Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warin

The Middle East part 2

Recommended Posts

The best art is the art that pisses off politicians, because then you know you've hit a nerve somewhere.

If your art is enjoyed by everyone does it really say anything? Perhaps. But it's really at its best when it draws a line and people have to pick one side or the other. That is when intelligent discussion happens (or is suppose to happen).

Having said that, while I don't find the piece all that provocative, nor even very good, the Israeli ambassador made an ass of himself.

(Perhaps one needs to see it in the museum up close to get the full feel for the piece)

Just wanted to add my two cents. Carry on. blues.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best art is the art that pisses off politicians, because then you know you've hit a nerve somewhere.

If your art is enjoyed by everyone does it really say anything? Perhaps. But it's really at its best when it draws a line and people have to pick one side or the other. That is when intelligent discussion happens (or is suppose to happen).

Having said that, while I don't find the piece all that provocative, nor even very good, the Israeli ambassador made an ass of himself.

(Perhaps one needs to see it in the museum up close to get the full feel for the piece)

Just wanted to add my two cents. Carry on.  blues.gif

I think the idea that art needs to offend is a misnomer. Its like the ever complicated rules for being "cool". You want to be "cool", but you cant look like you are trying to be cool. Art that is created with the sole purpose of offending, without really saying anything else, is not really acheiving much. The idea of an offensive peice is that it shocks you, and then tells you something.

I don't think that this peice manages to do anything but incite. It seems to me that the artist merely wanted to find a few cliches to dignify his "cool" persona in the art world.

Is it encouraging discussion on this board? Not on its own. The only act that really thrust this peice into the limelight was ambassador mazel's "interpretation".

But I still love Amb. Mazel's po-mo work as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the idea that art needs to offend is a misnomer. Its like the ever complicated rules for being "cool". You want to be "cool", but you cant look like you are trying to be cool. Art that is created with the sole purpose of offending, without really saying anything else, is not really acheiving much. The idea of an offensive peice is that it shocks you, and then tells you something.

I don't think that this peice manages to do anything but incite. It seems to me that the artist merely wanted to find a few cliches to dignify his "cool" persona in the art world.

Is it encouraging discussion on this board? Not on its own. The only act that really thrust this peice into the limelight was ambassador mazel's "interpretation".

But I still love Amb. Mazel's po-mo work as well...

I wasn't saying that it had to "offend". A piece can be provocative and still draw a line without people being offended. It's the drawing the line I was more interested in, a line that shows us something about ourselves or the world, and forces you to think beyond the pieces limited physical representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best art is the art that pisses off politicians...

I think the idea that art needs to offend is a misnomer.

Rufusmac, I'll assume English is not your first language and that (this time) you were not intentionally putting words in Akira's mouth.

Pissing off means to annoy or make angry.  It is not the same as offend.  Nobody here has suggested that art needs to offend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm quite discusted when reading some of the arguments here.

How can it be that you wan't to cencor artists' free right of expression? Because you don't like it due to: aesthetic reasons, political reasons or whatever.

About artistic freedom; some time ago one asshole crucified a live cat to a tree and videotaped it. He said it was a performance. He was later convicted to pay a fine for torturing an animal.

When I read about that case I felt immediate urge to get a hammer and some nails and show my artistic expression of "The pain of a Human", starring that idiot and a tree. Guess that would´ve been okay to some of the people here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the making of that "art" piece involved a conventional crime so there is really no room for any "freedom of expression".

*hands some nails for jyka*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like EiZei pointed out, that guy comitted a crime by doing what he did. Thus it wasnt art, but a criminal act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was some controversy in Denmark, a year ago or so over one exhibit.

54981.jpg

The display's 10 blenders were plugged in and visitors could, if they wanted, to blend the fish. Animal rights activists complained and the whole thing went to court. The court decided that it was not an act of cruelty of animals and the artist was freed of any wrongdoing.

Personally, while extremely morbid, I found it nevertheless brilliant due to the choice and moral dilemma that is presented to the visitor. (Only one actually pressed the button during the several weeks that the exhibit was in place)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While brilliant and giving one pause at their moral dilemma, I still find it disgusting and revolting. Last time I checked art didn't require one to kill another living creature. And in the end, how much of a dilemma is it really to the average person? Equivalent to stepping on an ant or other insect? Just to hit "Puree" for a chuckle or to see the little fishy go round and round?

If someone wanted to make a piece that truly presented a moral dilemma, why not make it a real person? Make it so the person has to make a choice between themselves, or a friend, or between two strangers (even better).

