DescentBB

Israel's Sweden Envoy Attacks Suicide Bomber Art (yes, amazing that I'm linking to Reuters, isn't it?).

Anyway, I say good for the ambassador. It's about time artists realized there isn't some God-given right to produce trash and not expect it to affect some folks in ways unintended. In glorifying the killer, you negate the value of the victims. As if it were in some way an admirable thing to perform a cowardly attack on innocents simply because it demonstrates *commitment*. Most murderers demonstrate a degree of commitment or they wouldn't be murderers in the first place. And why should it matter that the bomber was a mother and a lawyer? As if that is ironclad certification that one was a benevolent and intelligent person before being driven to extremes. Of course, the artist got all this from one photograph in a newspaper and thought the killer looked like a Disney character. Talk about projecting romantic notions where none should exist.

It's easy to sit in one's comfy ex-pat home in the land of the Swedish Swimsuit Team and think yourself avant garde while the folks you left behind have to face everyday the very real possibility of having someone blow up in front of them.

If its garbage, its not art. That as well as other "art" pieces that blatantly attack Christianity and such are garbage. I dont blame the ambasador for doing what he did. Good show.

Speaking of commitment, I thought this was a pretty spot-on:

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000258.html

Maybe I just love to play devils advocate but...
I don't think an artist should be penalized for having bad taste.
I would fault any institution like a newspaper or other media outlet for portraying the female Islamikazi as heroic because I see that as inciting the attacks, validating the whole marytr thing but the artist should be able to express himself.
(thx index_html for the new phrase...Islamikazi...I love it )

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
and not expect it to affect some folks in ways unintended.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't the whole point of art to try to affect the viewer in some way?

I don't really see what's to discuss here anyway. Somebody saw something they really didn't like (which was promised not to be a topic at that particular event), went overboard, and had to pay for their actions.

YW, Will, but I didn't invent it. I think I read it on the Little Green Footballs blog site.

Will, expression is one thing but this artist didn't seem to have much of a clue as to the reality of living under the constant threat of exploding human beings. As such, I found it cowardly that he and his wife-artist would produce something that is pretty much the artistic equivalent of trolling. I have to believe this was intentional, as well. Even with prior assurances to the Israeli government that no controversial exhibits would be present during this specific function, lo and behold how did that shrine to a recent killer of 21 innocent Israelis slip in? Oops. Teehee. It would appear as though more than just the artist was party to baiting the Israeli ambassador.

Tetrad, I agree. Art is supposed to move the viewer. And it certainly did in this case. But I don't think the artist has any reason to believe he/she can dictate what the proper reaction should be. You put it out there and suffer the consequences if you step over the line. Which I believe this guy did. Of course, the museum's response was that if the ambassador found the exhibit distasteful, he should have just looked away or left the premises. Spoken like a true appeaser.

What happened to the days when artists tried to show the world beauty? Hell, a three-year-old could have made that POS exhibit in 30 minutes. I detect no talent at all in the actual *artpiece*. The only thing missing is a turd floating in the fake blood to represent Arafat. Heh. The ambassador should have just whipped it out and urinated in it. And then he could be an artist too!

I once read:

"There is nothing more distressing that creativity without discression."

Being an artist myself, I'm inclinded to concure. Many "works of art" are an excercise in pretention. Truculence and Malciousness guised as "self-expression". Here they call it a First Amendment right.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
But I don't think the artist has any reason to believe he/she can dictate what the proper reaction should be.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding the artist did not have anything to do with the ambassador getting whatever he got.

Maybe he wanted people to get angry? In this case it would be more like the politico was in a position where he should not have acted like he did.

What ever happened to conservatives wanting people to take responsibility for their actions? "But it made me really mad!" Oh boo hoo.

Huh? I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I don't understand what you're trying to say either, apparently.

Read the bit I quoted. I think you're making assumptions that just aren't really valid.

There is no just reason for what the Israeli envoy did.

so he was offended by it; thats his problem. The way he dealt with it was inexcusable, and got what was coming to him.

