Secret Service Probes Art Exhibit

[Macfistowannabe]

...you weren't referring to the Patriot Act in the post I quoted there, you were referring to artwork. At least, that's what I read it as-if I misread your post, I apologize.

I have reiterated time and again that the stamps suggest it's patriotic to assassinate the president. Just to clarify.

:Also, we aren't "smoking" anything. Perhaps the artist did express the idea of assassinating the president, but we're just trying to point out that things aren't always what they automatically appear to be, that art can have many different interpretations to it, too. You'll see support for assassination of the president, whereas someone else could see something totally different.

I don't know how it could've been any more obvious without a text such as "Kill Bush."

:And nobody here is saying they aren't disgusted by the concept of assassinations-if you'll recall, lots of people here said they thought that that was a dumb idea for a piece of artwork to begin with (assuming, of course, once again, that that's even what they were saying with that piece). It's just that while we may think the concept for the art piece is dumb, we still don't support it, along with art of any other kind, being censored. That doesn't comply with the concept of free speech that America prides itself on.

I would hope that everybody is at least somewhat disgusted with the thought. In case anybody did miss it, there was a man who plotted to assassinate the president in reality. Do I believe this kid has a right to free speech? Yes. Do I believe he is abusing it? Absolutely. I wouldn't want him to serve jail time, but it doesn't bother me at all that the Secret Service intervened with his work of hatred.

Well, censoring a piece of artwork sure wouldn't be the way to solve the problem. Sure, the artwork may be gone, but that doesn't mean the thoughts are gone, too. Get to the root of the problem, which may lie in the kid's mind, or in the policies of the government, or whatever. Don't go around censoring things-like I said, all that does is sweep the problem under the rug and make it look like it doesn't exist.

A small amount of censorship is worth preventing a tragedy, or at least reducing tension. There is a sense of security around it, although you never know what you prevented. You are correct that the thoughts would not be gone, but perhaps there are more constructive, if not less destructive ways to express them.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I have reiterated time and again that the stamps suggest it's patriotic to assassinate the president. Just to clarify.

Yeah. But how does that relate to the Patriot Act?

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I don't know how it could've been any more obvious without a text such as "Kill Bush."

Well, some people just see different things. You thought the message was pretty obvious, but there's always someone out there who will get a different interpretation.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I would hope that everybody is at least somewhat disgusted with the thought. In case anybody did miss it, there was a man who plotted to assassinate the president in reality. Do I believe this kid has a right to free speech? Yes. Do I believe he is abusing it? Absolutely. I wouldn't want him to serve jail time, but it doesn't bother me at all that the Secret Service intervened with his work of hatred.

Well, it does us, especially since, again, as BVS kept pointing out, all the Secret Service involvement did was prove the artist right. If someone actually has set out a plan to assassinate the president, yes, certainly deal with them. But as long as they're just expressing their dislike for an administration through art, there's no need to be going to all this trouble. Again, if the artist was that serious about killing Bush, I don't think they'd be wasting their time making mere little stamps about it, they'd instead be plotting the assassination.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
A small amount of censorship is worth preventing a tragedy, or at least reducing tension. There is a sense of security around it, although you never know what you prevented. You are correct that the thoughts would not be gone, but perhaps there are more constructive, if not less destructive ways to express them.

And once again, by censoring someone's views, all that does is make them angry and prone to finding bigger, perhaps more violent ways to get their views heard, so a tragedy could still occur that way, too. I don't really want that, so why not just let them express their views now and deal with the problem at hand. Will there be tension when that happens? Yes, no doubt about that-honesty can be very harsh sometimes. But nothing will get solved if we shut people up and don't let them say what's on their minds.

Angela

 

[BVS]

Being disgusted with the thought of an assassination is NOT a religious concept.

Not what I said, at all!!!

Those of you who deny that it's an assassination, would you mind passing whatever it is you're drinking over here? Come on! It couldn't be more obvious, and I sit here laughing at the irrational excuses of what it "could" be.

I gave you plenty of rational reasons of what this can mean. The fact that you can read the mind of the artist I find laughable. Do you know how much art has been incorrectly interpreted by well respected art critics throughout history...and you aren't even an art critic.

Would a liberal make a statement that the patriot act isn't doing enough to protect us? Use your head! A liberal would be more inclined to make a statement that it's an invasion of privacy.

See you are assuming he's a liberal. You don't even know that.

Use your head!!!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Yeah. But how does that relate to the Patriot Act?

The patriot act according to the stamp is to assassinate the president.

Well, some people just see different things. You thought the message was pretty obvious, but there's always someone out there who will get a different interpretation.

