Get The Picture ?

If anybody should be "offended" by opinions, it is the people that do not believe in fairy tales, threats of eternal damnation, and other very aggressive symptoms of mental illnesses caused by belief in the supernatural. The religious fanatics, and people that do not speak out against them, are contributing to the destruction of the world - and I am never going to think that superstition is equivalent to logic and reason. If it hadn't been for religion, we'd probably have had many medical and scientific breakthroughs long before they came into fruition (think stem-cell research).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Hi Torog,

The "dung" that disgusts you is also fertilizer, without which we'd have a lot less food in the world. *

Since there is no evidence that a "virgin" ever gave birth to a baby, the whole story is a fraud anyway. I gave you my version of how this ridiculous story could have happened in December '05. Virgins do NOT have children - and your mythical savior god is the fictitious creation of primitive, sick, superstitious minds for the purpose of controlling people and exploiting the populace. The filth, lies, stupidity, and immorality in the bible(s) has caused FAR more misery and destruction than a pile of elephant shit on a canvas ever could. That goes for the koran, also. The monotheistic faiths are destroying the world - and the sooner the world realizes that, the faster the damage will stop.

*and if abortion and other types of birth control are made illegal, there's even more misery on the way thanks to overpopulation - which religion loves: it goes hand-in-hand with ignorance and fear, keeping the churches in business - doing nothing but creating more misery and stupidity.

---

Howdy BA,

Well..I tell you what..we'll just have to agree to disagree,huh ?

However,I would like an answer as to whether you'd treat a picture of yer mom,the same way the Virgin Mary was treated.

You also didn't address that the 'artist/scatologist' knew that he would offend Christians,he cannot claim ignorance in regards to such--what say you ?

Have a good one ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy BA, Well..I tell you what..we'll just have to agree to disagree,huh ? However,I would like an answer as to whether you'd treat a picture of yer mom,the same way the Virgin Mary was treated.
You also didn't address that the 'artist/scatologist' knew that he would offend Christians,he cannot claim ignorance in regards to such--what say you ? Have a good one ....

---

You want to know what I have to say? First of all, where I come from, you don't say things about people's parents. This can get you in a LOT of trouble. I don't care if you're a "roughneck", "redneck", or whatever you consider yourself, but you've done this several times and I've had enough of it. Both of my parents died a long time ago, and your question does not even deserve an answer.

Torog...

I'll answer that question: No, I would not be offended (besides, I'd be able to sell it for a pretty penny!). I have to admit that I probably wouldn't like it because I'm not that fond of his work. His intention is to expose potential misinterpretations, thereby deconstructing our assumptions. It's more about the materials and cultural constructs than it is specifically about christianity, though christianity's tradition of iconography is part of what makes it "tick." I think it questions the preciousness of iconography in a more genuinely thoughtful way than can ever be claimed of the turban/bomb.

You are correct that it is deliberately "Sensation"-al. The marketing theme of that show was controversial even amongst other contemporary artists shown. The thing is, it's a theme that DOES run through the work of the artists. These artists were not new faces put up in a shopfront window but were all well established cross-continent successes: ie, already a part of art history. It's the duty of a museum to be an informative source for those who study or care about the subject. If you want to ban paintings, burn library books while you're at it... and stop public funding of libraries that offer books with contemporary themes you disagree with.

Provocation is nothing new in art nor will it disappear. It strives to expand visual experience as well as intellect. One of the deliberate puzzles of the painting is that it is not NECESSARILY an insult. Of course, you could claim the cartoon (I refer to the most widely published turban/bomb) is a valid piece of cultural criticism. I'd argue (as I'd guess a number of news publishers would) that it's more of a jab than a questioning provocation, with an intention to offend that smothers the very little it has to say intellectually. Of course that judgement's subjectivity adds to the difficultly of the 'whether or not to publish' problem. In any case, someone who cries blasphemous offense at that mary painting then proceeds to wear a turban/bomb t-shirt in the name of "free speech" is a hypocrite. As for thoughtful, provocative questioning of iconography and religion in general: yes, please. (On that point, FLESH, you do NOT agree with O'Really.)

