1/19/2004: Swedish art provokes Israeli ambassador

The Israel's ambassador to Sweden was kicked out of Stockholm's Museum of National Antiquities after he attacked the above artwork.

It consists of blood-colored water, a sailboat called "Snow White" and an image of a woman suicide bomber who killed 21 people last October.

Of all the takes on this event, I like Agenda Bender's the best.

Either that, or it's just plain bad art.

Had I been there, I could have improved on the art a bit with the aid of a Zippo.

Like most "ART" of this sort, everyone gets their own message. The artist got one, the Ambassador another and I don't get it at all. However, the Ambassador was completely out of line.

Re: 1/19/2004: Swedish art provokes Israeli ambassador

The ambassador's bit of performance art is better than the original. And if he pulled the plugs before dumping the spotlight into the water, it's hardly life-threatening.

BTW, anyone else think the picture resembles Michael Jackson?

well gee, that's not what I saw...

actually, this struck me as one of the more comprehensible pieces of so-called 'art' I've ever seen; it seems to actually have a message. But the message I got (I don't know if it's the messages the artists intended) was completely different from the ambassador's: I thought it was supposed to depict this killer thinking she was pure and holy and commendable for killing twenty people (hence the white), yet she's stained with, and swimming in, blood.

That's what I got anyway.

One person floating in a sea of blood is basicly what I get. It would have been better to have countless faces in a sea of blood, to represent the entire middle-east. But that's just my take.

Quzah.

I understand that anti-Semitism has been growing recently in Europe (particularly in France). And I understand the problems that Jews (and Israelis) have had throughout history. But it seems like anything that criticizes Judaism/Jews/Israel/Israelis is almost automatically labeled "anti-Semitism." And I find that disturbing...it's as if Israel and/or Judaism are beyond reproach. If this sort of attitude persists, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

(Not that the Israelis are the only ones with a shitty attitude...)

EDIT: I didn't like my original second paragraph, so I changed it.

I wonder if he also finds dislike of Nazism harmful discrimination against white aryans.

OK, I've had all day to think about the exhibit and here's what I see:

I see the "pure" (white) Palestinian woman sailing around in a "pure" (white) boat on a sea of blood. The blood is obviously Jewish blood.

The boat would seem to be the plight or mission of the Palestinians which intercedes between the "pure" Palestinian and the (not pure) blood of her Jewish victims. The boat, the "purity of her mission) elevates her above her Jewish victims. This is not my sentiment - this is what I think the artist is attempting to convey.

I think if the ownership of the blood and the pic are appropriately modified (e.g., Osama on the boat and the blood of 9/11 victims), just about anyone could be incited to trash it. I dunno - maybe that makes it less of art and more of ... well, trash.

This entire thread is a good example of the ability of WORDS to be used to relay information as opposed to ART relaying that information.

If the artist wanted to say something, the artist should have opened his/her mouth and said it. Instead, we are all left guessing WTF the artist meant. It seems pretty pointless.

Artists like this are a waste of everyone's time.

At least Monet painted pretty pictures.

Wow, you people are actually being thoughtful and introspective instead of snide, sarcastic and arguementative. Seems like the art piece has done its job.

Beletseri wrote:

Sycamore said:

But it seems like anything that criticizes Judaism/Jews/Israel/Israelis is almost automatically labeled "anti-Semitism." And I find that disturbing...it's as if Israel and/or Judaism are beyond reproach.

I agree. It should not be against the rules to criticize any group for their actions.


Sycamore also said:

If this sort of attitude persists, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

I think there are plenty of reasons why peace in the Middle East is a long, long way off, besides this one.


xoxoxoBruce said:

"Art" is one of those things for which every person harbors their own definition, so it's impossible to observe the point at which something becomes art... it's different for everybody.

Some people might argue that this is "good" art, because it provokes a strong reaction in most people, though the meaning people take from it varies greatly. It uses "powerful" imagery to invoke emotion. Perssonally, I see trash. I see a piece of pseudo-art that uses cheap-and-easy methods to manipulate the viewer's feelings. It's like spraypainting "Rape all children" on a wall and calling it art. Just because something causes a strong reaction doesn't mean it contributes anything to the world.

That said, I think the ambassador's reaction was stupid... his reaction only served to draw the world's attention to the shitty non-art.

