And you are the POT calling the KETTLE black, El Gringo.
Tom C.
From: "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:38:20 -0500
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... 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 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... 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
