Secret Service Probes Art Exhibit - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-14-2005, 07:05 AM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:04 PM
As an artist I'm familiar with no-talent "artists" who can only use shock value to attract attention to their work. We don't have anyone like that in my studio. It just so happens that we are all autistics, and for whatever reason many autistics are artists. We all sell our work, win competitions, get companies to use our work for their cards, I recently sold a picture to some corporate big shots and it's in their permanent exhibit. End of bragging rights rant. Is this morality? Are we talking about something that's "right" or "wrong"? Is this law? That's not the same thing. I take the "slippery slope" argument in censorship of art: if you decide it's OK to censor something because it's too shocking, they'll decide it's OK to censor something else, then something else...........and then they'll clamp down on anything that's controversial. Two of our artists do work that could be considered "controversial". Call something you don't like trash, junk, or something stronger, but don't try to get it banned. That's dangerous.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 09:32 AM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 12:04 PM
In agreement with the majority here-it's merely a piece of artwork, the idea that artwork can be censored bothers me, too. All censorship does is silence ideas, ideas that, some of which, if stifled long enough, can finally be brought to the forefront in a hell of a lot more violent means. Censorship merely sweeps issues under a rug as a way of getting people to pretend they don't exist-well, that doesn't really solve the problem now, does it?

Not to mention, I would think that if the artist really wanted to hurt the president or something, they wouldn't have wasted their time making this artwork, they would've instead been formulating a plan to actually hunt him down and do whatever it is they wanted to do.

And ditto BVS' continuing statement about how they're only proving the artist's point by giving so much attention to this. Also keep in mind that art only means something to people who let it mean something to them. Otherwise, it's just a painting/drawing/sculpture/what have you.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-14-2005, 10:08 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Surely that should be "appeals to a prurient interest in sex", not prudent? Now I am worried as I have a prurient interest in sex.
Ironic you quoted only the part that had to do with the failed California law. Just to clarify.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 10:19 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Nobody has to agree with me whatsoever, and if you don't see it as hate or defamation, you're entitled to believe that.

I on the other hand think that "art" is a piss poor excuse to squeeze in the most despecable, perverse commotions, and amplifying via horrible drawings the idea that it is okay, even patriotic, to assassinate the president. I'm not crying for the cretins. If they get banned, it's their own fault. You can push all the tasteless garbage you want and claim art or freedom of speech, but I draw the line when it is nothing but hate and utter lunacy, possibly something the DNC would even reject. (that last part was a hint of sarcasm, okay, back on topic.) Do I believe art should be censored? Only very rarely. They can have their anti-Bush pot party, but I don't blame secret service at all. May the scum of the earth eat their words.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 01:32 PM   #50
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Nobody has to agree with me whatsoever, and if you don't see it as hate or defamation, you're entitled to believe that.

I on the other hand think that "art" is a piss poor excuse to squeeze in the most despecable, perverse commotions, and amplifying via horrible drawings the idea that it is okay, even patriotic, to assassinate the president. I'm not crying for the cretins. If they get banned, it's their own fault. You can push all the tasteless garbage you want and claim art or freedom of speech, but I draw the line when it is nothing but hate and utter lunacy, possibly something the DNC would even reject. (that last part was a hint of sarcasm, okay, back on topic.) Do I believe art should be censored? Only very rarely. They can have their anti-Bush pot party, but I don't blame secret service at all. May the scum of the earth eat their words.
Along with your hatred of anything liberal one other thing is made clear by this post; you are not an artist.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-14-2005, 01:44 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
and amplifying via horrible drawings the idea that it is okay, even patriotic, to assassinate the president.
Yes, there is a gun pointed at Bush's head, but does that automatically mean that they're promoting assassination of the president? That gun to his head could mean a number of things-perhaps the artist is saying that Bush himself isn't in charge of everything here, that all the other people in the administration, such as Cheney or Rumsfeld or someone like that, were forcing him to comply with their ideas of what should be done, and the "force" part came in the form of a gun at his head. Or perhaps it was a way of showing that anything Bush's administration does to another country is going to come back at them someday. Or something else along that line. Who knows.