Its like burning down someone's house because you have issues with the manner in which he painted his house.

Nope, sorry, Tetrad, still unable to discern what you're struggling to express. Is there an opinion in there somewhere or just an anti-opinion? Are you some sort of an artist? Heh. Get back to me when you decide to reveal your reasons for repeatedly posting in a thread you claim contains nothing to discuss or when you finally find the words to convey something.

Flip, your analogy achieves relevance if you're talking about the first homeowner painting his house with huge-ass letters proclaiming *die, jew, die*. That's a bit more provocative than simply painting it a ghastly color.

A closer analogy would be if some *artist* put up an exhibit deifying the 19 9/11 hijackers, replete with little angelic wings below their photographs, each given endearing little Disney names, flying over a pile of rotting meat and then inviting the mayor of New York to come view it and feigning surprise and confusion when the mayor reacts aggressively to the bait.

Glorifying terroristic violence and those that perpetrate it is a bizarre role for an artist to assume. The problem is too many folks without a lick of actual talent can call themselves an artist and need no credentials or schooling to prove it. And then they can place themselves in a protected reserve (or so they think) from where they can make all sorts of obscene gestures, secure in the knowledge that they are untouchable because, dammit, they're an *artist*. Pfft.

Maybe my dictionary is a little old or perhaps is not in synch with the Moron Koran, but blowing yourself up with the express desire to kill as many innocents as possible does not equate to martyrdom. If, on the other hand, these islamic were to sit in the middle of a street, pour gasoline over themselves, flick their Bic and transform into a static fourth of July fountain of fire...while supporters march around with signs saying "set us free"...then they would be a martyr.
The display in question, like the Maplethorp exhibit and others, cannot really be considered art in the finer sense. More appropriatly I would call it visual commentary trying to persuade the viewer to a certain point of view. While some may label Bongo the chimp splashing paint on a canvas as art, art necessitates a certain discipline and a knowledge of the medium in which one works. filling a tub with red dye and floating a beatific homocidal murderiss in it somehow does not float my boat.

i'm gonna wait a few days for more information to come out before i take sides. you'd really have to talk to the artist (an ex-pat of isreal since 72) to understand the intention of the piece. it could be bitterness, attention whoring, anti-semitism, or maybe there is a point beyond shock value.

i don't know... i haven't been to isreal or an art museum in sweden lately.

bash: As Tetrad said, you are making assumptions about the intention of the artist based on the reaction of the envoy from a single 400 word article from a source you seem to be amazed to be pointing to in the first place. You might want to sit back, and look at that article in a logical, rather than emotional standpoint, sort out who the victim is, and stop blaming him.

A question, would you have brought this up if it were the Indian Envoy that got annoyed and went a-bashing, or the subject matter anything other that what it was in that article?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
The problem is too many folks without a lick of actual talent can call themselves an artist and need no credentials or schooling to prove it. And then they can place themselves in a protected reserve (or so they think) from where they can make all sorts of obscene gestures, secure in the knowledge that they are untouchable because, dammit, they're an *artist*. Pfft. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand this at all either. Are you saying that you can't call it art unless it's in good taste? Something you can put on the top of a coffee table and say "oh that's quaint"?

And where are you getting this 'untouchable' biz from anyway? It's not like you can put something in a museum unless the curator thinks it has some sort of artistic value.

After further research, the artist seems to be passively-aggressively dismounting his high horse and allowing that maybe the piece was too vague to relate what he had intended. But no apologies, of course. He's claiming he wasn't glorifying the bomber but rather pitying her lonely, unstable existance that led her to kill 21 diners. Frankly, how one is supposed to figure out that interpretation from a little boat in a pool of fake blood is beyond me. It's the game that moves as you play it.

