Guns, race, religion, terror, wingnut thread

[O Really]

Some religious people have done some good things for the world. Religion itself, not so much.

[Vrede too]

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/contr ... ed-2297547

"A controversial painting by the artist Miriam Cahn was vandalized yesterday, May 7, at Paris’s Palais de Tokyo.

Around 3:30 pm, a museum visitor removed a can of purple spray paint hidden in a medicine bottle and defaced the Swiss artist’s canvas. In a statement to Agence France-Presse, the Palais de Tokyo described the vandal as an “elderly man” who acted independently. He was apprehended by security agents and"
Oops there's that end of story and "and"

The old man was "removed from the premises by police."

Did they rough him up before throwing him in a lightness dungeon, or give him a ride home? Something in between?
I guess I wanted more gossip. It's the merican in me. Besides, they did tell us the news about the painting. It will be returning to display work immediately.

Of course they have wingnuts too
"Cahn’s painting has been mired in French news cycles for the last two months. In March, a group of six conservative organizations led by the Association Juristes Pour L’Enfance (Lawyers for Childhood) filed a lawsuit against the Palais de Tokyo. They alleged that, by showing the artwork, the museum violated the French law against exhibiting pornographic representations of minors.

But an administrative judge promptly threw out the case , ruling that Cahn’s painting refers to crimes committed in Bucha, Ukraine, and “cannot be understood outside of its context.”"

Therefore all these celebrity personalities have to do is portray everything outside of its intended context to focus hate as needed.
republicans are always so far sighted about themselves. This creation of a manipulative media started in the late 60s with one man's dream and the world's nightmare.
Make nixon look like a person - ailes
Sent out propaganda tapes with scrip for the local guy so the small time tv stations everywhere could have "correspondents" everywhere. - ailes

Four of the plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision in Frances’s Council of State, but that case, too, was dismissed.
The debate around Cahn’s painting, fueled largely by far-right media personalities on TV and online"'

They will destroy the world, all the while believing that they can save the parts they need and enjoy - once and for all proving that republicans are missing an Irony gene.

I'm not endorsing the vandalism, or censorship in principle, but I can understand the outrage. The painting is very icky.

NSFW!
Miriam Cahn, fuck abstraction! (2007-2022).

The painting depicts a faceless man receiving fellatio from a smaller, kneeling figure whose hands are tied behind their back. Right-wing critics have claimed the scene depicts the sexual abuse of a child, but Cahn has maintained that it was created in response to reports of murder and rape committed by Russian soldiers upon their invasion of the Ukrainian city of Bucha last year....

It certainly does depict "the sexual abuse of a child". Would it make a difference if it was commentary on Catholic priest abuses? How about shown in a defunct NAMBLA exhibition or if it was said to somehow be a pro-rightwing message?

I would not visit Paris’ Palais de Tokyo as long as the painting was there, and as a taxpayer would prefer that it be displayed in a private museum rather than a French state/city of Paris one.

Also, the museum should have anticipated an attack and placed the work behind glass, searched visitors better, hired extra security, something. Was it hoping to be victimized?

[billy.pilgrim]

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/contr ... ed-2297547

"A controversial painting by the artist Miriam Cahn was vandalized yesterday, May 7, at Paris’s Palais de Tokyo.

Around 3:30 pm, a museum visitor removed a can of purple spray paint hidden in a medicine bottle and defaced the Swiss artist’s canvas. In a statement to Agence France-Presse, the Palais de Tokyo described the vandal as an “elderly man” who acted independently. He was apprehended by security agents and"
Oops there's that end of story and "and"

The old man was "removed from the premises by police."

Did they rough him up before throwing him in a lightness dungeon, or give him a ride home? Something in between?
I guess I wanted more gossip. It's the merican in me. Besides, they did tell us the news about the painting. It will be returning to display work immediately.

Of course they have wingnuts too
"Cahn’s painting has been mired in French news cycles for the last two months. In March, a group of six conservative organizations led by the Association Juristes Pour L’Enfance (Lawyers for Childhood) filed a lawsuit against the Palais de Tokyo. They alleged that, by showing the artwork, the museum violated the French law against exhibiting pornographic representations of minors.

But an administrative judge promptly threw out the case , ruling that Cahn’s painting refers to crimes committed in Bucha, Ukraine, and “cannot be understood outside of its context.”"