Syc, axl's got you on the mat: if only the Jews would get in line and not be all uppity there wouldn't be a problem here

This I strongly believe is true:

When any of you have children, if someone were to make an exhibit showing them getting slaugtered or raped, you would tear it down. And you wouldn't be a fucking idiot for doing so.

End of story.

You can't have it both ways, and you can't tell me that you wouldn't tear it down. Well, I guess you can tell me you wouldn't, but I don't believe you. And if you really really wouldn't, then I submit that you're the fucking idiot, or ... I don't know what. Not an enlightened peaceful intellectual. If I happened across a sculpture of someone killing my kids, I really don't think most people in the world would think me a fucking idiot for tearing it down.

Clearly this is a radical example: who would ever 'sculpt' such a thing? Then again, how far away is this from what the artist did here? Obviously the examples I cite are more personal (i.e. a sculpture of someone killing someone's specific child, instead of a nameless face) -- but how many steps removed is this from what he did? 1 step removed? 2 steps removed?

Obviously the diplomat was very offended of a SPECIFIC SUICIDE BOMBER being glorified in this manner. And regardless of intent, this is what has occurred here. And it's been made very personal by showing her face.

I can understand debating the point of whether or not the diplomat should have done what he did. Certainly looks like it could have been handled more 'diplomatically' -- like pursuing legal methods to have it removed, etc.

However, to be as radical as to say the guy is a FUCKING IDIOT for getting clearly upset about an exhibit potentially glorifing a particular suicide bomber, over a pool of blood of his countrymen -- well, I don't think it's as simple that it can be concluded that the guy is a FUCKING IDIOT.

-m

Yeah, quzah, but your reply was more...complete..

Syc, axl's got you on the mat: if only the Jews would get in line and not be all uppity there wouldn't be a problem here

Actually Bruce was the one with the quote that I really had a problem with.

I formed my opinion on Mr. Mazel based on the situation and my perspective on/background in art. It wasn't flippant by any means.

I think what sealed Mazel's spot in Sycamore's Shrine of the Fucking Idiots was that the act was premeditated. Had he just happened to be there and saw it and freaked out like he did, I might have--MIGHT HAVE--been a little more understanding. But he planned to do some damage. That's not a noble act to me...that's being a bully. And it was completely uncalled for, IMO.

I thought Mike's issue might be with my choice of words, but I suspect it's more with the "extremism" of my stance. Whatever...he's done with this (Didn't that sound Dave-esque?).

So, anyway...did I tell you all that I might be getting a promotion?

The real goof is that the museum seems surprised. shocked!
Politics, Religion, Murder, Suicide, ambiguous imagery... The artists and the presenting organization hafta acknowlege and take responsibility for the nature of the work they are presenting, or they are wimping right out. There are lines. Pornography was listed, Hate speach is another... If its about finding the line to cross...well just know that it might be crossed and be prepared, you doofuses. I actually think the ambassadors behavior has made this artwork far more "interesting" than it was before he flipped. Not sure that was his intention.

The best thing the museum/artists could do is keep the damaged work and talk about it, not cower and pout. But it seems that NOW the work actually has some depth that the artists arent able to fathom. thats a shame.

Well, I'm not a big artsy-fartsy person. I know what *I* like and what *I* don't like and that's about it. What I get out of the so-called art display is ... well, that doesn't really matter.

The ambassador was a dork for throwing his planned tantrum inside the museum and destroying the display. He could have stood outside with a protest sign or something if he felt so strongly against it, but knowing that he'd get away with destroying the displayed, he probably thought he'd feel better by physically damaging it as opposed to standing outside with a sign.

Anyhoo, some think he's a fucking idiot for doing it, some don't. Who cares. That is simply the opinion of that individual. Just like it is the individual's opinion as to whether it should even be considered art or not.

Now, what I find to be the most offensive thing in this whole thread is the comment made by Paranoid that "... I also think that terrorism is a form of free speech and should be respected, even if not protected."

WTF are you talking about? This has got to be the most fucking stupid thing I've ever heard. Are you trying to tell me that *I* should respect some dumb fuck piece of shit that blows up buildings, killing thousands because his actions are a form of "Free Speech" used as a means to get his fucked up ideas/beliefs across to others? If you are too stupid to realize it, let me inform you that "Free Speech" by no means entails killing people as a way to get your point across. Terrorism is terrorism (vastly different from "Free Speech") and should be neither respected, nor protected; but rather punished and denied.