I want a trip inside their heads and spend a day there.

Well, it does us, especially since, again, as BVS kept pointing out, all the Secret Service involvement did was prove the artist right. If someone actually has set out a plan to assassinate the president, yes, certainly deal with them. But as long as they're just expressing their dislike for an administration through art, there's no need to be going to all this trouble. Again, if the artist was that serious about killing Bush, I don't think they'd be wasting their time making mere little stamps about it, they'd instead be plotting the assassination.

Possibly, but who knows? They may be doing both, or, pushing hateful propaganda for whatever reasons we are not aware of.

And once again, by censoring someone's views, all that does is make them angry and prone to finding bigger, perhaps more violent ways to get their views heard, so a tragedy could still occur that way, too. I don't really want that, so why not just let them express their views now and deal with the problem at hand. Will there be tension when that happens? Yes, no doubt about that-honesty can be very harsh sometimes. But nothing will get solved if we shut people up and don't let them say what's on their minds.

It's not necessarily censoring views, but drawing a line when the whole thing is ridiculous and raises potential for concern. The kid was crying for attention, which he got. Probably more than he bargained for. Believe it or not, I am fairly optimistic in a sense that I do have faith in others, and feel that there is good in everybody. Perhaps this artist is capable of doing something much bigger than the low he sunk to. From time to time, I get flared with others, but If I let it cool off rather than telling them to die a horrible death, it hurts nobody.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I gave you plenty of rational reasons of what this can mean. The fact that you can read the mind of the artist I find laughable.

Not as laughable as the denial of such an obvious expression of bitter hatred and malicious intentions to stir tension. Go ahead and laugh, so you don't have to hear me laugh.

See you are assuming he's a liberal. You don't even know that.

What is he, a conservative? Explain how he is not a liberal.

 

[BVS]

Not as laughable as the denial of such an obvious expression of bitter hatred and malicious intentions to stir tension. Go ahead and laugh, so you don't have to hear me laugh.

You say it's obvious but that's due to your bias. You know nothing about the artist.

What is he, a conservative? Explain how he is not a liberal.

I already said. This could easily be a comment on how the patriot isn't going to work and the president he loves will be in harms risk. Maybe he wants a stonger Patriot Act. THE FACT IS YOU DON'T KNOW, STOP PRETENDING LIKE YOU DO.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You say it's obvious but that's due to your bias. You know nothing about the artist.

I already said. This could easily be a comment on how the patriot isn't going to work and the president he loves will be in harms risk. Maybe he wants a stonger Patriot Act. THE FACT IS YOU DON'T KNOW, STOP PRETENDING LIKE YOU DO.

"The president he loves." You couldn't be further off-key. I don't know how you can miss it. “Axis of Evil: The Secret History of Sin.” was the title for the presentation, which was filled with punches at Ashcroft, Bush, and co. Would that be a title for anything BUT a liberal gathering? I'm not pretending anything. Your irrationality is dead meat, and holds no justification whatsoever. There is no sense in fogging up the obvious.

Brown said the agents were most interested in Chicago artist Al Brandtner's work titled "Patriot Act," which depicted a sheet of mock 37-cent red, white and blue stamps showing a revolver pointed at Bush's head.

[/b]

 

[BVS]

You're right you know the exact intent of the artist and all of us pot smoking liberals should be locked up for treason.

 

[Abomb-baby]

You're right you know the exact intent of the artist and all of us pot smoking liberals should be locked up for treason.

AMEN!

 

[verte76]

This is taking it too far, in my opinion. You don't raid an art exhibit in a free country, period. You do that in a police state. In the former Soviet Union, art exhibitions were frequently busted for "objectionable content" and "anti-socialist sentiments".

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You're right you know the exact intent of the artist and all of us pot smoking liberals should be locked up for treason.

I'm a little disappointed in your counter-argument. If you believe in protecting defamation on any level, that's fine. I don't have to agree. But first you bring me out and claim "I hate anything liberal", then you deny that the exhibit is liberal. I made it clear - if you read all of my posts - that I don't think the artist should serve jail time.

 

[BVS]

I'm a little disappointed in your counter-argument. If you believe in protecting defamation on any level, that's fine. I don't have to agree.

I don't believe in censorship at any degree. I'm not sure how defamation got brought into this.

...then you deny that the exhibit is liberal.

I haven't denied anything. Why do you have such a hard time reading my posts. All I've said is there is no way to read the exact intent of the artist. There are several different ways this can be interpreted. That's all, I don't believe in labeling something hate or talk about censorship when you don't even know the true intent and thought behind the painting. A painting unlike a film, or song, or a play lacks context and leaves a lot more up to interpretation, to state anything as obvious is ridiculous.