Therefore all these celebrity personalities have to do is portray everything outside of its intended context to focus hate as needed.
republicans are always so far sighted about themselves. This creation of a manipulative media started in the late 60s with one man's dream and the world's nightmare.
Make nixon look like a person - ailes
Sent out propaganda tapes with scrip for the local guy so the small time tv stations everywhere could have "correspondents" everywhere. - ailes

Four of the plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision in Frances’s Council of State, but that case, too, was dismissed.
The debate around Cahn’s painting, fueled largely by far-right media personalities on TV and online"'

They will destroy the world, all the while believing that they can save the parts they need and enjoy - once and for all proving that republicans are missing an Irony gene.

I'm not endorsing the vandalism, or censorship in principle, but I can understand the outrage. The painting is very icky.

NSFW!
Miriam Cahn, fuck abstraction! (2007-2022).

The painting depicts a faceless man receiving fellatio from a smaller, kneeling figure whose hands are tied behind their back. Right-wing critics have claimed the scene depicts the sexual abuse of a child, but Cahn has maintained that it was created in response to reports of murder and rape committed by Russian soldiers upon their invasion of the Ukrainian city of Bucha last year....

It certainly does depict "the sexual abuse of a child". Would it make a difference if it was commentary on Catholic priest abuses? How about shown in a defunct NAMBLA exhibition or if it was said to somehow be a pro-rightwing message?

I would not visit Paris’ Palais de Tokyo as long as the painting was there, and as a taxpayer would prefer that it be displayed in a private museum rather than a French state/city of Paris one.

Also, the museum should have anticipated an attack and placed the work behind glass, searched visitors better, hired extra security, something. Was it hoping to be victimized?

I have a hard time removing the meaning of something from the artist, writer, or classroom teacher and allowing a biased party to claim the meaning has nothing to do with intent.

Fine, as you said, don't go. Not fine that you can know more than the artist who created it.

I see small people bound with barbed wire held down by a large powerful figure. Maybe that's because I heard the artist's explanation before I saw the painting.

[O Really]

I have a hard time removing the meaning of something from the artist, writer, or classroom teacher and allowing a biased party to claim the meaning has nothing to do with intent.

Fine, as you said, don't go. Not fine that you can know more than the artist who created it.

I see small people bound with barbed wire held down by a large powerful figure. Maybe that's because I heard the artist's explanation before I saw the painting.

True that.

[Vrede too]

I'm not endorsing the vandalism, or censorship in principle, but I can understand the outrage. The painting is very icky.

NSFW!
Miriam Cahn, fuck abstraction! (2007-2022).

The painting depicts a faceless man receiving fellatio from a smaller, kneeling figure whose hands are tied behind their back. Right-wing critics have claimed the scene depicts the sexual abuse of a child, but Cahn has maintained that it was created in response to reports of murder and rape committed by Russian soldiers upon their invasion of the Ukrainian city of Bucha last year....

It certainly does depict "the sexual abuse of a child". Would it make a difference if it was commentary on Catholic priest abuses? How about shown in a defunct NAMBLA exhibition or if it was said to somehow be a pro-rightwing message?

I would not visit Paris’ Palais de Tokyo as long as the painting was there, and as a taxpayer would prefer that it be displayed in a private museum rather than a French state/city of Paris one.

Also, the museum should have anticipated an attack and placed the work behind glass, searched visitors better, hired extra security, something. Was it hoping to be victimized?

I have a hard time removing the meaning of something from the artist, writer, or classroom teacher and allowing a biased party to claim the meaning has nothing to do with intent.

Eye of the beholder.
There is no such thing as objective art. It is supposed to evoke the viewers' experiences and emotions, and thus shape their perceptions of the image.

Fine, as you said, don't go. Not fine that you can know more than the artist who created it.

We're supposed to pretend that abuses by Catholic priests, other pedophiles, and left-wing warriors have never happened?

I see small people bound with barbed wire held down by a large powerful figure. Maybe that's because I heard the artist's explanation before I saw the painting.

You don't see the "rape committed by Russian soldiers upon their invasion of the Ukrainian city of Bucha last year" that Miriam Cahn says she wants you to see, specifically a bound child forced into fellatio? I sure do.

What if Fascist DerSantis spent tax dollars displaying the same image as a hyperbolic depiction of LGBTQ "groomers"? Would that be acceptable "art"?

[O Really]

Well, like a Rorschach blot, people can see anything they want in a piece of art. And a lot of art is easily subject to many varied interpretations. One of my favourite museums is the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg. https://thedali.org/ In Dali's work, imaginations can run amuck, but it's also interesting to take a tour with a decent docent and learn what Dali thought it was.

[Vrede too]

Well, like a Rorschach blot, people can see anything they want in a piece of art. And a lot of art is easily subject to many varied interpretations. One of my favourite museums is the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg. https://thedali.org/ In Dali's work, imaginations can run amuck, but it's also interesting to take a tour with a decent docent and learn what Dali thought it was.

