Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warin

The Middle East part 2

Recommended Posts

Well shutting it down would not have been such a bad thing. There's always fine line to be walked when you are dealing with artistic freedom, political sensitivity and feelings of the people the artwork might offend. And there's also the issue what is generally considered distasteful.

If somebody makes a strong case on why it might offend (like some victim of the attack) then I'd say rights of the individual will go over the rights of the artist. How would you feel then if a photo of quite recent Vantaa shopping mall suicide bomber would be floating in pool of fake blood?

Artist has some responsibilities too, even in today's liberal world.

In world politics I see Finland as rather neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. But I dare to say nobody has any doubts on which side Sweden has taken. Being labelled to a supporter of either side is a bad thing especially in a conflict like this which is pretty much on the grey area, both sides using questionable methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artwork, even if offensive, should not be regulated or controlled. The whole purpose of art is to make people think, to encourage debate. And this art piece has succeeded more than most.

The only problem here is that one person, the embassador, formed an opinion on a work of art and projected it as the only right opinion. Most people that saw the artwork however, did not see it the same way. This does not mean he is wrong, or that they are wrong, simply that they are looking at it from different perspectives. Trashing it however was way out of line. And him getting away with it is far worse.

Not long ago two people vandalized an art exibit with pictures of dead animals in various arrangements. Had they been identitied, I am quite sure there would have been legal reprecusions. Same thing goes for the people who ripped down paintings in a Malmö museum a while back. They were all wrong, as so was the embassador. Not in having different opinions than most other visitors, but in how they chose to act based on those opinions. We are a democratic country, they could try and get popular opinion on their side to facilitate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Artwork, even if offensive, should not be regulated or controlled. The whole purpose of art is to make people think, to encourage debate. And this art piece has succeeded more than most.

I totally agree.

But then there are occasions like this:

imageserver?src=WI735828&ext=x.jpg Voice of Fire (1967) - Barnett Newman

In the early 80s, the Canadian National Gallery paid over $1 million of taxpayer money for this canvas representing the passion of Christ.  I doubt that the work would have encouraged as much debate if it had sold for $100 or whatever the price of paint, canvas, 2 rollers and 10 minutes added up to.  I also doubt that it would have drawn much attention had it been purchased with private instead of public money.

The point is that the gallery's purchase decision ultimately became a part of the work just as the Israeli ambassador's actions did in Sweden.  Those were the ambassador's 15 minutes of fame - God love'im!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, artists. One of the few trades that can take literally nothing, and end up with everything smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with being a modern artist is that you have to be able to convince people that spraying a low-quality painting with elephant crap counts as art tounge_o.gif .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, thats not the problem. There is plenty of that going around. The only problem for an artist, is contacts. If they know the people managing the gallaries etc they can get very far with very little. If they dont have the contacts, they are basically screwed. Kinda like the rest of us I guess smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not defending ambassador's vandalizing actions. Of course they were illegal and he didn't prove himself worthy of a diplomatic status.

But I don't agree the claim that what majority regards as acceptable is somehow forced for all to agree upon. If someone finds this certain piece of art insulting, offending and distasteful and files a proper case to ban it, the goverment could act and perhaps find somekind of settlement, like moving art piece to other permises etc. Human fluids, although fake ones, used in a art that points to a terror act/crime can understandably provoke reactions from victims or others related to event. It's not a photograph or other factual artwork, it's an installment delibaretly using powerful methods to provoke reaction from the people. This is not a case of freedom of artistic impression, it's more like a case of individual rights versus artist's liberty. Artists are free to express themselves but I still think they also carry certain degree of responsibility. Of course he should not be fined or anything, but his artwork's place could be changed or something.

In Finland they recently removed sculptures from a parking lot, pigs made of concrete which acted as a trafic blockades etc. function because muslims found it offending. So I don't see why this work is any different in the light of that particular case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Life in a refugee camp is hell, i've seen them, i've been in them.  That is the reality.  They can have better lives as citizens in any other nation (particularly Palestine when it comes about), but giving them back their old homes means uprooting someone else from theirs.  Most of the Israelis living in israel now did not even exist when the state was created.  They had nothing to do with the refugee crisis.  Why should their reality be sacrificed for someone elses principal.

From today's news:

Quote[/b] ]KCF10301201150.jpeg

Israeli bulldozers flattened 30 houses and a mosque in this refugee camp on Tuesday, Palestinian officials said, accusing Israel of systematically razing homes to widen a military buffer zone. The military said it only targeted buildings from which shots were fired overnight at Israeli forces, but did not know how many structures were demolished.

With the demolitions under way in the Rafah camp, frantic residents threw mattresses and blankets from second-floor windows as ceilings and walls came crashing down around them. One woman, standing just feet from a bulldozer, waved a white flag in a failed attempt to slow the demolition and buy time to salvage belongings. A crying girl helped her mother carry a mattress.

Army officials initially insisted the razed houses had been empty, but then said the claim was still being checked. The governor of Rafah, Majed Agha, said about 400 people were homeless Tuesday.

As you said, rufusmac, "why should their reality be sacrificed for someone elses principal?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well shutting it down would not have been such a bad thing. There's always fine line to be walked when you are dealing with artistic freedom, political sensitivity and feelings of the people the artwork might offend. And there's also the issue what is generally considered distasteful.

If somebody makes a strong case on why it might offend (like some victim of the attack) then I'd say rights of the individual will go over the rights of the artist. How would you feel then if a photo of quite recent Vantaa shopping mall suicide bomber would be floating in pool of fake blood?

Artist has some responsibilities too, even in today's liberal world.

Hmph, this is what I mean by the "freedoms" here in Finland. Most of the population is happy to see the government regulate what sort of thing is acceptable and what is not. Newsflash: That is not freedom of speech, it is cencorship. If art does not offend anybody, it is not very good art. But of course such STFU attitudes have a long tradition here in Finland, starting from the time when it was unacceptable to say anything bad about the Soviet Union or president Kekkonen.

I must say that if somebody made a similar piece of art about the Vantaa bomber person, with an inscription like: "There was this eccentric person, who in his madness, blew his ass up in a shopping mall, murdering and maiming a bunch of people.", I'd be forced to say: "Cool piece of art. That artist dares to take this sad case of our recent history and present it here in the open."

Once again, congrats Sweden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Human fluids, although fake ones, used in a art that points to a terror act/crime can understandably provoke reactions from victims or others related to event.

Replace the fake blood with the fake rubble of a mosque and Palestinian homes; replace the white toy boat with a white toy bulldozer; and, replace a smiling terrorist's photo with that of a smiling Ariel Sharon.

Now ask yourself this:  Would the Palestinian vicitims object to such art?

Of course not.  Israel want's pity for its victims, money from the US and nothing more.  Any artwork that distracts from those goals is considered dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Human fluids, although fake ones, used in a art that points to a terror act/crime can understandably provoke reactions from victims or others related to event.

Replace the fake blood with the fake rubble of a mosque and Palestinian homes; replace the white toy boat with a white toy bulldozer; and, replace a smiling terrorist's photo with that of a smiling Ariel Sharon.

Now ask yourself this:  Would the Palestinian vicitims object to such art?

Of course not.  Israel want's pity for its victims, money from the US and nothing more.  Any artwork that distracts from those goals is considered dangerous.

More artistic twisting of the truth on your part again - Just like the artist Feiler himself.

Palestinians keep on firing on Israeli troops patrolling the Rafiah border area between Gaza and Egypt.

The IDF is constantly coming under automatic weapons and RPG fire there, alomg with roadside bombs.

The biggest problem has been the dozens (maybe hundreds by now) of weapons smuggling tunnels going from Egypt to those buildings in Rafiah on the other side.

Don't want to see destroyed houses? Beg you Pal friends to stop shooting at them and to stop trying to haul in large quantities of every possible weapon and explosives they can smuggle in. Also try asking the Egyptians to chip in on their side of the border, as they've done nothing over the last several years to stop the smuggling right in front of their eyes. (So much for peace treaties).

Some snippets from the AP article on this event:

Quote[/b] ]Israel has demolished hundreds of houses in the camp in three years of fighting, saying the buildings give cover to gunmen and weapons smugglers.

The Palestinians say Israel is systematically clearing large swaths in the camp to distance built-up areas from the narrow strip Israeli troops patrol along the Egyptian border.

The Pals are absolutely right. Israel is distancing the built up areas because of their use. How true!

And while it does say that a mosque was destroyed, it also reminds you that:

Quote[/b] ]In the past three years, troops have generally stayed clear of holy sites.

Of course, that excludes when mosque minarets are used for hiding terrorists, explosives caches and even mounting heavy machine guns on the top.

You have every right to pity the Palestinians. Their own people constantly cause them more hardships day after day.

Tsk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

If art does not offend anybody, it is not very good art.

Well that is quite funny. Well what hell do Kekkonen and Soviet Union got to do with people getting offended by distasteful art peaces.

Quote[/b] ]I must say that if somebody made a similar piece of art about the Vantaa bomber person, with an inscription like: "There was this eccentric person, who in his madness, blew his ass up in a shopping mall, murdering and maiming a bunch of people.", I'd be forced to say: "Cool piece of art. That artist dares to take this sad case of our recent history and present it here in the open."

It's really great that all morals and decency are thrown own out of a window. Why don't you make one and wait for the cheering crowd then sue the man whose son was blown up there for throwing down a lamp on your precious artwork. Then cry out loud and call him a facist pig.

Quote[/b] ]Replace the fake blood with the fake rubble of a mosque and Palestinian homes; replace the white toy boat with a white toy bulldozer; and, replace a smiling terrorist's photo with that of a smiling Ariel Sharon.

Now ask yourself this:  Would the Palestinian vicitims object to such art?