I was glad to read this morning that the Israeli government stands firmly behind it's ambassador's reaction and is currently considering pulling out of a planned conference unless the exhibit is dismantled. Let's see if the Swedes acknowledge that it was in poor taste and quite a diplomatic gaffe to knowingly insult a visiting jewish diplomat during a time of rising jewish hate crimes throughout Old Europe. Gee, ya think the Israeli ambassador might be offended by our portrayal of a mass murderer of his fellow citizens as an modern-day Joan of Arc and ingenue? Naaa.

Flip, since 9/11 I have identified much closer to Israel since it lives everyday with what we only experienced once. It would make no sense for the Indian ambassador to destroy the *artpiece* since it had nothing to do with India. Had that happened, I would have simply scratched my head and thought him nuts.

In the larger scheme of things, one one side we have an ambassador who detroyed an art exhibit, on the other a killer who destroyed the lives of 21 innocent people. You tell me, who was more destructive here? And who is more deserving of the good publicity and who deserves the bad? As far as the Palestinians are concerned, so many folks turn a blind eye on the violence they both perpetrate and promote within their children at very early ages. I'm beginning to see Krom's point of view regarding what little value their existance has at all. As long as the bombings continue, they will never get the homeland they don't deserve anyway. I swear there's a book somewhere entitled *How Not To Get What You Want And Look Bad Trying* that seems to be issued to each and every Palestinian. I will never forget they were the only people dancing in the streets and celebrating while our own brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers lay dead and dying for no higher crime than being American. They lost what little empathy they had with me on that day.

Tetrad, first we have to determine whether it is art before we decide what artistic value it has. I don't consider it art at all so your question is moot, even if the curator did. Basically, my yardstick is if I could have produced it drunk while holding my dick in my hand, it isn't art. The only art that impresses me as truly art are pieces that I couldn't possibly hope to produce no matter how many years of art school I had. A true artist transcends normal humans, imo, and he/she doesn't play with little boats or use blood, urine or semen (fake or otherwise) as a medium. I see it how the ambassador saw it; as a callous display lacking any skill or insight to construct meant not to be thought-provoking but simply provoking. I have to wonder what the idiot got paid to produce that garbage and who paid him.

Bash, a very sizable portion of modern art is not about reproducing something in life with a massive amount of classic talent, but rather being able to express emotions with mundane objects.

Saying "I don't consider it art" just seems to be a cop out to me.

Take it for what it's worth. I don't think an artist has the right to say what is art, imo. Art is in the eye of the beholder. It's not a cop out because you're requesting an opinion that requires a prior judgement that it is art in the first place. I can't get to your second question because the first prevents me from reaching there. That isn't art by my definition, not even close. It's a statement of opinion wrapped in a little toy boat floating in fake blood.

Heh, although I'd have to substitute a picture of Jennifer Alba and use a bottle with her picture inside instead of a toy boat (which would have been much closer to *art* than what was produced) I could construct that exhibit in about, oh, five minutes while simultaneously urinating and eating a sandwich (which is probably the equivalent level of effort and thought the artist put into his piece).

Tell me, do you really think that is art or do you just like the sentiment and the fact that it pissed the jew off?

Bash, have you even seen the piece to begin with? The description of it only allowed YOU, just as the rest of us, to paint our own picture of what we think it might look like using what was described.

The fact that you've been hellbent ever since 9/11 towards issues involving certain peoples from the middle east is also further proof of your bias towards the painting in question.

I'm sorry to say, that although I've trolled your posts and agreed with 99% of what you have to say, I'm detecting a little hypocrisy here. Art is art, some of the artists here make good money just by splashing paint on a canvas and coming up with some BS reason for why they did it. I don't consider this art personally, but technically any visual representation of feelings or whatnot can be regarded as "Art" regardless of how tasteful it may or may not be.

Since you have not seen this painting personally, I'm not sure how you can just sit back and blatantly lambast the painter for expressing something that is always open to interpretation. I don't care what anybody says, everyone comes to their own conclusions when looking at something, even if it is completely different from what the artist had originally intended.

I'm not defending the work in question, but only the ideals of art, being that I am an artist with a degree in design. I do agree with you that he should have had the foresight to realize that displaying something of that nature and knowing full well who he was depicting in his painting, that it would not be in good taste at this point in time.

