It's smut, not art, Loveland protesters say

[livnlern]

The title of the Denver Post article about the lady trying to smash this garbage posing as art reads as follows:
“Poor judgment on display at Loveland art museum”
And goes on to say:
“We’re glad all but one of the critics in Loveland confined themselves to peaceful demonstrations and tried to find a workable solution, as did members of the city council in response.
It’s too bad that one individual took matters into her own hands and undermined what had been a fairly civilized process.”

So this blasphemous piece of garbage is defended using a “fairly civilized process” by the city council while the lady trying to defend Our Lord and destroy it is using “poor judgement”. Shows how upside down the thinking is among the refined and artistic.

 

[Dale_M]

So this blasphemous piece of garbage is defended using a “fairly civilized process” by the city council while the lady trying to defend Our Lord and destroy it is using “poor judgement”. Shows how upside down the thinking is among the refined and artistic.

I dunno… a Catholic deacon who had spent six straight days picketing outside the museum said this in reaction to the news: “We don’t condone that. We don’t want that,” he said. “This is sad. It’s despicable for someone to do that. It’s taking the law into their own hands. I feel we owe the community of Loveland something better.”
timescall.com/news_story.asp?ID=23754

 

[SwizzleStick]

The first article I posted has a link to a website featuring the controversial artwork. Because the item is so large, it is hard to see in great detail. However, you can see that religious themes, as well as themes of a sexual nature, are involved. From what I could see (and my eyes aren’t as sharp as they once were) the artwork doesn’t show any genitalia. However, the piece is not family-friendly, so I will not post a direct link to the image.

I wasn’t sure I should look, but I wanted to see if the depiction looked like other depictions of Christ. The face does, in fact, look very much like other pieces of art depicting Jesus with the long, dark hair and a beard and mustache, but the body appears to be feminine since the person appears to have female breasts. It is definitely what I, and likely most Christians, would deem the face of Christ, though.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I know what she did is wrong and hurts the cause of those who want to point out how despicable this so-called art is. But to be brutally honest there is a part of me that is thinking “way to go lady”!

Yep. I feel the same way.

 

[livnlern]

I dunno… a Catholic deacon who had spent six straight days picketing outside the museum said this in reaction to the news: “We don’t condone that. We don’t want that,” he said. “This is sad. It’s despicable for someone to do that. It’s taking the law into their own hands. I feel we owe the community of Loveland something better.”
timescall.com/news_story.asp?ID=23754

See post #24 for my reaction to what you say.

 

[Joe_5859]

I saw another article about the vandalism of the piece of “art”:

cbs4denver.com/news/crowbar.kathleen.folden.2.1951165.html

I think this quote wins the award for the most ironic statement of the day:

“There’s been a lot of emotion in the last couple of weeks and I wish that people would think about the consequences of what they do,” gallery director Susan Ison said.

If people were really “think[ing] about the consequences of what they do”, this exhibit would never have seen the light of day to begin with.

 

[larkin31]

The title of the Denver Post article about the lady trying to smash this garbage posing as art reads as follows:
“Poor judgment on display at Loveland art museum”
And goes on to say:
“We’re glad all but one of the critics in Loveland confined themselves to peaceful demonstrations and tried to find a workable solution, as did members of the city council in response.
It’s too bad that one individual took matters into her own hands and undermined what had been a fairly civilized process.”

So this blasphemous piece of garbage is defended using a “fairly civilized process” by the city council while the lady trying to defend Our Lord and destroy it is using “poor judgement”. Shows how upside down the thinking is among the refined and artistic.

Yes, it’s called irony. If she did not like it, she could have just stayed away. She should be prosecuted, the same as if someone were to desecrate one’s church or synagogue. Protest is fine. Defacement of private property is not.

If a person or group of people cannot take pastiche cartoonism, then, well, they are behaving like the Muslims all fired up and mental over the cartoon of Mohammed.

 

[livnlern]

Yes, it’s called irony. If she did not like it, she could have just stayed away. She should be prosecuted, the same as if someone were to desecrate one’s church or synagogue. Protest is fine. Defacement of private property is not.

If a person or group of people cannot take pastiche cartoonism, then, well, they are behaving like the Muslims all fired up and mental over the cartoon of Mohammed.

Pardon me, I’m just part of the hoi polloi and obviously not into pastiche cartoonism or any of the advanced and refined forms of artistic expression. I like purty pichures insteada them smutty thangs.
As was said earlier, the “artist” doesn’t have the guts to portray Mohammed. Instead he created a monstrosity with an image of the good and merciful Jesus shown in a way that makes me sick. Nothing to defend in my opinion. But then, I’m just part of the unwashed masses.

