El gringo, whoever that is, posted: > Okay, sure, some art is offensive just to be offensive BUT EVEN IN THOSE > CASES, it is still ART, it is still SELF EXPRESSION, it is still the RIGHT > OF THE ARTIST to PROVOKE, INSULT, or otherwise offend ANY GROUP HE OR SHE > CHOOSES...
Thank you for agreeing that some art is offensive just to be offensive. I did not say that such art is not art and I did not say it is not still self- expression. Of course it is art. Of course it is self-expression. And the artist does indeed have a right to insult anybody he or she chooses. Of course, in doing that, such artists are also being rude, and anybody being insulted has a perfect right to object to being insulted. > You cannot argue against it, by arguing against it you are a > hypocrite, because you wish to have your belief heard over theirs, when all > they want is to have their belief heard, not necessarily above any other > belief. I believe that people should not be unnecessarily rude to other people. I am quite aware that many people do not share this belief. Just for the record, that is simply MY belief and I claim my right to have that belief heard. The belief that artists may insult anyone else with impunity was already being heard. > I think I pointed out what the meaning of the last supper piece > with naked black woman probably was, without getting to patronizing, but I > can patronize you if Thats what it takes... Why bother to try to patronize me? I'm still right, whether you like it or not: Apparently as much as you wanted to disagree with what I said, you couldn't. In the beginning of your post, you agreed with the point I made, and then you proceeded SHOUT all sorts of objections to things I did NOT say! Well, I did borrow your phrase about "missing the point" but really, unless you know beyond any doubt what a particular artist intended a piece to mean, how can you be certain who did and who did not miss the point? Note that I said I knew nothing whatsoever about this particular artist and what she intended with this particular piece of work (which I have not examined closely). I said I was making a general comment. The rest of your post can pass without response from me since it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote. > I honestly cannot believe the > kind of idiocy some of you people subscribe to. ARE YOU FROM THE MIDDLE > AGES?>??? Why don't you just start advocating chopping peoples heads off > for speaking ill of our good lord... Whomever that is. > > -el gringo > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three > shot series) > > > Paul "Steady" Stenquist shared: > > I don't think the work disparages anyone's God. It simply applies the > > Last Supper as a metaphor. One can interpret in any number of ways. > > Perhaps it speaks to the dehumanizing of women as sex objects. Perhaps > > it speaks to the sacrifice women make in bringing children into the > > world. Like most art, it is ambiguous. It's a shame that anyone is > > offended by art, whether it be good art or bad art. I believe that art > > is usually too vague to take that personally. > > > I think that as many artists as there are in the world, we can't generalize > about all of them successfully. I don't know anything about Renee Cox at > all, > so I'm not saying anything about her specifically. But -- Some artists may > indeed produce something that can be interpreted in any number of ways and > be > ambiguous, but some other artists do select their subject matter and their > presentation deliberately to provoke, or even to insult, people whose values > they do not share. If the intent of the artist is to cause offence, why then > should the viewer not take offence? In fact, the viewer who doesn't take > offence in that case is the person who "missed the point" of the work, > wouldn't > you think? > If an artist didn't set out to cause offence, but is too self-centred to > notice > that his or her choice of subject and presentation can offend other people's > taste or values, again -- why should the viewer not take offence if the work > is > offensive, even if the offence was caused by the artist's ignorance rather > than > malice? Why, in other words, should an artist be exempt from the > criticism "this is offensive" just because he (or she) has declared: "This > is > my ART"?? > > > ERN > >