However I don't think it is fair for you to critique something you haven't actually seen until you've finally witnessed it for yourself so that YOU can decide for yourself whether or not it truely glorifies this woman or not.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from...

<font face="Arial" size="3">In the larger scheme of things, one one side we have an ambassador who detroyed an art exhibit, on the other a killer who destroyed the lives of 21 innocent people.</font>

no, in the larger scheme of things, one one side we have an ambassador who destroyed an art exhibit, on the other an artist with a destroyed art exhibit.

By justfiying what the ambassador did, you are saying that any action that follows someone being offended are just.

Your saying that its right for a white supremist to beat on African Americans, your saying its right for Palenstinians to go around blowing up Israelis, or for Muslims to go shooting Hindus.

Your saying just because you see something that you don't like, you have a right to take violent actions against it.

People need to reflect on why the Israeli/Palenstinian conflict seems to hard to stop.

Follow the link, Ty, it's not a painting. It's a little toy boat christened the Snow White (yea, she was soooo innocent, that poor bomber) in a tub of fake blood with the sail of the boat made from a very un-Islamic photograph of mad mom in her Sunday best, face exposed and with make up on. She was a 29-year-old *lawyer* (how is it there are lawyers in a lawless land?) and unwed mother who abandoned her children to run away and kill jews. And FWIW, Ty, my title is also *artist* in the masthead and on my paycheck but I always found that too pretentious so I refer to myself as an *art mechanic* when asked what I do for a living.

Heh, Flip, let me speak for myself, mmmk? I have no need for you to intentionally distort or misinterpret my words or distribute my opinion into areas neither relevant nor parallel unless you'd like the same weak line of attack applied to you. I can play that game too, although I generally disdain such neophyte techniques to discredit an adversary. Let's play you post what I mean and I post what you mean. Let's not.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Tetrad:
<b>
And where are you getting this 'untouchable' biz from anyway? It's not like you can put something in a museum unless the curator thinks it has some sort of artistic value.</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually Tetrad, I've seen a lot of this. I live in Portland, Oregon (USA)which is a kind of a SanFansico wannabe. There are a lot of angry/"damaged" people that use an art medium to vent in often inappropriate ways. Or sometimes it merely someone who has a bone to pick "with the Man" or the "institution" (for all you 60's flowerchildren out there )

They, by some means, gain some notoriety and manage to get thier "message" out and heard by more than the the ave joe walking down a sidewalk. That is to say that it seldom wind up in a museum somewhere. Maybe a gallery or a public place like government office buildings or something simular as example.

They like to "express themselves" ,no matter how outlandish, and "hide" behind the title of artist. This is what the title of this thread is implying. A lot of the current hip-hop/rap is very simular. With utrla violent and vulgar lyrics, they say it's o.k. because it's art, or it "real life", or "just don't listen to it." Ultimately they are not wanting to take responsiblity for material they produce. ... now some balance to that previous statement. I do not believe that all hip-hop / rap or most music is bad, or vulgar.. blah blah blah .. but this is one genre that cross the line on a regular basis, and used it for purpose of example.

In ammendment to what I just said:

Art is a great release venue if something IS bothering you. I just typically talk to myself or meditate, but some like to draw, write poetry, or write really bad guitar music.

But if it is used in this capacity, by which it often is not fit to share with your goldfish. ... been THERE done that..... keep it to one's self for later reflection.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
Tell me, do you really think that is art or do you just like the sentiment and the fact that it pissed the jew off?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
Heh, Flip, let me speak for myself, mmmk? I have no need for you to intentionally distort or misinterpret my words or distribute my opinion into areas neither relevant nor parallel unless you'd like the same weak line of attack applied to you. I can play that game too, although I generally disdain such neophyte techniques to discredit an adversary. Let's play you post what I mean and I post what you mean. Let's not.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the hell? Am I the only one seeing some sort of hypocrisy here?

