:)
Just making a point, not aimed specifically at you... yes, let's see them.
Tom C.
From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: WARNING... Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:04:11 -0400
I can't imagine why anyone would mind. Although you might delete the part about redeeming one's soul. After all, I didn't say that my nudes were an attempt to damn one for eternity. But as a matter of fact, I have some photos of religious icons. I have a nice shot of a jade rosary. I also have a shot of Our Lady of Guadalupe that I took at the shrine in Mexico. I will post them soon . I find religious icons and religious history quite fascinating. Many icons are a worthy subject of photography. I remember when I was quite young and an altar boy at St. Felicitas Church in Chicago. We had a benediction of the blessed sacrament every Saturday night. The host was contained in a beautiful gold vessel called a "monstrance." I wish I could shoot it today. It was a beautiful icon.
Paul
On Jul 13, 2004, at 9:48 PM, Tom C wrote:
The following link contains a number of pictures of religious icons and is an attempt to proselytize and redeem your soul. I hope no one will mind about the proselytizing and that you can just see the arsty-fartsy side of the photographs.
I wonder what kind of response this would have gotten, had such a link been posted. I'm sure the poster's rights to free speech and expression would have been respected. Yes, I'm quite sure no one would have minded in the least and that there would be nary a comment.
Tom C.
From: [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 19:11:32 CDT
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
>
>
