not the whole country. Â Hell, if there are people who still believe the world to be flat in this country then is it not possible that there is an Iraqi sculptor who just wanted to show that he sympathised with the losses suffered by the Americans as well as his own people? Ok, you've explained a few things I disagreed with. To further clear up a few things I can say I initially reacted to the artwork for obviously aesthetic reasons as well as a degree in art history naturally gives me references. I'll leave it there. Ps! Pls read my former post about possible motivations. There are always nuances between what we like to appear as either black or white - pistol to the head or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pipski 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Quote[/b] ]First of all, it's from a US Army newsletter, so you might assume that they have some form of bias and that "working with what is given", doesn't quite cut it. And then when you read the actual text, you see that it is indeed the case. OK. I agree, you would expect a US Army newsletter to have some bias. I wouldn't expect a US Army newsletter to report a story about Iraqis urinating in American food for example. But there is a difference between selective reporting and making stuff up. The source (here) is a US Army newsletter, that doesn't make the story untrue but it does mean that a pinch of salt is in order. Where is your source for assuming that this guy was a pro-Saddam opportunist? For what it's worth this story has been verified by Snopes so at least we can assume that it's true. Snopes raised no serious issues about the veracity of the account as presented in the newsletter, nor does this story seem to have been especially trumpeted in the mainstream press (as you might expect were it being seriously used as a piece of heavyweight propaganda). Quote[/b] ]Were all artists in Iraq forced to make portraits and statues of Saddam? No. However, based on the accounts available by people (doctors, artists, bodyguards etc.) employed by Saddam, if he wanted you to do something he would let you know and then you would bloody well do it! I don't see this as a situation where you can say "well, if he was really made to make statues then every other artist in the country would be forced to make statues." That just doesn't follow. Quote[/b] ]I wonder how many heads he stepped on to have the privilege to be chosen to make statues for Saddam. I can imagine quite a few other opportunists or loyal Baath party members that would have desired such a position. That argument assumes that he had some kind of control over Saddam's choice. That he somehow crawled his way into Saddam's affections and was therefore appointed head head-maker. I've seen nothing to suggest that that is how Saddam worked. He was a dictator, let's remember. He decided who he wanted (for whatever role) and then they did it. He didn't hold auditions, he didn't ask people to bid for contracts, he just told them. Quote[/b] ]In this thread however people have expressed both their admiration for the sculptor and the quality of his art while the sculptor is an ambitious opportunist and his art is pathetic tacky kitch. It was so under Saddam and is so now.Overall, not something worth taking notice of and much less praising For what it's worth I agree, it is very kitsch. But this statue hasn't come to peoples' attention because of its artistic merits. It's come to peoples' attention because of its theme. It won't win awards, it won't be well remembered, it won't change hands for vast sums of money. But it is a timely reminder that while it may be tempting to make `black & white' generalisations like `the Iraqi population hate the occupying forces' that there is a greater range of opinion and degree of ambivalence in the country than we sometimes automatically assume. Quote[/b] ]So, my point is that the artist's motives for making this piece of shit is probably he want's to make a living in the future; because the iraqi puppeteers see red when faced with former Saddam artists. The work of art/shit might just give him credibility to receive future work as his loyalty are now clearly placed within the new patronage. Sorry, this is pure speculation. Why is it necessary to assume an ulterior motive? Do you think that a track record of making statues for the Americans will do him great favours in post-war Iraq? If the occupation forces are so unpopular (and I don't dispute that they are) then there must be dozens of other themes he could base his sculptures on that are more resonant with the population. If he wanted to become Iraqs `sculptor laureate' he'd be better off doing a sculpture of cluster bomb victims or something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Sorry, this is pure speculation. Why is it necessary to assume an ulterior motive? Do you think that a track record of making statues for the Americans will do him great favours in post-war Iraq? . It sure is speculation. It is also an alternative explanation - and a logic one. And what people say or do - or choose not to say or do is something entirely different than what's reported by Snopes or US Army newsletter. Not because newsources like that are "biased" or subjective in their effort, but because they can only report what he has produced and what he has said - not what he thinks for himself. Human beings are almost always political beings - one way or the other. Could he expect future work when there supposedly will be money for arts in Iraq? You bet the new iraqi government will have to express their new authoroty and political ideas in art - especially after a period so clearly marked by an enormous amount of physical representations of Saddam. They will really need to make themselves know - and they will need artists that have made an impression. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted February 23, 2004 That argument assumes that he had some kind of control over Saddam's choice. Â That he somehow crawled his way into Saddam's affections and was therefore appointed head head-maker. Â I've seen nothing to suggest that that is how Saddam worked. Â He was a dictator, let's remember. Â He decided who he wanted (for whatever role) and then they did it. Â He didn't hold auditions, he didn't ask people to bid for contracts, he just told them. Â I think you have a too 'cartoonish' image of what a dictatorship is like. It's not Saddam running around with two Uzis threatening poor artists into making giant sculptures of him. It's a whole system, a beaurocracy with a lot of people whose primrary concern is sucking up to the boss. Saddam didn't order statues and pictures of him - his subordinates did, trying to advance their position. For an artist to be selected for that task, it would be a great honor and a great opportunity. You can bet your ass he was handsomly rewarded for his work. Not to mention that he got to display his works on the bests spots around the country. It's a very good deal for an artist. You can imagine that quite a few people would be interested in that work. So to assume that he was coherced against his will, is flawed as the most likely thing is that he profited handsomly from it and didn't mind it at all. As for his business with the coallition, what the benefits would be? He's already sold a statue or two to them, hasn't he? The article mentioned one going to Fort Hood. Had he continued doing his Saddam statues, I doubt he would have had much business done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted February 23, 2004 This statue is not a shrine like the Saddam statue was. Besides, anyone having worked for Saddam, do you believe the artist had much of a choice? I dont know what I would have done if Mr. Adolf would have asked me to do a statue. Would I have said, well ahm, Id rather be dead than making a long living statue of you pervert? Lets put it this way. Maybe the statue has political ambitions, BUT for an ordinary US soldier it could be some kind of memory point to work on his experiences and to digest them. This war went very quick, soldiers died very quickly, and there wasnt much time to think about it. A statue is made to last and this gives you, as a soldier, some rest. You can look at it, it wont move, you have enough time to watch it and think of it. The child might be pathetic and overromatic, but when it comes to bad memories nothing helps more than cheesy overromantic tools like statues. Civillians have died, and I am pretty much sure american soldiers are not proub of it. In a stone-cold organisation like a military you dont get much honest "hand on the shoulder" to relief you. After WWII many germans would have loved the idea of a statue for the fallen german soldiers, but that was never allowed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Quote[/b] ]This statue is not a shrine like the Saddam statue was. Statues of Saddam were not meant as shrines. They served the same purpose as almost all representations of rulers have served at least since the triumph arches and sculptures of the roman empire. They are physical representations of the leadership in a purely propagandaistic way. Their second function is to represent authoroty in all places of society - so no one forgets. Quote[/b] ]Besides, anyone having worked for Saddam, do you believe the artist had much of a choice? I dont know what I would have done if Mr. Adolf would have asked me to do a statue. Would I have said, well ahm, Id rather be dead than making a long living statue of you pervert? Yes they certainly had a choice - and they had already decided. That's why the rest of the artists not favoured by the nazi rulers went to prison, consentration camps or luckily - escaped in large part to US. Just think about the Bauhaus generation of architects and what that led to in architectural development in the US. Nearly all of the modernists shared this same fate, except those into classical art who actively chose to make nazi art. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joltan 0 Posted February 23, 2004 The guy should be more seen as a craftsmen. He's doing what he can do best to survive. He did so with Saddams regime (where doing such memorials was a secure income, while critical art might well get you shot), and he's doing so now with the occupation forces (who are the only ones with shitloads of money at the moment). I don't understand the fuzz about it. Fictional example: Do you blame the watch maker who once repaired Udai's Rolex that he's doing so now for americans? What is questionable is the US Forces actually buying that crap piece of 'art'. Well, talk about tax payers money wasted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted February 23, 2004 It looks ugly. What´s next ? Bush pictures in schools ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pipski 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Hey, be grateful that the guy had the wits not to just start making big gold statues of GWB! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joltan 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Too late! Quote[/b] ]One leader, Mubarak Ali az-Zubaidy, offered to build a golden statue of President Bush to thank him for freeing the Iraqi people. Fox News (last paragraph) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pipski 0 Posted February 23, 2004 Oh lol! If TBA has any sense at all they'll nix that straight off. If a big gold statue of GWB goes up, not only will it draw uncomfortable parallels between him and Saddam but if and when it starts getting vandalized by the locals it'll be all over the news. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Acecombat 0 Posted February 23, 2004 How about a statue of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted February 23, 2004 hell it is just a little innocent sculpture. Nothing with great propaganda value, so dont you people overanalyse the whole thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted February 23, 2004 hell it is just a little innocent sculpture. Nothing with great propaganda value, so dont you people overanalyse the whole thing. so what's this thread for...? gotcha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites