No, it is art. This piece could very well have anyone in that picture. It could have noone in that picture. It could simply be pure white boat on a sea of blood, and it could represent any group of peoples who have fought for any reason.

To limit it to one persons is just that, limiting it. That piece could represent anyone killing in what they preceive as "right". Their own holy war, or whatever term you want to put to it, and the outcome is still the same:

A bunch of death over what one person thinks is right.

Though in this case, it is limited by the political / racial / etc view placed upon it by the creator. Thus, for it's intended purpose, it does what it's supposed to. But in a bigger sense, it is limited by the artist; Falling short of its potential.

Quzah.

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:

Really?

Sycamore wrote:

I do not find his actions to be idiotic at all, and I'm suprised you take such an extreme stance. If I saw an exhibit someplace that had Osama's face in a toy plane hovering above the rubble and bodies of 9/11, in which the art piece **seemed** to sympathize with Osama, (as this piece here **SEEMS** to sympathize with the BOMBER THAT KILLED THE PEOPLE WHOSE BLOOD THAT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT), I'd probably consider ripping the picture of Osama in half, drawing horns on his head, and other things that destroy/remove the exhibit.

I'm sure many people would disagree with me, and not go that far. (I probably wouldn't either, without a beer or two to kick down the inhibition level. :) I also think many would support it.

-mike

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:

Quote:

From the BBC: Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon praised the ambassador's actions, saying that anti-Semitism was such a problem "it would have been forbidden not to have acted on the spot".

Maybe Jews acting like this is why anti-semitism continues to be such a problem.

Whoa...

Where did this come from? Are Jews well-known for their propensity to fly off the handle and damage art installations or something? Or are you saying that anti-Semitism is a problem because so many Jews think that anti-Semitism is such a big problem?

not a whole lot of point in having a first amendment if it only protects stuff you agree with, eh ?

...

"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.

America has become a country where you can be prosecuted under sexual harrassment laws for saying something as benign as "That's a nice shirt" to a co-worker. The First Amendment is a hollow shell of it's former self.

Oh, and since this exhibit wasn't in America, the first amendment really doesn't apply.

You would have a point if I was arguing that the artist doesn't have the right to do what he did, legally.

While the artist shouldn't be persecuted from the government, it doesn't mean that I won't exercise my right to kick his ass. :) Then, the government can prosecute me, but I won't feel too bad about it. :) :)

Related to this case, I wouldn't be suprised if the diplomat is fined / charged with a minor crime. (or perhaps he was already, I really don't know). I suppose I can't really argue that this would be inappropriate, given that the law is the law. However, I maintain that one shouldn't really be ALL that aghast that he did what he did, and to suggest that he's a QUOTE: FUCKING IDIOT for doing what he did, is wrong.

-mike

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

Which is why I always just lead off with "Nice tits!". May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

He cannot be charged with a crime - he is an ambassador. He can only be expelled from the country, to which Israel must respond with sending out the Swedish ambassador. And I think the ambassador is quite well informed about the legal status of his actions and it was probably well thought out (may be by his analysts as well). I also tend to think that given the circumstances (which we do not know about), his decision was quite rational.

But I still think he was an asshole (you can also call him a fucking idiot). All this is a very complex issue and there are no simple answers, or rather there are simple answers, but they are wrong. :(
Personally I think that aggressive muslims should be bombed with napalm, that terrorist leaders should be asassinated, that Isreal should occupy Palestina and erect reeducation camps there. I also think that terrorism is a form of free speech and should be respected, even if not protected. Palestinian <I>shahids</I> are sending us the message and the message is: "Jews, get the hell out of here" or something like this. The fact that the messenger kills himself and takes out a part of the audience, doesn't change the fact that there is a message. I also think that Jewish rabbies should be killed, mutilated, burned alive, whatever, although in no way I am anti-semitic.

See, how complex the issue is? We should at least try to be as tolerant as possible, listen to others and engage in dialogue, not destroying art installation, villages or bus-stops.

That's a pretty idiotic thing to say.

Why? People that would pretend it's still Dark Ages deserve to be shot (according to some wicked definition of "deserve"). The fact that they are Jewish is almost irrelevant, although Israel is one of the few countries religious to such extent.

People are free to believe whatever they want, but when they start acting according to their crazy, irrational and reality-contradictory beliefs, I want to shoot them (although acting on such impulses would be evil).

I'm saying neither. When a representative of Israel commits criminal acts in the name of the Jewish people, it casts all Jews in the same light as his actions. That certainly doesn't help dispel anti-semitism, now does it?