Hohum, I HAD, previous to this, been enjoying this really interesting, thought provoking, and at times, funny thread. HOWEVER, can't you people see that us all having different opinions is just the thing that makes the world an interesting place to live in?!? I probably have extremely different opinions to most of you here, and if I feel like it, I may voice them from time to time, HOWEVER, I do not judge somebody because their opinion differs from mine, and I would appreciate the same respect for the opinions that I have formed myself. I listen to it, I note it, and I say to myself "well, good on them for being able to think for themselves instead of being some kind of pack animal". If we all thought the same, and agreed on everything, what a boring world this would be...
I love heated discussions, whether it be on photography, politics, religion, naked pics (hehe!), WHATEVER, but why does it have to deteriorate it to some undiginfied, egotistical, mudslinging and insult throwing competition every time? Can't we all just agree to disagree and leave it at that? We seem to pride ourselves on showing just how educated we are on such matters on this list, and then go and negate it all by acting like a bunch of vulgar neanderthals! (and I am not referring to anyone in particular here, before you all go getting offended by that comment!) I love it when people disagree with me, and I always respect their opinions and their right to *have* a different opinion from mine. In many cases, people offering me their different opinions has opened my mind and taught me to "think outside the box". Jeez, think of it this way - there are many hundreds (maybe thousands?) of religions in this world - most of whom vastly different beliefs, if every person in everyone of those religions really took things to task and wanted to pursue the fact that *they* were they only ones who could possibly be correct in their beliefs, then we would all be trying to kill each other! (We don't need to start a discussion about past and ongoing religious wars here, it was just an example). Or to take the emphasis off religion, if I hate peas, but ERN loves them, does that make her right and me wrong? Or vice versa? The age old argument about abortion is a classic one - I personally could never do it, and disagree with it wholeheartedly, but who am I to say what another person can or cannot believe or do with their body and what's in it etc? (again, not trying to start an argument here, it's just an example!) Lets just have some interesting, thought provoking discussions, whatever the topic may be, and make it a rule that we won't let our friggin' egos get in the way and start calling each other childish names, shall we? tan. *the peace loving hippy chic* (well, my name is "fairygirl" for a reason, you know! hehe.) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2004 10:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series) 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 > >
