The Middle East part 2

[theavonlady 2]

What if the image floating on the red pool had been of Ariel Sharon?

Would that have been praised by Israel as honouring his actions?

Would that have been regarded as pro-Israel art?

Why don't you post your own little text that would go along with such an exhibit. Go on........... show us your similar artistic talents.

[Bernadotte 0]

What if the image floating on the red pool had been of Ariel Sharon?

Would that have been praised by Israel as honouring his actions?

Would that have been regarded as pro-Israel art?

Why don't you post your own little text that would go along with such an exhibit. Go on........... show us your similar artistic talents.

Quote[/b] ]"On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution."

There!

Now why don't you answer my question?

[denoir 0]

Would appreciate links to these dismissals.

Rykten trissar upp konstbrĺket

Ambassadör stöds av regeringen

I translated a bit of the first one in the post above.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I suppose if you are in a habit of destroying art and burning books then the truth will rarely surface..

Quite the contrary. This is not a habit. This is quite exceptional.

Well, you could have fooled me. When an official representative of your country does that, how could I not assume that it's not the way your country deals with culture?

Quote[/b] ]I suppose Sweden is in the habit of trampling upon the sensitivities of innocent people blown up in restaurants. Now there's a pattern!

If you mean that we are not in the habit of censoring Swedish artists and writers and that we do not burn or destroy their work because it might offen somebody. Then most certainly yes. Have you gone so far in Israel that you can't separate the freedom of the individual from the opinion of the state?

Edit: By the way Avon, I was sort of expecting more of a fierce response from you in the ambassador-trashing-art case. Could it be that you actually agree with me that he stepped over the line?

[denoir 0]

What if the image floating on the red pool had been of Ariel Sharon?

Would that have been praised by Israel as honouring his actions?

Would that have been regarded as pro-Israel art?

Would it be seen as "trampling upon the sensitivities" of innocent palestinians killed?

Hehe. You're good.

[theavonlady 2]

What if the image floating on the red pool had been of Ariel Sharon?

Would that have been praised by Israel as honouring his actions?

Would that have been regarded as pro-Israel art?

Why don't you post your own little text that would go along with such an exhibit. Go on........... show us your similar artistic talents.

Quote[/b] ]"On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution."

There!

Now why don't you answer my question?

Now I can answer your question.

Such an exhibit would imply that the state of Israel and Sharon are originators of bloodbaths.

Are you planning on introducing yet another blood libel?

[theavonlady 2]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39750000/jpg/_39750513_artworkafp203body.jpg

What if the image floating on the red pool had been of Ariel Sharon?

Would that have been praised by Israel as honouring his actions?

Would that have been regarded as pro-Israel art?

Would it be seen as "trampling upon the sensitivities" of innocent palestinians killed?

Hehe. You're good.  

Takes one warped mind to love another.

Neither Sharon nor Israel are happy that we hae to take the actions in defense of a war started by the Palestinians, who constantly glorify spilled Jewish blood and have established one of the world centers of a Moslem death cult on our boundaries, with generous thanks to EU financial backing and (im)moral support.

[denoir 0]

Tell me Avon, is there any face that you can imagine any Israeli or Palestinain face on the pool of blood without making it out in your mind to be anti-Israeli?

[theavonlady 2]

I translated a bit of the first one in the post above.

Does the second article refer to a denial of a protest by Israel's foreign Ministry to Sweden's Israeli Ambassador, regarding a breaking of agreed terms of Israel's participation in the Genocide conference?

Quote[/b] ]Well, you could have fooled me. When an official representative of your country does that, how could I not assume that it's not the way your country deals with culture?

Because you're so smart you could easily find more such examples on the WEB had they occured.

Quote[/b] ]I suppose Sweden is in the habit of trampling upon the sensitivities of innocent people blown up in restaurants. Now there's a pattern!

If you mean that we are not in the habit of censoring Swedish artists and writers and that we do not burn or destroy their work because it might offen somebody. Then most certainly yes. Have you gone so far in Israel that you can't separate the freedom of the individual from the opinion of the state?

When the State sponsors an anti-genocide conference and this exhibit is shown to the Ambassador of Israel, after agreeing not to - I'm sorry - I can't find a precedent to such vile behavior in any other "civilized" country.

Quote[/b] ]Edit: By the way Avon, I was sort of expecting more of a fierce response from you in the ambassador-trashing-art case. Could it be that you actually agree with me that he stepped over the line?  

He stepped over the line much less than the Swedish governments perverse approval of admitting such an exhibit as part of the conference they sponsored.

[bn880 5]

There is nothing wrong with the exhibit, it represents facts.

[theavonlady 2]

Tell me Avon, is there any face that you can imagine any Israeli or Palestinain face on the pool of blood without making it out in your mind to be anti-Israeli?  

[Bernadotte 0]

...and have established one of the world centers of a Moslem death cult on our boundaries...

...Not on you borders, but within your borders.  Don't forget that Israel insists on drawing its borders around this EU-sponsored Moslem death cult.

...And it ain't much of a death cult considering that around 3 Muslims die for each Israeli.

[Bernadotte 0]

Tell me Avon, is there any face that you can imagine any Israeli or Palestinain face on the pool of blood without making it out in your mind to be anti-Israeli?  

LMAO Quick! Someone throw a lamp!

[denoir 0]

I translated a bit of the first one in the post above.

Does the second article refer to a denial of a protest by Israel's foreign Ministry to Sweden's Israeli Ambassador, regarding a breaking of agreed terms of Israel's participation in the Genocide conference?

Denial of protest. I can find you another link about the agreed terms (which was one of the first things denied). The exhibit is done by a museum, not by the Swedish governement. You see, in Sweden, we have this thing called "freedom of expression" and a clear separation of state and cultural institutions. The Swedish government could not in any way if it wanted affect the contents of the exhibit as it would be a serious violation of our constitution.