While not a crazy PETA nut, the senseless killing of animals still pisses me off.

EDIT: Saw your edit, and while that makes me feel a lot better, I still think the person that pressed it should be kicked in the head at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm quite discusted when reading some of the arguments here.

How can it be that you wan't to cencor artists' free right of expression? Because you don't like it due to: aesthetic reasons, political reasons or whatever.

About artistic freedom; some time ago one asshole crucified a live cat to a tree and videotaped it. He said it was a performance. He was later convicted to pay a fine for torturing an animal.

When I read about that case I felt immediate urge to get a hammer and some nails and show my artistic expression of "The pain of a Human", starring that idiot and a tree. Guess that would´ve been okay to some of the people here.

Never heard of, that there are people who classify ordeal, agonising and torture as art. rock.gif

Peaces of art dealing with terrible incidents, is nothing new. There are also peaces of art around, criticising the holocaust. I don't think these pieces are offending anybody. So way not making a piece of art that points on to the horror of suicide attacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While brilliant and giving one pause at their moral dilemma, I still find it disgusting and revolting.

It is disgusting and revolting, but not because of the exhibit itself. It's disgusting and revolting if somebody chooses to press the button. And it reflects on that person that pushed the button, not the artist.

And the consequences are directly visible, as opposed to other 'button pushing' activities, such as launching cruise missiles or nuclear weapons.

Quote[/b] ]If someone wanted to make a piece that truly presented a moral dilemma, why not make it a real person? Make it so the person has to make a choice between themselves, or a friend, or between two strangers (even better).

Becuase the same ethics about treatment of animals does not apply to treatment of human beings. This gives an opportunity to illustrate such a dillemma without breaking the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was some controversy in Denmark, a year ago or so over one exhibit.

54981.jpg

The display's 10 blenders were plugged in and visitors could, if they wanted, to blend the fish. Animal rights activists complained and the whole thing went to court. The court decided that it was not an act of cruelty of animals and the artist was freed of any wrongdoing.

Personally, while extremely morbid, I found it nevertheless brilliant due to the choice and moral dilemma that is presented to the visitor. (Only one actually pressed the button during the several weeks that the exhibit was in place)

I just wonder, how many fishes survived the exhibition? rock.gif  tounge_o.gif

Edit: Haven't seen, that you gave the answer already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are scars in victim's minds which are best left to heal instead of ripping them out with provokative vulgar forms of art. But I guess for you 'anything goes'. Get some police footage of the scene, thats just mere facts for you.

Along with showing the fake blood of the exhibit every half hour during the past few days, most news organisations like CNN also repeated scenes of last October's carnage showing bloodied bodies being removed from the restaurant.  Oh the irony!

And speaking of hypocracy...

Most western societies won't let you hurt an animal for the sake of art.  But for the sake of a hamburger...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they didn't change the water regularly and feed the fish over that seven week peroid then I doubt if any of them survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone really has to learn a few things about bookburning and fascists!

I bet Blake would be offended by this one too:

Guernica

What does bookburning and facism got to do with individuals getting offended by art? Somebody really mix up individual rights to those what state enforces on it's people.

Somebody already brough Guernica here. Does it victimize the Stuka pilot that dropped those bombs? Call him Heinz Snowhite floating on a styrox stuka on a pool of blood?

'He crashed his plane to a monastery full of praying children, poor Heinz'.

Well it doesn't.

And what do Spanish Civil War and Israeli-Palestinian conflict do with each other? Is suicide bombing somehow related to Republic's spain's fight for socialist spain? Are Israeli's the facists here? If yes then you have already taken sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference being that Heinz was a trained soldier. And this suicide bomber was a quite normal young woman up until the point she decided to end her life by killing a bunch of civilians.

She is much more a victim to the circumstances than Heinz would have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]She is much more a victim to the circumstances than Heinz would have been.

So every suicide bomber is a victim of a circumnstance? Did she act in self-defence? Did she have to do it? Didn't she have a choice to make? Would somebody have killed her if she hadn't done it? If there was Israeli suicide bomber floating in palestinian blood and labelled snowhite in a pool of blood the Palestinians wouldn't be or shouldn't be offended? Why virtually everyone condemns suicide bombing but when it comes to Snowhite in a pool of blood they are 'victims of circumnstance'?

And Heinz could have avoided hitting crowd of civilians but he didn't. He murdered them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]So every suicide bomber is a victim of a circumnstance?

I said SHE, not all, or not suicide bombers in general. So no, not every suicide bomber is a victim.

Quote[/b] ]Did she act in self-defence?