Considering I have no pseudo-romantic notions about what can or cannot be considered art, I have no problem calling said piece that.

Look, I just don't see that the artist in question did anything wrong. The ambassador went overboard and got punished as he should. The curator put said piece in an exhibit in which the people in charge said that particular topic wouldn't have been involved, and probably should get reprimanded for that. The artist just made something that made somebody else angry.

The only thing of note I see here is your irrational and at times ignorant viewpoint of what art is.

And it's "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", not "art".

It's called *paraphrasing*, you dolt. Art and beauty are not interchangeable terms so I purposely paraphrased it to suit the context of what we are discussing. Heh, you going to start combing through for misspellings or dangling participles now? Yea, I guess my view of what is art is irrational and ignorant, even though art has put bread on my table for the past twenty years. You must really like the taste of your feet.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by bash:
It's called *paraphrasing*, you dolt. Art and beauty are not interchangeable terms so I purposely paraphrased it to suit my needs. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


paraphrase:

1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.
2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.

paraphrasing:

To restate in a paraphrase.

No, I think that isn't paraphrasing.

And your point is? As I stated, in this context, beauty has nothing to do with it (does anyone think the exhibit contains beauty?) so I restated the well-worn phrase that the viewer is the ultimate arbiter of what art is, not the artist (oops, paraphrasing again, sorry). I agree with that sentiment, so when the artist defends his work as *art*, I scoff and remind him that it isn't his decision, despite his wish that it be.

Now this is just getting silly. I know it's time to abandon a thread when folks start wheeling out the tired dictionary definition posts in an effort to try to make a poster look bad (which backfired, btw, since your definition and my usage are identical). We've apparently moved beyond substance and content into a strictly form-appraisal nitpicking mode.

Like I said, it was poor judgement on his part for even making such a thing at this time. Let alone having it viewed by someone who is in the middle and effected by it. I did read the article that you posted, all be it right when you posted it. Sorry, I had forgotten what exactly it was (Painting / sculpture / or a diorama of some sort).

In some ways I could imagine "Snow White" representing this woman in her youth and how could she have grown to do what she did. Condemned to sail on a river of blood representing her victims for eternity to suffer in the knowledge of her actions.

In all actuality though, being dead, she has no guilt and most likely to go through with such a horrible deed in the first place was probably clear of conscience when she did it.

Your comparisons to a display of 9/11 and glorifying the terrorists would probably conjure up the same response from most of us Americans, so that analogy did suit this. Still, by trying to destroy it they would be breaking the law either way. I do think a request to have it removed is fair, but I don't think it should have been vandalized.

I still would like to see it for myself. I saw no link to a picture of the display and I don't trust my own mental "representation" of what I read to do enough justice to form a strong opinion one way or another.

To condone the masterpiece in question, one has to ask if in 500 year it would sell for a big bunch of money. I suspect in 500 years, it will be nowhere to be found.

Bash, the reason I said that was simply that I don't think that whether or not something is art is entirely an opinion. You don't have to like or even respect something and it can still be art. It may not necessarily be good art, but it is art nevertheless.

Thus, I still see your "it's not art" line of reasoning as a cop out.

It may be art to you but it isn't to me. Thereby most of your questions are rendered nonsensical. As far as I'm concerned we're discussing a toilet fixture. Cop out? Nope, I simply won't dignify something that poorly conceived and constructed with the term you expect. Calling the piece *art* would legitimize the piece and, more than anything else I hope the message the *artist* gets the from all the reaction around the world, is not so much that as a jew and ex-Israeli he's an embarrassment, an appeaser and a stooge of Arafat, but that as an artist, he is a talentless hack that diminishes the importance to the world of all legitimate artists that actually produce works of beauty rather than mere schlock-value commentary to gain attention for themselves and avoid making an honest living.

Duperman understands what I mean.

