The new Democratic party. What will it look like?

How many American blacks got shot & killed in democrat controlled Chiraq these past 8 years?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

You are right about art in general, but this is art displayed in a government building intended to represent everyone...including police and their families and friends.

I suppose a proper political and artistic response might be to hang artwork that portrays African-Americans as savages or apes, but that would be equally reprehensible.

Perhaps the answer is that only artwork that depicts current or former elected members of the government should be allowed. Pretty dull, but democratic.

0 Replies

How embarrassing it must be to have ever supported 0bama.

0 Replies

Just say NO to #corybooker

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

"No particular artistic merit"?!

You are kidding, right? You have no right to decide artistic merit any more than I do. The painting is a direct response to current events going on in many cities across the country. This one was particular to the 2014 protests of police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri.

It was hung with other art from various high schools across the country and was picked as first place in a juried art show. It was not a special painting hung in the foyer by itself.

I can't believe I have to be the one defending freedom here.

“The U.S. Capitol is a symbol of freedom, not censorship. The young artist chose his own subject and the painting will not be removed.”

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

This isn't a question of freedom.

If Rep Hunter and his fellows were attempting to ban the painting from ever being shown anywhere, it would be.

Smoking pot is now legal in DC (something I'm personally not against) but does that mean the government must allow anyone who enters the Capital the freedom to smoke a joint?

I don't have a major objection to this artwork being displayed, (I think its lousy art but by taste isn't a criterion) but I respect those who do and the Capitol is a symbol of E Pluribus Unum as much as it is of freedom. As such, it should avoid the display of any artwork that obviously engenders marked division among the polity. That's really not such a hard row to hoe.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Gent, are you really trying to insist that they are no reasonable limits on "free speech?"

Some people think that their right to free speech imposes a duty to listen to them on all others. Can a guy bust into my living room and start espousing his favorite political views any time he wants because, after all, he has the right to free speech?

Should I have the "right" to hang a painting depicting perverse sexual child abuse in a kindergarten classroom, because (1) it's "art," and (2) I like it?

The (fake) leftist ideal of being "non-judgmental" is ludicrous, and, furthermore, it is one that the left itself strongly rejects, lip-service to the contrary notwithstanding.

Such notions are always a one-way street with them: YOU must be tolerant, while I am intolerant. YOU must refrain from judging me, while I judge you, etc.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

This isn't a question of freedom.

To the extent that someone censored an art piece, that was one among many, this is about freedom of expression. Because someone finds a painting objectionable does not give that person a right to censor it for others.

Quote:

If Rep Hunter and his fellows were attempting to ban the painting from ever being shown anywhere, it would be.

I doubt it. This painting won a contest in Baltimore. There is nothing obscene about the painting and had they not removed it in the first place, I doubt we'd even know of it's existence.

Quote:

Smoking pot is now legal in DC (something I'm personally not against) but does that mean the government must allow anyone who enters the Capital the freedom to smoke a joint?

If they have a contest where someone has to smoke pot in the most creative way possible and then that person wins a contest juried by other pot smokers that was sponsored by their congressman, sure. They should be allowed in the Capital bldg and smoke pot all day. I think smoking is banned in doors though so that would probably be a sticking point.

Quote:

I don't have a major objection to this artwork being displayed, (I think its lousy art but by taste isn't a criterion) but I respect those who do and the Capitol is a symbol of E Pluribus Unum as much as it is of freedom. As such, it should avoid the display of any artwork that obviously engenders marked division among the polity. That's really not such a hard row to hoe.

Yes it is. Who gets to judge what engenders marked division?

Do you find this painting offensive?

https://www.aoc.gov/sites/default/files/styles/artwork-node/public/images/artwork/6237383173_e5ca34098d_b.jpg?itok=k3Z6ckuL

I bet there are more than a few people who find Columbus landing in the new world quite offensive. His enslavement and mutilation of the natives he found, should be enough to warrant that no painting depicting his "heroism" should be in the Capital bldg, right? Yet there is, right in the Rotunda of all places!

So, who do we want to decide what is art and what isn't? What gets to stay and what has to go? I never thought you'd have been one for censorship.

1 Reply

@layman,

Don't go all extremist on me Layman. How is my saying a painting ought to be able to be hung with other paintings is in any way equivalent to saying that there are no reasonable limits on "free speech?"

I said that if you don't like the painting, don't look at it. Did you read the words I wrote? How is a painting hanging in Washington D.C. anywhere near someone busting in to your house?

How you got "a painting depicting perverse sexual child abuse in a kindergarten classroom, because (1) it's "art," and (2) I like it?" from anything I said tells me that you are not paying any attention. Why do you feel the need to be an extremist in this matter?

No one is saying you have to be tolerant of everything or anything. Do you watch CNN? Do you think other people should be allowed to watch CNN or do you think the producers should be taken out, drawn and quartered?

You can sit in judgement all day long, but your judgement shall have zero bearing on what I sit in judgement of.

Let's take another example. Blatham routinely suggests placing users on ignore. Do think he should instead have them banned and have their A2K privileges revoked?

That's what taking that painting down is like. It's not like posting kiddie porn in a kindergarten or suggesting that there are no limits on free speech.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Gent, if you paid any attention, you would notice that I was really addressing notions of decorum, common decency, and appropriateness, not constitutional rights.

The fact that I have a "right" to deliberately **** my pants while sitting at a dinner party, does not make it "acceptable," if ya catch my drift, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Oh, so ok, I see. You think that the rights of minorities in Baltimore to not be shot or to react to being shot or having their communities torn apart by aggressive policing is the same as shitting your pants at a party or posting kiddie porn in pre school.