 

[BVS]

AMEN!

Glad you're bringing so much to this forum.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

A painting unlike a film, or song, or a play lacks context and leaves a lot more up to interpretation, to state anything as obvious is ridiculous.

Anything? Why, in that case, we all know nothing.

 

[BVS]

Anything? Why, in that case, we all know nothing.

When it comes to art...

 

[Macfistowannabe]

When it comes to art...

If it's a painting of a tree, I will most likely interpret it as a tree. If it's a painting of Bush with a gun next to him, described as the Patriot Act, I will most likely interpret it the way I have on here. If it's a picture of a man I'm unfamiliar with, then yes, it's very much open to a broad interpretation.

 

[JessicaAnn]

Art is subjective ... what is good art to one person is bar art to another person. I don't appreciate people calling artists like my sister the "scum of the earth."

If I recall enough from my media law class in college (I was a journalism major; it was a required class and covered the First Amendment extensively) .... Speech (which includes art, the display of symbols such as swastikas or burining crosses) is protected unless it presents a "clear and present danger."

"Clear and present danger" is a standard the Supreme Court uses for judging whether or not freedom of speech may lawfully be limited. Oliver Wendell Holmes illustrated this by stating that that no one has a constitutional right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire is present, for such action would pose a “clear and present danger” to public safety.

A new and perhaps clearer definition of "clear and present danger" is that speech that incites or is likely to incite lawlessness, is not protected. Here's a helpful link: http://academic.mu.edu/uglande/comm165/Subversive.htm

Now, with respect to the artwork in question. (And yes, it is art). It doesn't seem to me (and I would tend to think that the Supreme Court would also agree) that this is not "hate speech" and that this artwork will not incite someone to actually assasinate Pres. Bush. Therefore it's protected speech.

Case closed.

 

[BVS]

If it's a painting of a tree, I will most likely interpret it as a tree.

Sometimes a tree is a tree and sometimes it's not. That's the beauty of art.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Art is subjective ... what is good art to one person is bar art to another person.

I see your point about it being subjective, but I don't think anyone here has considered it good art.

I don't appreciate people calling artists like my sister the "scum of the earth."

I never generalized all artists as scum of the earth, rather, those who campaign to spread hatred and nothing more, whether through a demeaning painting or through spoken words.

If I recall enough from my media law class in college (I was a journalism major; it was a required class and covered the First Amendment extensively) .... Speech (which includes art, the display of symbols such as swastikas or burining crosses) is protected unless it presents a "clear and present danger."

"Clear and present danger" is a standard the Supreme Court uses for judging whether or not freedom of speech may lawfully be limited. Oliver Wendell Holmes illustrated this by stating that that no one has a constitutional right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire is present, for such action would pose a “clear and present danger” to public safety.

A new and perhaps clearer definition of "clear and present danger" is that speech that incites or is likely to incite lawlessness, is not protected. Here's a helpful link: http://academic.mu.edu/uglande/comm165/Subversive.htm

I will check out the link, thanks.

Now, with respect to the artwork in question. (And yes, it is art). It doesn't seem to me (and I would tend to think that the Supreme Court would also agree) that this is not "hate speech" and that this artwork will not incite someone to actually assasinate Pres. Bush. Therefore it's protected speech.

My interpretation may differ from yours, and I'm not sure which side the Supreme Court would side on.

 

[JessicaAnn]

I see your point about it being subjective, but I don't think anyone here has considered it good art.

My interpretation may differ from yours, and I'm not sure which side the Supreme Court would side on.

I am not saying it's a great work of art like a Pollack or a Picasso, but it is compelling. And for that reason, I like it.

As for the Supreme Court, they are very cautious to label speech as unprotected because doing so creates a slippery slope. The Supreme Court may not like the message, but because it's not inciting lawlessness, they wouldn't say it's unprotected speech.

 

[BVS]

JessicaAnn

 

[verte76]

What if this piece isn't supposed to be interpreted literally, but symbolically? Maybe the guy wants to shoot Bush's agenda, and not him physically. It's entirely possible to interpret a picture in other ways than the obvious. Yeah, it's a bit "screamy".

 

[JessicaAnn]

What if this piece isn't supposed to be interpreted literally, but symbolically? Maybe the guy wants to shoot Bush's agenda, and not him physically. It's entirely possible to interpret a picture in other ways than the obvious.

Rene Magritte

Translation: This is not a pipe

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
The patriot act according to the stamp is to assassinate the president.

