Vrede too wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 1:44 pmVrede too wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 10:16 amPurple 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.billy.pilgrim wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 12:47 pmNo.
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.
My mistake to bring religion into this discussion and on top of that, I put religion in the headline. My bad.
That aside, it stands against our ability to communicate if various parties get to claim their own meanings to things other people do and say. When DeSantis requires state inspections for Disney's monorail "for public safety" anyone following the DeSantis vs Disney war knows by the context that he’s lying and are free to offer their own understanding of his actions. Unlike the Cahn painting (which I wouldn't want in my sight) where the context demands that the painting is about russia's crimes in Bucha, Ukraine. The meaning is honest.
You can say her meaning was poorly exhibited, but calling it child porn goes too far. DeSantis has pretty much removed studying Renaissance art from our schools because he see it as porn.
Now he's running around demanding titties everywhere be draped. He's wrong. Maybe Ashcroft was okay draping Liberty, as it was only the Liberty in his space.
DeSantis is dead wrong assigning his warped definitions everywhere.
"France’s State Council has rejected an appeal to censor a hotly debated painting by Swiss artist Miriam Cahn depicting sexual war crimes committed in Bucha, Ukraine. The work is currently on view in the artist’s retrospective titled “Ma Pensée Serielle” (“My Serial Thought”) at the Palais de Tokyo in Paris.
In today’s written verdict viewed by Artnet News, a judge concluded Cahn’s painting, titled fuck abstraction!, may remain hanging, because the “artist’s only intention is to denounce a crime” via the work. The painting also does not “violate” the safety of children or human dignity, as appellants have argued, since extra measures have been taken to contextualize the “extraordinarily raw quality” of the work, stated the Council, which acts as the supreme court of appeal for administrative law courts. The Palais de Tokyo does not permit unaccompanied minors into the side gallery featuring the contested work and advises against showing it to children.
Cahn’s semi-abstract painting in question portrays a forced fellation, based on the rape and massacre of Bucha’s residents by Russian troops, and was intended to denounce sexual crimes used as a weapon of war, according to the artist. Petitioners, however, said the central victim in the scene appears to be a child due to their small physique. They maintained that is enough to justify the work’s removal or restriction from minors on the grounds that it violates French law forbidding public displays of “pedo-pornographic” material that “incites” predators and “puts minors in danger.”'