But I'm An Artist!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Jan 20, 2004 7:09 am

Bash, you do pornography a disservice

Delkian · Post by **Delkian** » Thu Jan 22, 2004 9:24 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Palzon:
I'm not the one arguing it is not art.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's right. Sorry. I put that part in the wrong place in my post, it shouldn't have been below the quote, it was intended to be separate.

I think the description of the piece makes it hard to dispute the Israeli minister's claim that it glorified the suicide bomber:

Only if you aren't open to think about other possible interpretations.

The very title is sympathetic to the "martyr": "Snow White and the Madness of Truth"

Sympathetic, possibly. I'd still consider it neutral in tone, not encouraging violence against anyone, although someone might interpret it that way, I don't deny that and there could have been more thought put into that before putting that kind of a piece on display.

However, without going too deep into the story of Snow White and trying forcibly to find symbolic from there, I'd say that the title is by no means unambiguous. Snow White could easily refer to the educated and, one could assume, civilised past of the suicide bomber. It doesn't have to refer to her 'current state'. 'The madness of truth' is quite easy to associate with that. The first impression that I got from the title was that its meaning is to wonder what drove this 'Snow White' into such an act.

Under no circumstances would I ever target civilians as a form of protest or resistance. Let's say I had lost a loved one --

That's rather easy to say as long as we keep on the "let's say" level. I assure you that I agree with you on that, and attacking anyone except for direct self-defense is rarely justifiable. Suicide bombing civilians is not justifiable, but it does happen, and more important than saying that 'I would never do it' is to think why it happens, and I think that's exactly the question that this piece of art is asking. A human is an amazing thing, both in good an bad, and it's quite surprising what can happen in a human mind. It's not a computer.

Again, this doesn't have to mean patting suicide bombers on the head, but preventing something from happening further is better than being horrified about it and prevention often requires and understanding of the reasons.

One thought that may come to mind is why present the bomber's face if the intention is not to glorify her. But it's necessary for adding some kind of a personal level to it - it's easy to understand if you think about what I wrote in the previous two paragraphs.

Anyone who characterizes Ms. Jaradat as anything but a crazy-ass mass-murdering whore has got rocks in their turban.

Quite possibly, but some people might still be interested in why such crazy-assness took place.

frankly, how it looks has very little to do with it

How it looks is by no means irrelevant. Art influences through emotions, and how something looks most definitely affects how people feel about it. It can change the whole meaning of a piece of art since the way it looks (or sounds or whatever) partially defines its meaning.

--

I'm not saying that your interpretation or opinion is wrong. I'm saying that it definitely isn't the only one.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:42 pm

I appreciate your follow up and gladly concede the validity of all you say. my interpretation may not be the only one possible but it does seem the most likely. I would still submit though, that to leave the piece ambiguous so that it could be interpreted as sympathetic to a terrorist is irresponsible and destructive. in that sense, i think my criticism of the piece and the artist himself still stands.

Pink Panther · Post by **Pink Panther** » Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:43 pm

Obviously it was the artist's choice to create the "art", but shame on the exhibit for showing the piece.

"He will have the opportunity to explain why he did what he did," Catherine von Heidenstam, chief of protocol at the Swedish foreign affairs ministry, told Reuters.

How retarded can someone be? If it isn't obvious to someone why he "did what he did," they're probably not intelligent enough to understand any explination.