Not a valid comparison. It's not the same artwork you are talking about there. Instead, replace it with a face of Israeli fanatic who slaughtered people in a mosque and put him in a pool of blood and call the work Snowhite something. Somebody might find it distasteful and offending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

rock.gif

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?  rock.gif

Avon, if you insist on answering the questions I direct at Blake then at least stop ignoring the questions I've directed at you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great now its anti-semetic , how about calling it neo-nazi that would be pretty suitable too ? rock.gif

BLAKE:

Somebody might find it distasteful and offending.

Well i for one wont atleast it'll bring attention to the issue , and secondly its not glorifying the aggressors cause anyhow, only a FOOL would object with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great now its anti-semetic , how about calling it neo-nazi that would be pretty suitable too ?  rock.gif

As you like but I didn't say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avon, do you consider that piece of art antisemetic by the way?

Absolutely, when accompanied by the text that accompanied it.

Would you mind what exactly is anti-semitic about it? Just point to a line or phrase you think is inappropriate.

Also, could you tell us what you think this artwork is about - what the message is? What is your interpretation - and please don't give us a Jerusalem Post propaganda quote ("It's a vile work of pro-Terror anti-semite 'art' "). Give it a thought and tell us what your interpretation is. No one-liners, no jokes, no overdramatization - just a serious opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great now its anti-semetic , how about calling it neo-nazi that would be pretty suitable too ?  rock.gif

As you like but I didn't say that.

Yes but their both synonmous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really great that all morals and decency are thrown own out of a window. Why don't you make one and wait for the cheering crowd then sue the man whose son was blown up there for throwing down a lamp on your precious artwork. Then cry out loud and call him a facist pig.

"Morals and decency". Funny you should mention it as it is in the name of "morals and decency" that most persecutions of those that think differently has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avon, do you consider that piece of art antisemetic by the way?

Absolutely, when accompanied by the text that accompanied it.

Would you mind what exactly is anti-semitic about it? Just point to a line or phrase you think is inappropriate.

For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin

No mention of their being members of a terrorist organization.

Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions

Did she know of her relative's terror affiliations? Most likely. This is Snow White? Innocent? Non-violent?

The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying

Murderer? Is it murder to protect one's citizens against terrorists sworn to our death and destruction?

Before the engagement took place, he was killed in an encounter with the Israeli security forces

Again, no mention of why. Would have ruined the message.

She said: Your blood will not have been shed in vain.

It wasn't, even at the time he was killed.

She was hospitalized, prostrate with grief, after witnessing the shootings

Yes, a little more pity on this soon-to-be-mass-murderer. Please, more!

Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased"

Here's one of the big lies. The biggest hindrence to Pal's freedom is their own self-proclaimed goals of annihilating Israel. No mention, of course.

And many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family, and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded

They don't have faces, BTW. They're just mentionables.

All this in an exhibit that is part of an anti-genocide conference. All this even though Ambassador Mazel was assured by Sweden that no provocative anti-Israel art would be connected to the conference.

Quote[/b] ]and please don't give us a Jerusalem Post propaganda quote ("It's a vile work of pro-Terror anti-semite 'art' ").

The JPost was right on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great now its anti-semetic , how about calling it neo-nazi that would be pretty suitable too ?  rock.gif

As you like but I didn't say that.

Yes but their both synonmous.

So are you saying that anti-semites prior to the existance of a Nazi ideology are also Nazis?

Are you saying that so many of the Arabs who are anti-semites are also Nazis?

I'm not saying that. Are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Morals and decency". Funny you should mention it as it is in the name of "morals and decency" that most persecutions of those that think differently has happened.

I'm not talking for pro-government control and not demanding some kind of legal case like 'state vs. artist'. I'm talking about those individuals who may find it offending and violating. The display was in state-run establishment and anyone who finds it deeply disturbing has right to object. The state is only mediator in such things and has responsibility to hear both sides.

One more example: We had a charity campaign for war veterans few years back. In the advertisement put in the billboards there was edited photo of Russian tanks rolling on the streets of Helsinki eg.made to look as if Soviet Union had invaded Finland in WW2. The text was something like 'Without them this could have been reality' or something. Many veterans found that advertisement disturbing and brought back their war traumas. After complaints it was banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great now its anti-semetic , how about calling it neo-nazi that would be pretty suitable too ?  rock.gif

As you like but I didn't say that.

Yes but their both synonmous.

So are you saying that anti-semites prior to the existance of a Nazi ideology are also Nazis?

Are you saying that so many of the Arabs who are anti-semites are also Nazis?

I'm not saying that. Are you?

Well yes Hitlers nazism was pretty much based on racism and thats what lead to anti-semitism. So more or less with a little technical differences they are the same thing.

Though hitlers anti-semetism was based on race and not purely religion so the stupid arabs who talk are anti-israel arent actually anti-semite since they havent got anything against race since its nearly the same and it all leads to mutual roots. What we have here is anti-religious crap and not anti-semite. Since there are muslims among Israelis too arent they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×