Secret Service Probes Art Exhibit - Page 6 - 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 04-15-2005, 10:48 AM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
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.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 11:09 AM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
JessicaAnn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Posts: 11,743
Local Time: 01:03 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
JessicaAnn is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 11:13 AM   #78
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
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.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-15-2005, 11:21 AM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by JessicaAnn
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.

Quote:
Originally posted by JessicaAnn
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.

Quote:
Originally posted by JessicaAnn
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.

Quote:
Originally posted by JessicaAnn
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.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 11:31 AM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
JessicaAnn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Posts: 11,743
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
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.
__________________
JessicaAnn is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 11:32 AM   #81
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 12:03 PM
JessicaAnn
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-15-2005, 12:38 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:03 PM
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".
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 12:43 PM   #83
ONE
love, blood, life
 
JessicaAnn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI (USA)
Posts: 11,743
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.


Rene Magritte

Translation: This is not a pipe
__________________
JessicaAnn is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 01:03 PM   #84
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: 12:03 PM
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-15-2005, 02:27 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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".
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...
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 02:52 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 02:53 PM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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".
Theoretically, someone might consider crashing a plane into a building as a piece of art......
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 02:57 PM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 03:03 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
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.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-15-2005, 04:14 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:03 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
 

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 01:03 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