True that. I love surrealism. René Magritte is my favorite. However, Miriam Cahn's painting is titled fuck abstraction!

René Magritte images.

[billy.pilgrim]

I'm not endorsing the vandalism, or censorship in principle, but I can understand the outrage. The painting is very icky.

NSFW!
Miriam Cahn, fuck abstraction! (2007-2022).

The painting depicts a faceless man receiving fellatio from a smaller, kneeling figure whose hands are tied behind their back. Right-wing critics have claimed the scene depicts the sexual abuse of a child, but Cahn has maintained that it was created in response to reports of murder and rape committed by Russian soldiers upon their invasion of the Ukrainian city of Bucha last year....

It certainly does depict "the sexual abuse of a child". Would it make a difference if it was commentary on Catholic priest abuses? How about shown in a defunct NAMBLA exhibition or if it was said to somehow be a pro-rightwing message?

I would not visit Paris’ Palais de Tokyo as long as the painting was there, and as a taxpayer would prefer that it be displayed in a private museum rather than a French state/city of Paris one.

Also, the museum should have anticipated an attack and placed the work behind glass, searched visitors better, hired extra security, something. Was it hoping to be victimized?

I have a hard time removing the meaning of something from the artist, writer, or classroom teacher and allowing a biased party to claim the meaning has nothing to do with intent.

Eye of the beholder.
There is no such thing as objective art. It is supposed to evoke the viewers' experiences and emotions, and thus shape their perceptions of the image.

Fine, as you said, don't go. Not fine that you can know more than the artist who created it.

We're supposed to pretend that abuses by Catholic priests, other pedophiles, and left-wing warriors have never happened?

I see small people bound with barbed wire held down by a large powerful figure. Maybe that's because I heard the artist's explanation before I saw the painting.

You don't see the "rape committed by Russian soldiers upon their invasion of the Ukrainian city of Bucha last year" that Miriam Cahn says she wants you to see, specifically a bound child forced into fellatio? I sure do.

What if Fascist DerSantis spent tax dollars displaying the same image as a hyperbolic depiction of LGBTQ "groomers"? Would that be acceptable "art"?

The intent of DeSantis and certain religious figures was to deceive; therefore, their stated message was bs.

Who was she trying to deceive? Her stated intent is the meaning.


https://religionnews.com/2013/10/04/12- ... believers/

"These are 12 of the countless examples I could have listed. Go ahead and add more “blasphemous” art that has been suppressed or destroyed in the comments section below.

And while you’re down there, why not chime in on an old debate? Should believers (or nonbelievers) ever have the right not to be offended?"

Repeat the last part, "Should believers (or nonbelievers) ever have the right not to be offended?"

[Vrede too]

I have a hard time removing the meaning of something from the artist, writer, or classroom teacher and allowing a biased party to claim the meaning has nothing to do with intent.

Eye of the beholder.
There is no such thing as objective art. It is supposed to evoke the viewers' experiences and emotions, and thus shape their perceptions of the image.

Fine, as you said, don't go. Not fine that you can know more than the artist who created it.

We're supposed to pretend that abuses by Catholic priests, other pedophiles, and left-wing warriors have never happened?

I see small people bound with barbed wire held down by a large powerful figure. Maybe that's because I heard the artist's explanation before I saw the painting.

You don't see the "rape committed by Russian soldiers upon their invasion of the Ukrainian city of Bucha last year" that Miriam Cahn says she wants you to see, specifically a bound child forced into fellatio? I sure do.

What if Fascist DerSantis spent tax dollars displaying the same image as a hyperbolic depiction of LGBTQ "groomers"? Would that be acceptable "art"?

The intent of DeSantis and certain religious figures was to deceive; therefore, their stated message was bs.

Who was she trying to deceive? Her stated intent is the meaning.


https://religionnews.com/2013/10/04/12- ... believers/

"These are 12 of the countless examples I could have listed. Go ahead and add more “blasphemous” art that has been suppressed or destroyed in the comments section below.

And while you’re down there, why not chime in on an old debate? Should believers (or nonbelievers) ever have the right not to be offended?"

Repeat the last part, "Should believers (or nonbelievers) ever have the right not to be offended?"

Purple paint and a lawsuit is hardly "terrorism". Are the UK climate activists doing similar actions terrorists?

I see, the billy.pilgrim standard for "art" is whether it's honest or not. That would eliminate all metaphor, exaggeration and irony in art, wouldn't it? Therefore, the exact same painting shown by Fascist DerSantis but with a different rationalization should not be allowed.