Is that about right?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Oh, so ok, I see. You think that the rights of minorities in Baltimore to not be shot or to react to being shot or having their communities torn apart by aggressive policing is the same as shitting your pants at a party or posting kiddie porn in pre school.

Is that about right?

Naw, it aint right, Gent, or anywhere close to it. You accuse me of being "extreme," but it seems to me that you are taking an extreme, "absolutist" viewpoint that refuses to consider or acknowledge any particular details.

Let me turn this around: How does keeping a painting that is deliberately insulting to police and average citizens out of the capitol gallery in any way lessen (or affect in any way) the rights of minorities to react to being shot?

Suppose their "reaction" was to go kill 5 policemen in Dallas. Would it violate their "rights" to condemn that?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Let me turn this around: How does keeping a painting that is deliberately insulting to police and average citizens out of the capitol gallery in any way lessen (or affect in any way) the rights of minorities to react to being shot?

Because then you have rich white men telling a black high school student that his opinion is less than theirs. That his reaction to the world around him is some how obscene and should be kept from public view.

That's how.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

layman wrote:

Let me turn this around: How does keeping a painting that is deliberately insulting to police and average citizens out of the capitol gallery in any way lessen (or affect in any way) the rights of minorities to react to being shot?

Because then you have rich white men telling a black high school student that his opinion is less than theirs. That his reaction to the world around him is some how obscene and should be kept from public view.

That's how.

Cmon, Gent. Really? He can have any opinion he wants. I can disagree with it. So what? How is that "demeaning?" Why isn't he "demeaning" me by insisting that his viewpoint prevail over mine?

We' re really getting a long way off track here it seems.

Let me say that the painting doesn't "bother" me. I would never suggest that it should never have been painted to begin with or that no one should be allowed to see it. That's not the issue here.

Maybe an analogy will help, I don't know. I don't care what "names" anyone may want to call me. I will not lose a minute's sleep over it or get "riled up" bcause of words.

That said, if some punk wants to get in my face and shout all kinds of demeaning epithets at me I will likely bash his sorry face in. Why?

It's one thing to express yourself. It's another to deliberately try to demean and provoke someone. If someone thinks it's OK to try to play to the crowd and treat me like a bitch, then he has another thing comin, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

The demeaning part is the taking it down. You are welcome to disagree with it, that too is part of the freedom that we have here in America.

Art is sometimes offensive. I find a whole lot of artists to be just the most despicable cretins in the universe and I would never go to a gallery of theirs, look at their art or even give them the whisper of their names on my lips. That doesn't mean that others enjoy the art and the artist and gather with their friends and enjoy cheese and wine while discussing the merits of a piece.

This is all different then someone getting in your face. No one is taking this painting and forcing anyone to see it. No one will come to your office, place it on your desk and demand that you look at it. You have to go to it to express your displeasure.

That's the difference. In this case, the guys taking the painting down are the punks who want to get in your face and shout all kinds of demeaning epithets.

Can you not see the difference?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

A public display of utter disrespect doesn't have to be condoned, Gent, that's my view.

Ya know, even in the law, one cannot claim that he has been illegally "battered" if he has used so-called "fighting words" to provoke you. His "right of free speech" notwithstanding.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

If you're expressing your "freedom of speech" by posting an offensive poster on a telephone pole, then why am I not merely doing the same if I rip it down?

As I done said, to me the ideal resolution of this difference in viewpoints would be a full-blown street fight in the halls of congress between those who hate and those who support the police.

Maybe my assessment of what's funny is different than most, but the image of Trey Gowdy punching Nancy Pelosi and sending her false teeth flying down the hall is amusing to me.

0 Replies

@layman,

You are not considering the audience though. Who was disrespecting whom? The white cops that have shot unarmed black men or the people that have to live with that violence and the resulting riots?

Did you read the background about the painting or why it was painted and by who? They are not fighting words.

Do you believe that comparing police to pigs is is a new thing?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Did you read the background about the painting or why it was painted and by who? They are not fighting words.

Do you believe that comparing police to pigs is is a new thing?

No, I haven't read the "background" to any significant extent. Is that somehow relevant to the issue here?

I am among the first to condemn police misconduct, although I would also be the last to suggest that police abuse is only perpetrated against black people.

People of all races, professions, religious beliefs, etc. do some despicable things. That alone does not justify trying to stereotype the entire group as somehow being "subhuman."

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

(Congressman) Clay said at the press conference that the painting reflected the young artist’s “impression of law enforcement,” and repeated that some police have displayed “animalistic” behavior numerous times in his remarks to the media.

“I am not anti-police,” Clay said. “I have numerous family members who are part of law enforcement … the artist, has numerous family who are part of law enforcement.”

“What I say is that most police officers are good eggs,” Clay said. “But when you think about how this young man formed – his impression of law enforcement.”

“Over the last five years – he’s 18 -- at the age of 13 he witnessed Trey Von Martin’s death at the hands of someone who was supposed to be an authority – George Zimmerman – whose behavior and actions were animalistic,” Clay said. “Fast forward two more years to Michael Brown in Ferguson – unarmed teenager killed by Darren Wilson.”

“Mr. Wilson’s behavior was animalistic,” Clay said. “He shot that kid numerous times.”

“And then you go and see video of Eric Garner in New York being choked by a police officer and killed on video,” Clay said. “That’s animalistic.”

“That’s his impression of this,” Clay said. “You see Tamir Rice being shot in seconds by a person in blue – animalistic behavior.”

“So that’s what I say about police officers,” Clay said. “They do this to teenagers …to young kids.”

“That’s how he formed his opinion about certain officers because of the animalistic behavior toward unarmed teenagers,” Clay said.

Also, the painting had been hung at it's location for months before any of this bru-ha-ha started.

1 Reply

The new Democratic party. What will it look like?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know