There's a big difference between Picasso's Guernica and a rally - lit and choreographed by Albert Speer, and filmed by Leni Riefenstahl.

a few hundred thousand dudes with torches marching in unison while a thousand searchlights beam collumns of light towards the heavens looks kind of cool. In fact, it's artistic. Still, one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we're talking about a Nazi pep rally for world domination and mass murder. Art? Yes, definitely...but art only worth smashing. And 1000's of bomber runs did smash it.

Guernica was heralded as a masterpiece. It commemorated the victims of a massacre. The Stockholm piece clearly commemorated the perpetrator of the massacre. Catch-22! The world is upside down.

Was the Guernica propaganda as well as art? Yes. But even the Guernica, with its stark images of anguish and death, has more subtlety than the Stockholm piece. And the most important part about the Guernica? It did not commemorate Nazi's "martyred" in the cause to help Franco bring Fascism to Northern Spain. The Guernica was art/propaganda with a sane, rational message - that the Nazi's were murderers of defenseless civilians.

Let's face it, a piece of art heralding the cause of someone who murdered 22 innocent people is poor taste at best. At worst, it's incitement to further murder of innocents. The argument that martyrdom (read mass murder) is somehow a noble act on the part of those fighting for Palestinian liberation is nonsense.

The modern Middle East conflict is so full of grey areas that it will never permit easy characterization. Israelis cannot be fairly called occupiers. The Palestinians cannot be fairly called free. Yet they are hardly peaceful protestors or practitioners of civil disobedience. And the Israelis are far from fascists.

Maybe destroying the Stockholm piece was going too far. But in the long run, I think the "art" got what it deserved.

Image of the Guernica and image of the Nuremberg Rally...

Guernica: http://www.mala.bc.ca/~lanes/english/he ... ernica.htm

u must copy and paste the link. poor quality photo, but u get the idea:

http://members.tripod.com/albertspeer/f ... thlite.jpg

Agreed. Expressing a vile idea and slapping the word "art" on it doesn't place one beyond contempt. I think I've come to view it as pretty cowardly really, to dress up your ugly ideas in some creation, then hide behind the word "art". I think Stockholm's Historical Museum could raise the bar a little. Then again, the Swedes were happy to claim neutrality during WWII while the Third Reich murdered millions, maybe they thought Auschwitz was "art" and Zyklon B was merely an interesting medium to work with (okay, I admit, that was harsh).

edit, nm

i thought you meant Swiss, but Sweden barely made it through the war as non-beligerants. you are correct, sir!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Palzon:
Let's face it, a piece of art heralding the cause of someone who murdered 22 innocent people is poor taste at best.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's face it, here you're making the assumption that the intention was to herald that cause in the first place. Have you seen the piece in question? Could you please provide a link to an image? I haven't seen it.

I can't help saying that I find it a little amusing when people discuss (or debate) the interpretation of something they haven't even seen - assuming, of course, that you haven't seen it, but I also assume that you'd have mentioned it if you had.

I don't see how breaking limits or even clear harshness would prevent something from being art. Actually that's one thing that could be considered an important task of art. Of course how to do it well and with discretion is something that takes skill. Since I haven't seen this piece, there's no way I could say how it is in this case.


index_html,

I think that it's everyone's primary goal in a war to survive the best they can - particularly if we're talking about a relatively small and not very powerful country that's next to a world war. While evading such a conflict may not always be the most 'courageous' or 'noble' thing to do, that probably doesn't matter much. Although I'm without personal experience, I believe that 'courage' and 'nobility' kind of stuff tends to drop away quite soon in a situation like that.


bash,

I got the impression that when fliptw asked you if your reaction would be the same if it were an Indian envoy, he didn't mean such an envoy coming to see this piece of art and feeling offended but of course the hypothetical situation of them seeing a piece with similar significance to them as this one had to the Israeli embassador. Otherwise it would kind of lose its point.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Delkian:
<b> Let's face it, here you're making the assumption that the intention was to herald that cause in the first place. Have you seen the piece in question? Could you please provide a link to an image? I haven't seen it.

I can't help saying that I find it a little amusing when people discuss (or debate) the interpretation of something they haven't even seen - assuming, of course, that you haven't seen it, but I also assume that you'd have mentioned it if you had.