Well, the only Patriot Act that was coming to my mind was the one the government's set up, which would condemn anything like this.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Possibly, but who knows? They may be doing both, or, pushing hateful propaganda for whatever reasons we are not aware of.

Okay, so let's say they are pushing hateful propaganda. Doesn't mean we have to go along with it. They're entitled to think whatever they want regarding our government, and it's our choice whether or not we want to agree with their views.

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
It's not necessarily censoring views, but drawing a line when the whole thing is ridiculous and raises potential for concern.

But that's the thing-you see this art as ridiculous and cause for concern, whereas someone else might not see it that way. Who determines what kind of art is "ridiculous" and "cause for concern"? Art can be quite the bizarre thing sometimes, anything weird could be seen as ridiculous or cause for concern by somebody. How far will we go with that?

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
The kid was crying for attention, which he got. Probably more than he bargained for.

Exactly, he wanted attention. And if nobody had given it to him, then he'd have no need to do attention-grabbing things like this anymore. Because what's the point of continuing doing something in the hopes you'll get someone's attention after everyone's been ignoring you thus far?

Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Believe it or not, I am fairly optimistic in a sense that I do have faith in others, and feel that there is good in everybody. Perhaps this artist is capable of doing something much bigger than the low he sunk to. From time to time, I get flared with others, but If I let it cool off rather than telling them to die a horrible death, it hurts nobody.

And that's you. This kid, however, feels differently. And yet again, we don't know for sure that that was even the kid's message, to have Bush "die a horrible death"-verte's idea of symbolism is a good one to consider, too . And even if those were his thoughts, again, instead of just censoring the artwork that expressed those thoughts, let's try and directly deal with whatever problems, be they the kid's problems or the government's problems, that would lead someone to have those kinds of thoughts.

Also, to JessicaAnn's posts, too.

Angela

 

[Macfistowannabe]

What if this piece isn't supposed to be interpreted literally, but symbolically? Maybe the guy wants to shoot Bush's agenda, and not him physically. It's entirely possible to interpret a picture in other ways than the obvious. Yeah, it's a bit "screamy".

Hrmm... I suppose it may be possible, but if it were to shoot Bush's agenda, I would think that maybe the gun would aim at the Patriot Act text, rather than Bush's head. Of course I may be taking it too literally, but I don't see how it would make any sense for this description to fit it. Unless it's not supposed to make sense...

 

[verte76]

Hrmm... I suppose it may be possible, but if it were to shoot Bush's agenda, I would think that maybe the gun would aim at the Patriot Act text, rather than Bush's head. Of course I may be taking it too literally, but I don't see how it would make any sense for this description to fit it. Unless it's not supposed to make sense...

Art doesn't always make sense. Suppose the artist is opposed to the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, Social Security overhaul, and every other thing that Bush is for, but wouldn't dream of literally shooting him. They want that agenda to go. I think this should be interpreted symbolically. If he meant it literally he'd go to Washington and try to shoot the guy.

 

[nbcrusader]

What if this piece isn't supposed to be interpreted literally, but symbolically? Maybe the guy wants to shoot Bush's agenda, and not him physically. It's entirely possible to interpret a picture in other ways than the obvious. Yeah, it's a bit "screamy".

Theoretically, someone might consider crashing a plane into a building as a piece of art......

 

[verte76]

Theoretically, someone might consider crashing a plane into a building as a piece of art......

We're talking some pretty damn poor taste here. I think this picture is in appallingly bad taste. So would a picture of a plane crashing into a building. I'm not defending the picture other than to say that it may be symbolic, although it's admittedly pretty overt to be symbolic.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Theoretically, someone might consider crashing a plane into a building as a piece of art......

This would be a harder scenerio to interpret, I would think. It could be intended as a memorium. On the other hand, I've seen some sick photoshop jobs that intend to raise humor out of the 9/11 attacks. Still, I don't understand how the Bush stamps could have been more obvious.

 

[BonosSaint]

Do you all remember a statue an artist did soon after 9/11, displayed at Rockefeller Center? It was called Tumbling Woman, I believe, and depicted a woman tumbling from the towers. It was a powerful image that disquieted a lot of people who wanted it removed (and I assume replaced with statues of angels, or some other typical--in my view, "mundane" symbol. I thought it was incredible because it stopped you in your tracks and brought back those moments starkly. There was such a protest about it.
Sometimes art that shocks you is valuable for exactly the discomfort it brings. Sometimes art that shocks is just plain tedious.

Sorry, off topic here. It's just that this discussion brought back that statue to mind.