So, lay off the cheap crack and get a fucking clue while you're at it.

Youre confusing people who would rather die with people who would rather kill.

Assasination, no matter how appealing , is not the only, nor best way to engage in political change.

One interesting point is the subjectivity of terrorism. The recipient calls it "terrorism," and the sender calls it "heroism." Outside observers usually take a lot of gray-area stances on it. This is pretty much universally true.

The American colonists' Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism from the perspective of the British at that time. But to the Americans, it was heroic. Now history takes the latter view... is that because they really were in the right, or because in the end, the Americans won, so they got to write the history books on it? If Palenstine were to somehow overthrow Isreal, would the suicide bombers be universally regarded as "heroes" in two hundred years?

I am only bringing this up as a discussion on perspective... I think suicide bombing is a horrible, unspeakable practice.

Not justifying one side or the other, just consider, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... It's all a matter of means and perspective...

Was Shock and Awe not a form of terrorism? Yes, is was more isolated to military targets, but that is primarily because we have the technology to do so, not because of some moral highground we stand on...

Could not someone living in WWII Germany call the bombing of Dresden an act of terrorism? Or a citizen of Tokyo, wouldn't they consider the firebombing of their city the work of a terrorist?

It's all a matter of means and perspective...


...history is written by the winners...

Posted by axlrosen;
If his act really WAS on behalf of all Jews - if every Jewish person in the world signed a letter saying that they authorize the ambassador to protest on their behalf - then you'd have a point. The idea that people believe that every Jew in the world authorized this guy to act on their behalf is crazy. He says he was acting on our behalf, but that doesn't make it true, and that doesn't mean that the world thinks it's true.


True or not, there will always be some that will believe it especially considering the mans credentials.
The anti-semites will believe it's true and use it to convince others to join their cause.

You people just don't listen

It's not flawed.

let's call our teacher abdul. (horribly stereotypical.)

abdul has been talking and talking and talking and trying to effect change in his life and circumstances for 10 years. HE feels pretty desperate. Enough to kill innocent people to get the point across that something needs to be done to improve the situation for his bretheren in his country. Abdul is not being heard, so he devises a way to BE heard.

So he goes to the local market, straps a bomb to himself and kills 35 people, and himself in the process.

Now lets change the name from Abdul to Mr. Teacher and subsitute market for school.



It's a completely valid comparison. What abdul or Mr. Teacher feels is desperate is completely and totally unrelated to what you, me, my mama, President Bush or Saddam fucking Hussein considers desperate.

there is NO justification for killing innocent people so you can "be heard". there is no respecting it, no understanding, no compassion, no tolerance of this behavior. it is WRONG. in ANY sense, in ANY "situation" or "parallel", you put forth. it is WRONG.

It is not a valid comparison. A comparison to your teacher example is Columbine, where a couple of disturbed kids committed a massacre. But, hysterical media reports notwithstanding, it was not a pattern.

If, in the years since Columbine, the number of suicide attacks on schools by children in the US had increased to the level of suicide attacks in Israel, we would be idiots to say "Children these days are evil." instead of trying to rectify the problem in the system.

So, one teacher "making a statement" and 10 teachers "making a statement" is different?

Because 350 kids died as opposed to "only 35"?

So one abdul is a nut and 10 abduls are a "terrorist cell"?

Why is one doing it wrong but 10 doing it ok?

paranoid, if you read the words of the Palestinian suicide bombers, they are not words of desperate people. They are words of hope and glory and resolve to win.

I agree with you. There are MANY things wrong in MANY parts of the world. But that does not, in ANY way JUSTIFY terrorist attacks.

They aren't desperate.

A fixation on hope and glory and resolve to win is hardly a sign that they are not desperate. I'd even be inclined to think it's a sign that they are. Those are morale crutches.

OK, then -- let's say, whether or not they are desperate is not the factor causing them to explode, and when they were occupied by Jordan they still waged war in the other direction.

History is full of desperate peoples and very few of them turn to suicide.

I see a clear difference, Rich. The Liberty Bell guy was a nut, acting as a consequence of his delusion.

The ambassador performed what was a calculated and rational act of destruction.