 

[larkin31]

Pardon me, I’m just part of the hoi polloi and obviously not into pastiche cartoonism or any of the advanced and refined forms of artistic expression. I like purty pichures insteada them smutty thangs.
As was said earlier, the “artist” doesn’t have the guts to portray Mohammed. Instead he created a monstrosity with an image of the good and merciful Jesus shown in a way that makes me sick. Nothing to defend in my opinion. But then, I’m just part of the unwashed masses.

No one has to like it.

That’s not the issue.

I don’t care for it personally, either. But that has nothing to do with it.

 

[Dale_M]

As was said earlier, the “artist” doesn’t have the guts to portray Mohammed. Instead he created a monstrosity with an image of the good and merciful Jesus shown in a way that makes me sick. Nothing to defend in my opinion. .

The artist had no reason to portray Mohammed. Islam is not part of his cultural heritage, its not part of his daily life.

If people were really “think[ing] about the consequences of what they do”, this exhibit would never have seen the light of day to begin with.

I think the controversial artwork should have been screened in some manner so that persons were warned of potential offense, and could make the choice whether to view the item or not. However, I would also point out that the exhibit included a large number of prints, and only one of them was considered controversial. I don’t think criticizing the entire exhibit is warranted.

 

[larkin31]

The artist had no reason to portray Mohammed. Islam is not part of his cultural heritage, its not part of his daily life.

Precisely. I really don’t get this “he didn’t have the courage to target Muhammad” line of argument.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Never found the link by clicking on anything on this thread. I also feel that I don’t want to comment on something I haven’t seen with my own eyes. If anyone wants to PM me with an actual link of the image, feel free.

 

[livnlern]

Precisely. I really don’t get this “he didn’t have the courage to target Muhammad” line of argument.

This from post #3:
'I pray that his next exhibit is titled “The Misadventures of Muhammad” depicting him performing oral sex."
This from post #5:
“these artists are such cowards. let them make a real political statement be portraying mohammed in some seedy situation. they won’t because they’re afraid. and they should be.
but offending christians is not risky in the slightest, but actually quite popular and fun among the elites on the left. it’s an easy and over-done way to get attention. i hope someone on the left is sophisticated enough to realize, at this point, it’s also so very cliche.”
The cartoon in post # 12.
This from post # 20:
“This article incorrectly compares the destruction of the print with the behaviors of radical Muslims who threaten violence when someone depicts Muhammad in a way Muslims deem offnsive. That is not a fair comparison. Destroying an object, the print, because one is offended, is one thing. Calling for the murder of the artist, which happens in the Muslim world, is quite another.”
And this from post # 27. That would be your post:
“If a person or group of people cannot take pastiche cartoonism, then, well, they are behaving like the Muslims all fired up and mental over the cartoon of Mohammed.”
By “fired up and mental” I guess you mean they want to kill people over it. In other words, this person calling himself an artist thinks it’s safe to depict Jesus in a hideously insulting manner because he feels he can get away with it in this cowardly fashion. He would be risking his life to do it to Mohammad.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

While I find this oainting Vile and Blasphemous, I agree this woman should not have done what she did. We are better than that. It makes the artwork more “interesting” and so more people will go to see it. It also inadvertantly puts us in the same league as those Muslim Lunatics who try kill Satirical Cartoonists.

And BTW, I DO agree these so-called “enlightened artists” would not have the intestinal fortitude to depict Mohammed copulating with people. Jesus Our Holy, Blessed Savior has always been a convenient “Easy and Default Mark” fpr heathens.

Double standards galore.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When defending this work, the artist claimed he was depicting “clergy sexual abuse.”

Really? Having seen the panels in question, sir, you lost me. If that’s what you wanted to communicate, you did a terrible job, i.m.o. A “message” should not be so obscure that you have to explain what cannot be even subtly seen. That’s the first rule of advertising.

Fact: You didn’t have an explanation for the images, so you latched on to the one controversy that casts Christianity in the worst possible light and rallies people around, and you felt would reduce indignation – or shift it elsewhere.

I.m.o, the coward is indeed the artist, but not for the reasons previously stated.

“Comic book” and other stylized art often does serve purposes of political or social commentary. I saw no social use to what I observed, let alone a positive use. For example, if he wanted to juxtapose religious and sexual images in a way that showed the difficulty of protecting religion from the invasion of the sexual culture, that could have been done effectively but tastefully, or if he wanted to contrast the two domains. The public often assumes that one cannot be edgy or controversial without being offensive, but that is not the case.

If you can’t locate the artist’s message without post-facto explanation of offensive images, then the not-so-hidden message was to offend.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

When defending this work, the artist claimed he was depicting “clergy sexual abuse.”

Really? Having seen the panels in question, sir, you lost me. If that’s what you wanted to communicate, you did a terrible job, i.m.o. A “message” should not be so obscure that you have to explain what cannot be even subtly seen. That’s the first rule of advertising.