No, she acted out of fear, dispair, hate and malice.

Quote[/b] ]Did she have to do it? Didn't she have a choice to make? Would somebody have killed her if she hadn't done it?

I think the point is that she felt she had to do it, because her and her families life was hopeless.

Quote[/b] ]If there was Israeli suicide bomber floating in palestinian blood and labelled snowhite in a pool of blood the Palestinians wouldn't be or shouldn't be offended?

Doesnt matter. There arent that many Israeli suicide bombers anyway. Which is part of the point in a way.

Quote[/b] ]Why virtually everyone condemns suicide bombing but when it comes to Snowhite in a pool of blood they are 'victims of circumnstance'?

You dont have to condone suicide bombers just because you are pointing out or trying to understand the reason for their existance.

Quote[/b] ]And Heinz could have avoided hitting crowd of civilians but he didn't. He murdered them.

Yes, as did she. Which is also mentioned in the text tied to the pool of blood and the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]What does bookburning and facism got to do with individuals getting offended by art? Somebody really mix up individual rights to those what state enforces on it's people.

It has a lot do with it! You and not I were the one to suggest that the artwork shouldn't be allowed. If the artwork was forbidden it would be to deny the individuals their rights to free speech and personal freedom - that goes for both the artists and the public taking part in art.

My example was a propper one! Lot's of people were disturbed by Picasso's painting back then - and probably for as long as Generalisimo Franco stayed in power. Do you think it would have been allowed at a spanish museum? Do you think you would have enjoyed the "freedom" of Spain back then?

Art isn't nessecarily provocative, but it can be. If you don't like it that's bad for you, but it gives you no right to ban it!

Quote[/b] ]Somebody already brough Guernica here. Does it victimize the Stuka pilot that dropped those bombs? Call him Heinz Snowhite floating on a styrox stuka on a pool of blood?

'He crashed his plane to a monastery full of praying children, poor Heinz'.

Well it doesn't.

It is quite clear that you are enabled from experiencing art - or that you show no interest in it! Fine, but you miss out on a crucial purpose of art - An artwork never has a fixed point of view - it always has several meanings and layers of interprative meaning. It's very much in the eye of the beholder! The whole discussion about this incident shows just that! You want a facit - try to go into the head of the artist!

Quote[/b] ]And what do Spanish Civil War and Israeli-Palestinian conflict do with each other? Is suicide bombing somehow related to Republic's spain's fight for socialist spain? Are Israeli's the facists here? If yes then you have already taken sides.

I'd say you are a bit naive if you try to stay objective about an artwork - art is in itself subjective and can't be anything else. However, as I said you are free to interpret artwork just as you like. The artwork we are discussing is placed well within a political context with many connotations to it! Fascism and Israel? Yes, that too I'm afraid - or rather, call it ethnic clensing! That is not the same as saying that I'm glorifiyng the suicide bombers. Can't do that and never will, but the context does give an explanation of it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fascism and Israel? Yes, that too I'm afraid - or rather, call it ethnic clensing!

Do you make this up as you go along?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]What does bookburning and facism got to do with individuals getting offended by art?

bookburning and facism is sad, but understandable from a individual, but when its done by Israeli ambassador, who prehanded asked the permission from the primeminister of Israel, then it no longer is a statement of a individual, but a statement of a goverment. And when a goverment courages individuals to destroy art, just becouse it aint kosher, i Would call that facism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but when its done by Israeli ambassador, who prehanded asked the permission from the primeminister of Israel,

This is not true.

Quote[/b] ] then it no longer is a statement of a individual, but a statement of a goverment.

Representing his people. From the looks of it here, he did so very well.

Quote[/b] ]And when a goverment courages individuals to destroy art, just becouse it aint cosher, i Would call that facism.

1. The "government" doesn't encourage it. It understood the Ambassador under the circumstances of participating in an anti-genocide conference, including this disgusting exhibit. Had the Swedish government had the brains to forewarn the Ambassador that they cannot remove the exhibit, he would not have attended the exhibit nor the conference in protest - plain and simple. Since the Swedish government neither asked for the removal of such anti-Israeli trash nor did they notify the Ambassador of its presence, the Ambassador acted as he did.

2. fas-cism (fash'iz uhm) n.

1. (sometimes cap.) a totalitarian

governmental system led by a dictator

and emphasizing an aggressive

nationalism, militarism, and often racism.

Israel has a 120 memeber parliament. Its prime minister is elected on a regular basis. We do not emphasize aggressive nationalism, militarism nor racism.

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  

×