You and O Really have both cited religion, yet the opponents NEVER mention religious gripes, nor does the article say a word about religion. As such, I'm not bothering with the irrelevant blasphemy link and statement, nor am I engaging with the straw man "believers" question.

Rather, the ONLY objection cited by the opponents is with "exhibiting pornographic representations of minors." I just don't see how clear child porn suddenly becomes okay for the taxpayers to support just because the artist says separately that it's "intent" is PC. My own standard is no government-funded child porn, neither by Putin-haters nor by christofascists.

[O Really]

There used to be an expression "like taking candy from a baby" meaning something was very easy, but strangely enough without any implication of cruelty or bad intent. If an artist portrays a cruel act by a powerful entity over another as being like forced fellatio of a weaker (possibly child) entity, I'm not sure that portrayal jumps immediately into porn. It may be tasteless and crude, but it is clearly moving and effective.

(BTW, I think my "religion" comment was from my own inference, not necessarily based on the article)

[Vrede too]

There used to be an expression "like taking candy from a baby" meaning something was very easy, but strangely enough without any implication of cruelty or bad intent. If an artist portrays a cruel act by a powerful entity over another as being like forced fellatio of a weaker (possibly child) entity, I'm not sure that portrayal jumps immediately into porn. It may be tasteless and crude, but it is clearly moving and effective.

(BTW, I think my "religion" comment was from my own inference, not necessarily based on the article)

IMO if something would be child porn in a different context or without any context at all, it remains child porn even if the painter separately offers a PC justification for it.

Leaving aside whether it's porn, should government promote "a cruel act by a powerful entity over another as being like forced fellatio of a weaker (possibly child) entity," when lefties like us agree with the RWers that it's "tasteless and crude," or should it be relegated to display by one of France's many private museums?

[O Really]

Well, I'm not that happy to be a defender of what may or may not portray a minor in forced sexual activity, but I'm totally tired of some loon or another thinking their opinion overrides everybody else's. Whether it's an offensive painting that the courts have okayed or Winnie the Pooh getting tossed from the library because some fool sees smut in a character wearing a shirt with no pants, I'm tired of it.

[billy.pilgrim]

I have a hard time removing the meaning of something from the artist, writer, or classroom teacher and allowing a biased party to claim the meaning has nothing to do with intent.

Eye of the beholder.
There is no such thing as objective art. It is supposed to evoke the viewers' experiences and emotions, and thus shape their perceptions of the image.

Fine, as you said, don't go. Not fine that you can know more than the artist who created it.

We're supposed to pretend that abuses by Catholic priests, other pedophiles, and left-wing warriors have never happened?

I see small people bound with barbed wire held down by a large powerful figure. Maybe that's because I heard the artist's explanation before I saw the painting.

You don't see the "rape committed by Russian soldiers upon their invasion of the Ukrainian city of Bucha last year" that Miriam Cahn says she wants you to see, specifically a bound child forced into fellatio? I sure do.

What if Fascist DerSantis spent tax dollars displaying the same image as a hyperbolic depiction of LGBTQ "groomers"? Would that be acceptable "art"?

The intent of DeSantis and certain religious figures was to deceive; therefore, their stated message was bs.

Who was she trying to deceive? Her stated intent is the meaning.


https://religionnews.com/2013/10/04/12- ... believers/

"These are 12 of the countless examples I could have listed. Go ahead and add more “blasphemous” art that has been suppressed or destroyed in the comments section below.

And while you’re down there, why not chime in on an old debate? Should believers (or nonbelievers) ever have the right not to be offended?"

Repeat the last part, "Should believers (or nonbelievers) ever have the right not to be offended?"

Purple paint and a lawsuit is hardly "terrorism". Are the UK climate activists doing similar actions terrorists?

I see, the billy.pilgrim standard for "art" is whether it's honest or not. That would eliminate all metaphor, exaggeration and irony in art, wouldn't it? Therefore, the exact same painting shown by Fascist DerSantis but with a different rationalization should not be allowed.

No.

Really? You misunderstand me that much.

When did intent become rationalization? It's almost as if you are trying to misunderstand me.

[Vrede too]

Well, I'm not that happy to be a defender of what may or may not portray a minor in forced sexual activity, but I'm totally tired of some loon or another thinking their opinion overrides everybody else's. Whether it's an offensive painting that the courts have okayed or Winnie the Pooh getting tossed from the library because some fool sees smut in a character wearing a shirt with no pants, I'm tired of it.

Seriously? Pantsless Pooh is the same thing as:
NSFW!
Miriam Cahn, fuck abstraction! (2007-2022). ?

