@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Suitability Guidelines
Artwork must adhere to the policy of the House Office Building Commission. In accordance with this policy, exhibits depicting subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature are not allowed.
Notice what I have highlighted for your benefit. Yes, exhibits depicting subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature are not allowed... But, the painting has been reviewed and was not omitted so therefore it was found to not be either sensationalistic or of gruesome nature as those are not allowed.
Well, Gent, your "so, therefore" doesn't really follow, if you're suggesting that such a "finding" is absolutely conclusive. That's about like saying that if a guy is convicted of murder in a trial court, he is conclusively guilty. We have "courts of appeal" in this country.
In this case, I would say the "court of appeal" is the people most directly affected, i.e., the police and the american public. The painting is "sensationalistic," "gruesome," and a subject of "contempory political controversy" by generally accepted standards of reason and common sense. The fact that this was overlooked by some panel need not be an irreversible judgment that stands for eternity.
More to the point, maybe, as far as what I'm asking you, is this: Do you agree that reasonable limits can/should be put on what kind of "art" is hung in the nation's capitol?
The stated intention says:
Quote: While it is not the intent to censor any artwork, we do wish to avoid artwork that is potentially inappropriate for display in this highly travelled area leading to the Capitol.
It seems to be your position that anything and everything is "appropriate" so long as you call it art and/or that questions of "propriety" should never be asked.