But why listen to me? I'm just one of those homos so grateful you've decided not to beat senseless. Intolerance and stubborn ignorance are things I have less and less patience for as I get older. I never thought Willie Nelson would make me smile as often as he has recently.

"The marketing theme of that show was controversial even amongst other contemporary artists shown. The thing is, it's a theme that DOES run through the work of the artists."

I meant to say:
The marketing theme of that show was controversial even amongst other contemporary artists. The thing is, it's a theme that DOES run through the work of the artists shown.

Thanks for your input, Vince. If you're ever in Brooklyn, we'll show you the town!

Now, let's have a look at the big bad picture (image below) and the Brooklyn Museum where it was shown in 1999.

Brooklyn was nicknamed the City of Churches, in the 19th century, and the Borough of Churches when it became part of NYC. Much of the populace is religious, and didn't utter a peep of protest when this exhibit was shown here in 1999 - just ex-mayor Giuliani, who sought to cut-off funding to the Brooklyn Museum, where the art was shown as part of a tour. At the time, humorist Paul Krassner (founder of the Realist and â??Chicago 8 co-conspiratorâ??) parodied Rudy (who has a slight lisp) on the radio (WBAI New York) with a dead-on Sylvester the Cat expression, "Sufferin' Succotash, itâ??s filttttth!"


From Salon.com:

salon.com > Arts & Entertainment Oct. 2, 1999
URL: http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/1999/10/02/dung
True "Sensation"
The only offensive dung in New York's controversial art exhibit is the mayor's bullshit.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Daniel Kunitz

For the last week New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has tried to convince us that he is deeply disturbed about the state of contemporary art and in particular the Brooklyn Museum of Art's mounting of "Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection." His credentials as an art critic would be more solid, however, if he had actually taken the trouble to see the exhibit. What set the temperamental mayor off this time was not black Catholic artist Chris Ofili's painting "The Holy Virgin Mary," but rather a photo of the work in the show's catalog. There is, of course, a world of difference between a photo of a painting and the painting itself. But Giuliani is more interested in scoring political points than in carefully considering what he has dismissed as "sick stuff."

Thank God this farce is now in the hands of the courts. As Floyd Abrams, chief legal counsel for the museum, has argued, once the city funds an art institution, any attempt by the mayor to dictate the contents of that institution amounts to censorship. By the way, the "Sensation" catalog clearly states that "the exhibition has received no city, state or federal funding." The museum itself "is supported in part by the City of New York" -- the taxpayers, not the mayor -- "for the maintenance, security and staffing of this City-owned building."

Had Giuliani actually paid a visit to the exhibit's Thursday night preview, he would have seen, in Ofili's "Virgin Mary" painting, a large, exuberantly decorative black Madonna, made sparkling by the addition of map pins, on a fluorescent yellow-orange ground. Its colors, shiny pins, and Mary's benign expression all combine to give the painting a celebratory air. True, cut-out rear views of buttocks with pussies peeping underneath surround the image of Mary -- these are meant to refer to the naked little putti of traditional religious art. Are painted versions of naked cherubic boys less offensive than photographs of parts of mature nude women? Is there only one way to paint a Madonna? And come to think of it, when are we going to see Giuliani's painting of the Virgin, since he said he could do it as well as Ofili?