[O Really]

Well, I'm not that happy to be a defender of what may or may not portray a minor in forced sexual activity, but I'm totally tired of some loon or another thinking their opinion overrides everybody else's. Whether it's an offensive painting that the courts have okayed or Winnie the Pooh getting tossed from the library because some fool sees smut in a character wearing a shirt with no pants, I'm tired of it.

Seriously? Pantsless Pooh is the same thing as:
NSFW!
Miriam Cahn, fuck abstraction! (2007-2022). ?

No, not the same, but the object doesn't matter. It's the forced removal by threat of vandalism or whatever the book ladies do. The way to decide what art is displayed or what books are offered is for the people responsible to have a selection process which may include public input. It isn't to let some moon-barker shriek.

[Vrede too]

Purple paint and a lawsuit is hardly "terrorism". Are the UK climate activists doing similar actions terrorists?

I see, the billy.pilgrim standard for "art" is whether it's honest or not. That would eliminate all metaphor, exaggeration and irony in art, wouldn't it? Therefore, the exact same painting shown by Fascist DerSantis but with a different rationalization should not be allowed.

You and O Really have both cited religion, yet the opponents NEVER mention religious gripes, nor does the article say a word about religion. As such, I'm not bothering with the irrelevant blasphemy link and statement, nor am I engaging with the straw man "believers" question.

Rather, the ONLY objection cited by the opponents is with "exhibiting pornographic representations of minors." I just don't see how clear child porn suddenly becomes okay for the taxpayers to support just because the artist says separately that it's "intent" is PC. My own standard is no government-funded child porn, neither by Putin-haters nor by christofascists.

No.

So, it's "terrorism" when a person defaces a child porn painting, but it's not "terrorism" when a climate activist does the same thing to a wholly unrelated masterwork? Please explain so that I don't "misunderstand".

Really? You misunderstand me that much.

Says the guy that misunderstood religious objections into an article that never once mentioned religion. Please elaborate.

When did intent become rationalization?

Eye of the beholder. Which is it when, for theoretical example, Fascist DerSantis spends tax dollars displaying the exact same image as a hyperbolic depiction of LGBTQ "groomers"?

It's almost as if you are trying to misunderstand me.

Says the guy that removes being busted on his religion straw man from his supposed quote of me (restored now), then also removes and ducks my final paragraph entirely. Please elaborate.

[Vrede too]

Seriously? Pantsless Pooh is the same thing as:
NSFW!
Miriam Cahn, fuck abstraction! (2007-2022). ?

No, not the same, but the object doesn't matter.

Seriously? Nothing is too offensive for you? How about Snuff?

It's the forced removal by threat of vandalism or whatever the book ladies do.

My very first words in this tangent:

I'm not endorsing the vandalism ...

The way to decide what art is displayed or what books are offered is for the people responsible to have a selection process which may include public input.

What if it's pro-Nazi child porn approved by a Fascist DerSantis appointed museum board?

Anyhow, the book ladies are successful where their public input is an appeal to the responsible people they elected who have a selection process. Doesn't that meet your criteria? In France, at the moment, 'anything goes' wins, but I'll bet they'll be hesitant to display child porn in the future.

It isn't to let some moon-barker shriek.

"moon-barker" shrieking, especially about government activities, is protected by the First Amendment. Why not when government is displaying supposedly PC child porn?

[O Really]

“I wholly disapprove of what you (display in your museum) —and will defend (vigorously) your right to display it."
Sorta Voltaire

Anyway, I don't object to protest, and may have participated in some in the past. Doesn't mean that just because somebody protests they have to take down the display or remove the book.

[Vrede too]

“I wholly disapprove of what you (display in your museum) —and will defend (vigorously) your right to display it."
Sorta Voltaire

Point taken, except that it's our museum, if we were French Parisians, is the key point for me. If folks were protesting a private display I probably wouldn't have entered this discussion other than to express my similar revulsion.

Anyway, I don't object to protest, and may have participated in some in the past. Doesn't mean that just because somebody protests they have to take down the display or remove the book.

Agreed, that only happens when:
The protests are large enough;
The protesters are influential enough, like museum patrons;
The deciders are responsive;
The law requires it. For example, child porn law may be different in the US.

I sure don't see the painting ever going on government display here, and am not entirely sure that private display would be legal.

[O Really]

So we've been arguing not as to whether it should be displayed, but where to display it? I've been arguing about freedom of artistic expression and you're arguing about expenditure of public funds? OK, so we get neoplacebo to write one of his most effective messages to the museum and get them to move the painting down the street to Pierre's Palace of Porn-ish and everybody's happy. Except maybe for the artist.