Fact: You didn’t have an explanation for the images, so you latched on to the one controversy that casts Christianity in the worst possible light and rallies people around, and you felt would reduce indignation – or shift it elsewhere.

I.m.o, the coward is indeed the artist, but not for the reasons previously stated.

“Comic book” and other stylized art often does serve purposes of political or social commentary. I saw no social use to what I observed, let alone a positive use. For example, if he wanted to juxtapose religious and sexual images in a way that showed the difficulty of protecting religion from the invasion of the sexual culture, that could have been done effectively but tastefully, or if he wanted to contrast the two domains. The public often assumes that one cannot be edgy or controversial without being offensive, but that is not the case.

If you can’t locate the artist’s message without post-facto explanation of offensive images, then the not-so-hidden message was to offend.

Exactly. Good Points, overall, Elizabeth502.

 

[larkin31]

When defending this work, the artist claimed he was depicting “clergy sexual abuse.”

Really? Having seen the panels in question, sir, you lost me. If that’s what you wanted to communicate, you did a terrible job, i.m.o. A “message” should not be so obscure that you have to explain what cannot be even subtly seen. That’s the first rule of advertising.

Fact: You didn’t have an explanation for the images, so you latched on to the one controversy that casts Christianity in the worst possible light and rallies people around, and you felt would reduce indignation – or shift it elsewhere.

I.m.o, the coward is indeed the artist, but not for the reasons previously stated.

“Comic book” and other stylized art often does serve purposes of political or social commentary. I saw no social use to what I observed, let alone a positive use. For example, if he wanted to juxtapose religious and sexual images in a way that showed the difficulty of protecting religion from the invasion of the sexual culture, that could have been done effectively but tastefully, or if he wanted to contrast the two domains. The public often assumes that one cannot be edgy or controversial without being offensive, but that is not the case.

If you can’t locate the artist’s message without post-facto explanation of offensive images, then the not-so-hidden message was to offend.

So? Why shouldn’t an artist say “Shame on you” to the Church for clergy abuse?

What’s the big deal here? I don’t like the work, but to call the artist a “coward” is simply to be (1) vindictive and (2) wrong.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So? Why shouldn’t an artist say “Shame on you” to the Church for clergy abuse?

What’s the big deal here? I don’t like the work, but to call the artist a “coward” is simply to be (1) vindictive and (2) wrong.

You entirely missed my point(s). Or you didn’t read it carefully. I suspect the latter.

I called him cowardly, appropriately, for shifting the discussion to something that no sane observer would interpret his panels to be: a mockery or even a criticsm of clergy sexual abuse. When criticized for the content of his “art,” the “artist” invented a theme/reason for the work that appears not at all to be communicated in the images.

Other artists, when employing similarly offensive religious imagery in their work, will often say things like, “Well, I wanted to offend/shock/provoke,” etc. This guy merely referred to a popular politically charged subject which is a convenient, and cowardly, distraction from the particular images which he chose to incorporate in his work – not a news headline, but his work.

No, it’s not “wrong” to observe that someone is a coward, when he or she does in fact behave like a coward.

 

[estesbob]

So? Why shouldn’t an artist say “Shame on you” to the Church for clergy abuse?

What’s the big deal here? I don’t like the work, but to call the artist a “coward” is simply to be (1) vindictive and (2) wrong.

I guess if you believe that Jesus is just another man then using his image in such a blasphemous way is no big deal. However if you think he is the son of God, the Savior the world and died on a cross to grant us eternal salvation then one should be absolutely outraged at his image being used in this manner.

 

[larkin31]

You entirely missed my point(s). Or you didn’t read it carefully. I suspect the latter.

I called him cowardly, appropriately, for shifting the discussion to something that no sane observer would interpret his panels to be: a mockery or even a criticsm of clergy sexual abuse. When criticized for the content of his “art,” the “artist” invented a theme/reason for the work that appears not at all to be communicated in the images.

Other artists, when employing similarly offensive religious imagery in their work, will often say things like, “Well, I wanted to offend/shock/provoke,” etc. This guy merely referred to a popular politically charged subject which is a convenient, and cowardly, distraction from the particular images which he chose to incorporate in his work – not a news headline, but his work.

No, it’s not “wrong” to observe that someone is a coward, when he or she does in fact behave like a coward.

You just are offended, so you call him “cowardly.” Kind of ironic, considering all the heat he’s taking. I don’t see him trying at all to run from this matter. Because he doesn’t answer or have the same answer as other artists, you call him “cowardly.” Because he did not depict Muslims in his piece, other posters here call him “cowardly.” And we sit here typing away on our anonymous keyboards throwing these aspersions around.

Interesting.