Oh yes, I forgot the dung. By now we all should know that in Africa, where the dung idea came from, elephant droppings carry none of the horrible connotations that shit carries in New York. Before offending us all with his own bullshit, Giuliani might have troubled himself to learn about the sacred nature of pachyderms and their dung in other parts of the world. Once again, had Giuliani gone to see "Sensation," he would have come across another engaging Ofili canvas called "Afrodizzia." With its multi-hued, rhythmic swirls of paint and shiny pins, "Afrodizzia" features lots of little pictures of black men wearing afros. The painting also contains a number of elephant-dung clumps on which the names of black heroes like Miles Davis, Cassius Clay and Shaft are inscribed. Standing in front of this remarkably affecting, energetic painting, I found it hard to imagine that Ofili is really bashing blacks.
According to the mayor's dung-obsessed logic, Ofili is not only a Catholic basher, he's a racist too.

To this day I still can't figure out how our culture got to the point where people think they have an inalienable right to not be offended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vincevaper

Torog...

I'll answer that question: No, I would not be offended (besides, I'd be able to sell it for a pretty penny!). I have to admit that I probably wouldn't like it because I'm not that fond of his work. His intention is to expose potential misinterpretations, thereby deconstructing our assumptions. It's more about the materials and cultural constructs than it is specifically about christianity, though christianity's tradition of iconography is part of what makes it "tick." I think it questions the preciousness of iconography in a more genuinely thoughtful way than can ever be claimed of the turban/bomb.

You are correct that it is deliberately "Sensation"-al. The marketing theme of that show was controversial even amongst other contemporary artists shown. The thing is, it's a theme that DOES run through the work of the artists. These artists were not new faces put up in a shopfront window but were all well established cross-continent successes: ie, already a part of art history. It's the duty of a museum to be an informative source for those who study or care about the subject. If you want to ban paintings, burn library books while you're at it... and stop public funding of libraries that offer books with contemporary themes you disagree with.

Provocation is nothing new in art nor will it disappear. It strives to expand visual experience as well as intellect. One of the deliberate puzzles of the painting is that it is not NECESSARILY an insult. Of course, you could claim the cartoon (I refer to the most widely published turban/bomb) is a valid piece of cultural criticism. I'd argue (as I'd guess a number of news publishers would) that it's more of a jab than a questioning provocation, with an intention to offend that smothers the very little it has to say intellectually. Of course that judgement's subjectivity adds to the difficultly of the 'whether or not to publish' problem. In any case, someone who cries blasphemous offense at that mary painting then proceeds to wear a turban/bomb t-shirt in the name of "free speech" is a hypocrite. As for thoughtful, provocative questioning of iconography and religion in general: yes, please. (On that point, FLESH, you do NOT agree with O'Really.)

But why listen to me? I'm just one of those homos so grateful you've decided not to beat senseless. Intolerance and stubborn ignorance are things I have less and less patience for as I get older. I never thought Willie Nelson would make me smile as often as he has recently.

---

Howdy vince,

Thanx for yer considered reply,but I still don't understand how anyone can call such a thing 'art'. I also can't help but wonder if the 'artist' is a hater of women,that there's a big problem with respect towards all women,just under the surface.

I ain't gonna stop listening to what you have to say,just because you're gay,if I did-we'd never be able to work things out for the best for all concerned.

As for Willie,did ya see that he just put out a song about gay cowboys ?

I'm sure that he did so,because he believes that gay folks are people too and deserve to be treated humanely,at the very least.

Have a good one !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Torog

Howdy vince,

Thanx for yer considered reply,but I still don't understand how anyone can call such a thing 'art'. I also can't help but wonder if the 'artist' is a hater of women,that there's a big problem with respect towards all women,just under the surface.

I ain't gonna stop listening to what you have to say,just because you're gay,if I did-we'd never be able to work things out for the best for all concerned.

As for Willie,did ya see that he just put out a song about gay cowboys ?

I'm sure that he did so,because he believes that gay folks are people too and deserve to be treated humanely,at the very least.

Have a good one !

---

Either that, or Willie still owes the IRS money..:)
Actually, I would submit that Willie is probably one of the more fair and open minded people in the music biz.

The reason they got so pissed was the fact that any representation of the prophet mohammad or god is against their principals. So we kinda took a shit on a part of who the muslims are.