israeli ambassador "vandalize" museum

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- israeli ambassador "vandalize" museum
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

Posted by Cyrus King on Jan-18-2004 22:04:

Posted by DaveSZ on Jan-18-2004 22:21:

Posted by Flotser on Jan-18-2004 23:30:

quote:
Originally posted by borron
Are you guys all single-minded? A piece of art can be interpreted in many ways, not just the way the artist intended.

Why didn't the embassador interpreted the piece as a demonification of her instead of a glorification? After all, her portrait was floating in a pool of blood... open your mind, people - ambassador - israelis.

thats not fair what you'r saying. you are talking about open mind but IMO it sounds like you are not open minded yourself reffering only to the israelis. so ok its art, and yes it can be interpreted in diffrenet ways.
but thats all you can say? art is above everything? art is above human feelings? above simple respect towards people? you dont live under terror, so you dont know how bad those suicide bombings can affect you - think about the famelies of victims. let me give an extreme example...you are not a survivor from the Hollocust and if on that little white boat it was the face of the commander of the Auschwitz extermination camp smiling, it wouldnt REALY affect you, me neither. but if a survivor from the Hollocust would have seen it....imagine what he would feel, maybe he would faint, maybe he would feel seek and throw up, maybe he would start crying. some respect. art is not above everything.
"Snow-white".

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jan-19-2004 00:52:

I agree with borron here. It really is a piece of art that can be interpreted in several ways. On the most basic level, it seems like it is glorifying the bomber because of her happy face. But then, she is floating in a pool of blood, so it can also be said that human suffering is a cause for her happiness. Anyway, sometimes matters can be criticised by excessively glorifying them.

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
There are all type of Jews from fanatical settlers, to fanatical anti-jewish Jews

Ever heard of Mladen Schwarz? He's the leader of the "New Croatian Right Wing", a political party forbidden because of it's nazi views. Their program is to kill off all the serbs, gypsies and jews who are living in Croatia. Oh, yes, and he's a jew. I haven't really made out whether he is doing that to make a mockery of the right wing parties or whether he is indeed a nazi jewish hating jew.

Posted by imokruok on Jan-19-2004 05:39:

Jump forward to 11:10 - here is the video of the Ambassador's actions. http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/stream...terdag.2200.asf

I have more respect for him, and less for the international media after viewing the video. Their descriptions of what the Ambassador did was greatly sensationalized.

Also, the fact that the artist called the suicide bomber "Snow White" makes it pretty clear what the intended effect of the exhibit was.

Posted by Yoepus on Jan-19-2004 06:19:

The Offical Israeli reaction:

quote:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...rt_040118164309

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Sunday backed Mazel's actions.

"I called our Zvi Mazel, our ambassador in Sweden to thank him for his actions in the face of this fresh outbreak of anti-Semitism, and I told him he had the support of the government in this incident," Sharon told a weekly cabinet meeting.

"We are witnessing the rise of anti-Semitism across the whole world and particularly in Europe where this phenomenon is taking on dangerous proportions ... Ambassador Mazel behaved exactly as he needed to," he said.

Israeli officials called the exhibit an incitement to hatred.

"The Swedish government cannot remain indifferent and should take steps to remove it," foreign ministry spokesman David Saranger told AFP.

...
I don't object to the exhibit on ground of anti-semitism, but due to the fallout over it and the insensitivity of the europeans, I can think of little else then the acceptance of the new "anti-semitism" in Europe to account for the attitudes that do not view the error here.

I wouldn't wish such an insult on my enemies, yet even so called "friends" turn a blind eye to it.

Posted by tathi on Jan-19-2004 13:01:

if we hold our ears and close our eyes it will all go away

Says the ambassador to the artist:

"Mr Feiler, how would you like an international advertising campaign for this quite mediocre peice of art? If my promotion is controversial enough you get all the free advertising you need, the market value for this pathetic excuse for an artwork will go up millions!"

he didn't say it in as many words but i could read it in his body language and voice inflection, so his either smart and has a 50% cut in the art once its sold, or his an irrational moron

and as St_Andrew said it was not endorsed by the government, i don't think anyone has a right to give the swedish government any shit, bitch about the idiot who gave the talentless artist free advertising

Posted by Yoepus on Jan-19-2004 16:05:

quote:
Originally posted by tathi
and as St_Andrew said it was not endorsed by the government, i don't think anyone has a right to give the swedish government any shit, bitch about the idiot who gave the talentless artist free advertising

the Swedish government can exert pressure, such as cutting funding to this national museum.

and belive me, why would anyone buy this art? you cand do it yourself too! just buy a pool, red dye, and a paper boat, and you got yourself art!