The agreed terms of the Genocide conference was that at the conference the theme would be past and future conflicts and not current ones. They agreed on not having a palestinain delegation. They did not agree on what pieces of art was shown in Swedish museums as that is none of the Swedish government's business and much less Israels business.

Quote[/b] ]Because you're so smart you could easily find more such examples on the WEB had they occured.

I posted an article two or three pages back form an Israeli news paper that deals with what kind of censorship you have to endure in Israel. As I see, you tried to apply your standards to our system.

Quote[/b] ]When the State sponsors an anti-genocide conference and this exhibit is shown to the Ambassador of Israel, after agreeing not to - I'm sorry - I can't find a precedent to such vile behavior in any other "civilized" country.

It is much more "vile" and uncivilized behaviour to destroy art in a museum because you don't like it's message. As I said, cultural institutions are not controlled by the state and this exhibition was not arranged by The Glorious State Committee For Proper Dogma and Propaganda, or whatever you have in Israel. Is the concept of the individual citizen of a country not representing the goverenment of a country so strange to you?

One thing more, I would really like to know what makes this work of art offensive. It's a very conventional pacifist piece. Where does it glorify suicide bombing? Does it not state clearly that she "murdered 19 innocent civilians"? How twisted and paranoid must a mind be to make that into a one-sided anti-semitic comment?

[Longinius 1]

It just goes to prove that as soon as you make any statement regarding the situation in Israel, you are an anti-semite.

Because, Israelis clearly got upset about this womans picture. And they would get equally upset if it was Sharons picture. So in other words, never comment on Israeli matters because unless you are 100% with them, you are 100% against them, a nazi supporter and anti-semite.

I think this is a great piece of art, much thanks to the embassadors actions. It succeded with what art is all about: getting people to think and discuss.

[Badgerboy 0]

So, would Denoir be within his rights to go and trash that? Or would he simply be booted out by security for acting like a petty vandal?

I suppose he might lodge a complaint, but that would be the rational thing to do.

[Bernadotte 0]

What if the image floating on the red pool had been of Ariel Sharon?

Would that have been praised by Israel as honouring his actions?

Would that have been regarded as pro-Israel art?

Such an exhibit would imply that the state of Israel and Sharon are originators of bloodbaths.

Then what is wrong when a Palestinian terrorist is depicted as the originator of a bloodbath?

[Acecombat 0]

FFS the whole art piece was bloody Pro-Israel how can it be damned glorifying anyone

I cant help but laugh at peoples ignorance at this , youre yourself somehow turning this in to a pro-suicide bomber case.

But just because it was in a art gallery in Sweden (europe) so i guess its be default wrong fro Israel?

jeez.

[Cephalid 0]

...

unless you are 100% with them, you are 100% against them,

...

Sounds somehow familiar to me.  

[denoir 0]

While I lauged at it at first, it's actually not funny at all. Are you comparing a suicide bomber that killed 19 innocent people to a cartoon avatar? This is the only disrespectful thing towards the victims that I've seen since this whole thing began. Utterly distasteful.

[Blake 0]

Well it's obviously a fake, not an artwork built as a statement for thousands to see and experience  

It would be very distasteful if somebody would print your avatar and actually tape it on the artwork...or maybe the artwork would just then lose it's all political content and just become piece of incomprihensible modern art...grinning ren & stimpy character in a pool of blood would actually fit into some pop museum :P

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I've never been a fan of modern art myself, but I don't see anything especially offensive about this piece. And I can only imagine what the ambassador would have done if that had been Sharon on the flag

Maybe he was just upset because it's a fairly flattering portrait of the woman?

Or maybe he got mad because the artists failed to properly capitalize on the possibilities that the juxtaposition of Snow White with a sea of blood could offer? Now, I'm no art critic, but I think that vandalization is a bit much when reviewing a piece that fails to fulfill its promise.

[Major Gripe 0]

@ Jan. 19 2004,23:34)]Now, I'm no art critic, but I think that vandalization is a bit much when reviewing a piece that fails to fulfill its promise.  

I like this concept, if you don't like it or understand it or like it then just trash it. Wait a minute, who else we know does that to things they don't like...

[Acecombat 0]

@ Jan. 19 2004,23:34)]Now, I'm no art critic, but I think that vandalization is a bit much when reviewing a piece that fails to fulfill its promise.  

I like this concept, if you don't like it or understand it or like it then just trash it. Wait a minute, who else we know does that to things they don't like...

A child ...

[Mister 5 0]

Why do the pretty ones always have to be such psychos?

Yeah, I'm going to hell for that one. Sorry.

On a serious note, why can't people just fucking sweat the small stuff?? One would expect a diplomat to be more mature than to engage in petty vandalism. Hell, an Isreali diplomat should have even more patience and tact, considering the daily vitriol they recieve from most of the world. One person's opinion, expressed through some oddball piece of art, is nothing to soil one's pants over, much less unleash the misdirected fury of a projectile spotlight upon.

"morans"

[Oligo 1]

I actually have to tell how much I admire the moral spine of both the swedish government and the museum administration. I'm quite sure that in Finland, although we are supposed to have free speech, any museum or other institution would be shut down by the government if any flak was received from Israel.

It is awesome how the swedes have kept their moral stance through two hard events now:

1.) I was in Uppsala when Anna Lindh was killed and right away there was the swedish prime minister in radio telling that Sweden would not sway from the "open society" concept and shut politicians behind inpenetrable walls.

2.) The "every ambassador's an art critic" thing.

So although Sweden is our neighbour we love to hate , I must say: Good job.