I don't see how breaking limits or even clear harshness would prevent something from being art. Actually that's one thing that could be considered an important task of art. Of course how to do it well and with discretion is something that takes skill. Since I haven't seen this piece, there's no way I could say how it is in this case.
</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not the one arguing it is not art. That'd be Bash. I'm the one arguing that just because something is art doesn't free it from being criticized as wrong.

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

(from the article linked in the original post):

<b> "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" was created by expatriate Israeli artist Dror Feiler, an activist in Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, a Stockholm-based group opposed to the Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The artwork consisted of a rectangular basin filled with red fluid. A boat floated on top carrying a portrait of Hanadi Jaradat, who killed herself and 22 Israelis in an attack on a restaurant in the northern Israeli city of Haifa in October."</b>

The very title is sympathetic to the "martyr": "Snow White and the Madness of Truth". Would you want the killer of your family compared to Snow White or the Little Mermaid? It would be one thing if he called the piece "Crazy Who<g>re and the Madness of Truth", or "Mass Murdering Bi<g>tch and the Madness of Truth". But he did not. I don't need to ask the all knowing "mirror, mirror on the wall" to infer that the "artist" is casting the "martyr" in a sympathetic light. i find that abhorent.

yes, it IS art. I say it IS crap. by making the art, the artist sends a message that I believe intends to incite others to do what Ms. Jaradat did.

Under no circumstances would I ever target civilians as a form of protest or resistance. Let's say I had lost a loved one to a government I considered repressive. If I knew I had no recourse to justice, i.e. a remotely fair legal system, I might consider retaliation or protest. But i damn sure wouldn't target civilians with explosives.

I'd target the civilian government in a peaceful manner, or i'd attack it's military forces or political leaders with violence. Nothing else is acceptable ever, under any circumstances. Anyone who characterizes Ms. Jaradat as anything but a crazy-ass mass-murdering who<g>re has got rocks in their turban.

edit: i have seen the work. now you can too. it's exactly as a pictured it. frankly, how it looks has very little to do with it, which should be clear if you read my first post and comment on the title of the piece above. like i said, a nazi rally is cool lookin until u realize it is a nazi rally.

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Confer ... ento39.htm

For once Palzon, you are being very lucid.

Delkian, I knew what Flip meant, or rather, was trying to do. So I ignored it and answered it in the manner of my choosing, not his. Flip's a slippery one (he's flippery!) and has the standard bag of tricks that often derail a thread and redirect the focus of the discussion onto the topic poster rather than the topic. Odd behavior for a mod, imo. I did try to echo some of his analogies, but when folks start talking too much about hypotheticals that would be like the situation being discussed rather than simply speaking directly to what is being discussed I see a danger of spinning off topic into all sorts of *what ifs*, which is a dead-end for any topic and counterproductive to why I post these things; to see them discussed, not something else and certainly not me. That's unimportant. To me, the topic is what is important or I wouldn't have started it.

For some reason folks are always looking for consistency of thought and behavior from each other as if we were simply bots. I take each case individually, not to bring myself closer to some ideal universal reaction that I will exhibit each time something similar arises. Nope, I know that we are all walking contradictions and I leave myself the flexibility to have a different reaction for different reasons in similar situations with no sense of that being a character flaw at all. When Flip's hypothetical moves into the actual, I'll find out for myself firsthand how I would react. As it stands, I don't know because it hasn't happened. Abstraction is one of mankind's more dangerous indulgences.

I've made no secret in this thread that I'm less than impressed with the behavior of the Palestinians and I'm certain that contributed to some of the negativity I have regarding the *art* in question but as the thread evolved I got to dig deep enough to confirm to myself that regardless of who it represents, the exhibit is devoid of any value to anyone *art-wise* except to possibly reinforce in the minds of would-be killers that there are rewards for murder. I consider that an obscene message for an *artist* to promote and it places him closer to pornographer than artist, imo.