Posted by St_Andrew on Jan-19-2004 16:45:

quote:
Originally posted by Yoepus
the Swedish government can exert pressure, such as cutting funding to this national museum.

theoretically, perhaps, practically no. it would be revolt if the government started to censur art. the government has NOTHING to do with what the artists do, and the artists has a constitutional right to express their opinions, even on national museums...

quote:
and belive me, why would anyone buy this art? you cand do it yourself too! just buy a pool, red dye, and a paper boat, and you got yourself art!

anyone could do most arts, the hard thing isn't to do it, it's to come up with the idea... even though i agree, i have seen greater things...

Posted by DigiNut on Jan-19-2004 22:20:

I love how people seem to pick and choose what is within the confines of "free speech" based on their own opinions and morals.

A thread was posted in the Toronto forum a few months ago about a guy who put up a photo of two girls kissing (this is "art" - look on any poster site for one called "kiss", that's the one it was) in a computer lab, and within a couple of days he was forced to take it down because it was apparently degrading or distasteful. And in that thread, an overwhelming number of people seemed to think that the university did the right thing in having it removed.

Ernst Zundel came to Canada years ago and spent most of his time distributing holocaust denial propaganda. After being taken to court, they ruled that what he was doing was in fact perfectly legal, and when the country finally got off its ass and decided to deport him, there was a massive public outcry.

Buy some of the Family Guy DVDs and you'll see episodes that were never allowed to air because they were too "offensive". Words like "nig.ger" and "fag" are officially swear words (to prove my point, I had to put a period in the middle of that because TA decided to censor it with asterisks), and if used publicly, will result in a barrage of criticism and complaints, if not outright censorship.

Seems to me that there's never been free speech, only selective free speech, which basically depends upon public opinion. When it's anti-drug propaganda, anti-war or pro-war propaganda, or depictions of various political figures with a Hitler moustache, it's okay. But when it's say, snuff or child porn, or ethnic slurs, it might even be illegal for some reason. I'd be willing to bet on the likelihood that a piece of "art" depicting a group of cops beating the crap out of some innocent black guy would take a lot of heat.

I can agree with the fact that art can be interpreted in many different ways. However, it seems to me that even the most miniscule modicum of forethought on part of the Swedes would have given rise to the idea that he might interpret it the "wrong way" (assuming that he did, in fact, interpret it differently from what it was intended to mean).

Let's cut the crap already - the Swedes knew how he would feel about it. Having said that, two wrongs don't make a right, and the ambassador would have been well-advised to lodge his complaint in a more formal fashion.

But having said that, I think if they'd gotten some Arab representative from Palestine to look at a depiction of an Israeli soldier shooting at Palestinian children wearing tattered rags, he'd react in the same way if not worse.

Am I defending what the ambassador did? No, he should have acted more rationally than that. But I can certainly see why he was offended and I think it was ridiculous for the Swedes to put it on public display. And *not* putting it on display goes a long way from censorship - they purposefully picked out that "exhibit" and put it up for everyone to have a little looksee.

What they did was insensitive, at best. If someone showed me a portrait of a girl stabbing one of my friends with a big smile on her face, I think I'd be a little bit pissed off, wouldn't you? Doesn't matter whether they were criticizing or glorifying it, either way it's just in very poor taste. And for anyone who insists on saying "no" to that, please send me a photo of your parents, and I'll get back to you with a photoshopped picture of them both being knifed in the back surrounded by a pool of blood.

Bottom line is, the ambassador's reaction was totally inappropriate, but so was the display. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I think what should happen right now is for the ambassador to make a public apology and for them to take down that "art."

On a totally unrelated note, it's somewhat ironic how the Arabs in this thread have resorted to calling him a "stupid idiot" and a "moron." At least St_Andrew is giving us a coherent argument.

Posted by tathi on Jan-20-2004 00:39:

who are the arabs in this thread dignut? you don't have to be an arab to come to that conclusion.

and Yoepus i agree with you that the piece of art would sell for very little if not at all without its international advertising campaign, people arn't buying the artwork itself but the controversy behind it

Pages (2): « 1 [2]