Also, if someone's stupid enough to try and assassinate a president simply because they saw it done in a piece of artwork, I wouldn't blame the artist for that one, I'd blame the person who attempted the assassination for being stupid enough to do something just 'cause they saw it somewhere.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-14-2005, 01:50 PM   #52
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Yes, there is a gun pointed at Bush's head, but does that automatically mean that they're promoting assassination of the president? That gun to his head could mean a number of things-perhaps the artist is saying that Bush himself isn't in charge of everything here, that all the other people in the administration, such as Cheney or Rumsfeld or someone like that, were forcing him to comply with their ideas of what should be done, and the "force" part came in the form of a gun at his head. Or perhaps it was a way of showing that anything Bush's administration does to another country is going to come back at them someday. Or something else along that line. Who knows.
Oh, no we can't have other interpretations this isn't art this is hate.
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel

Also, if someone's stupid enough to try and assassinate a president simply because they saw it done in a piece of artwork, I wouldn't blame the artist for that one, I'd blame the person who attempted the assassination for being stupid enough to do something just 'cause they saw it somewhere.

Angela
Ok that's it, I'm reporting you, I think you may be a threat.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-14-2005, 02:30 PM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Ironic you quoted only the part that had to do with the failed California law. Just to clarify.
What are you on about? You didn't make clear it was a failed law, the impression given was that the test had been created by the Supreme Court. Anyway I was just being humorous, no need to get uptight.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 03:33 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:04 PM
Couldn't a similar case be made to make the Ku Klux Klan illegal? They're always yelling and screaming violent stuff. Obviously I've never been to a Klan rally, but there's no telling what their speakers say. I think they are a bunch of holes, but hey, don't ban them. The only group in the United States that wants to make the Klan illegal is the Communist Party.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 05:05 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Along with your hatred of anything liberal one other thing is made clear by this post; you are not an artist.
I think you missed my point. Yes, I draw and make computer art by the way. My point is this - take your most negative, hateful thought and express it, then refer to it as "art" and you will probably get away with it. Is it wrong for me to dislike the picture, and care less if it is intervened by the secret service? And since when is assassinating the president a "liberal" thing? Because if that's the case, then yes, I hate anything liberal.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 05:43 PM   #56
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I think you missed my point. Yes, I draw and make computer art by the way. My point is this - take your most negative, hateful thought and express it, then refer to it as "art" and you will probably get away with it.
Art is expression. Sometimes revealing your darkest feelings will curb you from actually acting out. That's one of the things art is.


Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

Is it wrong for me to dislike the picture, and care less if it is intervened by the secret service?
No, you can dislike anything you want. But it shouldn't be censored or investigated. You should care about censorship, because if this is first your religious views aren't far behind.

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

And since when is assassinating the president a "liberal" thing? Because if that's the case, then yes, I hate anything liberal.
No, it's the fact that you always have to throw some type of reference about anyone's who's anti-bush as a pot smoker or immoral, etc. That gets old.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-14-2005, 09:30 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Being disgusted with the thought of an assassination is NOT a religious concept. It's a reasonable concept, and it should be a universally rational concept. 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. 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. By the way, if thinking the same way about the Klan makes me a commie, count me in. I have presented examples directly quoted from my business law textbook that state that not every form of speech is protected by the First Amendment. To further pound in the truth, you can't say "bomb" on an airplane. If you do not like these laws, you are free to ramble all you want, but remember that defamation is not always protected. Some like myself consider this defamation.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 09:33 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
What are you on about? You didn't make clear it was a failed law, the impression given was that the test had been created by the Supreme Court. Anyway I was just being humorous, no need to get uptight.
When it's a Me vs. Everyone Else line up, I do what I need to prevent anyone else to get carried away. I just wanted to clarify, although, yes, I realize you were being humorous. Sorry if I was overly uptight.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 09:37 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
Yes, there is a gun pointed at Bush's head, but does that automatically mean that they're promoting assassination of the president? That gun to his head could mean a number of things-perhaps the artist is saying that Bush himself isn't in charge of everything here, that all the other people in the administration, such as Cheney or Rumsfeld or someone like that, were forcing him to comply with their ideas of what should be done, and the "force" part came in the form of a gun at his head.
What does this have to do with the Patriot Act?

Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
Also, if someone's stupid enough to try and assassinate a president simply because they saw it done in a piece of artwork, I wouldn't blame the artist for that one, I'd blame the person who attempted the assassination for being stupid enough to do something just 'cause they saw it somewhere.
Obviously I'd blame the assassin first and foremost as well. However, if there was a way to prevent the assassination from happening, that didn't hurt anyone except the feelings of a treason-bound high schooler, than why not?
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 10:18 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 12:04 PM
Heh, BVS .

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
What does this have to do with the Patriot Act?
...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.

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Obviously I'd blame the assassin first and foremost as well. However, if there was a way to prevent the assassination from happening, that didn't hurt anyone except the feelings of a treason-bound high schooler, than why not?
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.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com