Woman beaten for displaying paintings of Abuse in Iraq

[Starguard]

THIS (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=9&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_painting_7) has to be the most irrational thing I've seen in years. As far as I'm concerned she only displayed the truth about what went on over there. Personally I hope the police catch whoever did this to her and beat them the exact same way those prisoners were beaten. :mad:

[astro]

While some of the reactions were impolite and threatening what exactly did the idiot gallery owner expect by putting them in the front window of her gallery? It may "truth to power", but people's relatives are fighting and dying in Iraq, and some people have huge emotional invesments in supporting the troops.

Powerful art is supposed to generate an emotionally visceral response, and this did in spades. You display extremely provocative art, and then cry foul when you get provocative responses?

The artist may be expressing regrets re the problems of the gallery owner, but I'm betting he's never been more pleased with his art as right now given the responses

[Zagadka]

While some of the reactions were impolite and threatening what exactly did the idiot gallery owner expect
Let's play another rousing game of "blame the victim"

I never realized that someone displaying art I disagreed with warrants rioting and beating them. Thanks for the heads up. I guess the next time I see an attractive woman in a miniskirt, I'll just go ahead and rape her, because really, what exactly does she expect?

[RTA]

You display extremely provocative art, and then cry foul when you get provocative responses?

An art exhibition does not equal an eye-for-an-eye assault. By the above reasoning, it is reasonable to walk up to someone waving a fetus photo in front of a clinic, and kick their ass.

there is a thread about this in the BBQ Pit:

boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=258847

[astro]

Let's play another rousing game of "blame the victim"

I never realized that someone displaying art I disagreed with warrants rioting and beating them. Thanks for the heads up. I guess the next time I see an attractive woman in a miniskirt, I'll just go ahead and rape her, because really, what exactly does she expect?

Tossing aside your completely silly and inappropriate strawman comparision of the two scenarios, the issue is not with what is warranted. It has to do what anyone with an once of common sense could tell would happen when you start poking people in emotionally vulnerable and tender areas.

If I go to a corner in Harlem and start lecturing the passerby on how they should speak better english, and not have out of wedlock children, or spend their rent money on designer clothes, and a group of locals express their displeasure by trying to put a cap in my behind, or introduce my head to a tire iron, am I a "victim" for simply expressing useful behavioral guidelines?

You have a perfect "right" of free expression to do a lot of things, but you'd better leaven it with some real world common sense if you want to be unmolested in pursuing your right to do so.

[flickster]

Gotta side with astro on this one. Being provocative for the sake of drawing attention can sometimes draw the wrong type of attention. Not saying it's warranted, just saying that's reality.

Also from reading the OP's link, it sounds like the gallery owner was also getting heat from the ppl that supported the message after she removed the painting from the front window.

[peri]

If I go to a corner in Harlem and start lecturing the passerby on how they should speak better english, and not have out of wedlock children, or spend their rent money on designer clothes, and a group of locals express their displeasure by trying to put a cap in my behind, or introduce my head to a tire iron, am I a "victim" for simply expressing useful behavioral guidelines?
Your little scenario might be comparable if the gallery in question was located across the street from the Abu Ghraib prison.

[astro]

Your little scenario might be comparable if the gallery in question was located across the street from the Abu Ghraib prison.

I would hazard a guess that in criticizing the troops you would potentially have a far more more hazardous and defensive audience in the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends and supporters of the troops in the US, than the troops in the field.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

By law, no amount of free speech (however badly the truth may hurt) is any kind of justification for violence. You don't have a right to not be offended.

In this case the art was not even offensive, just a true depiction of the reality in Iraq. If you don't like the reality, then blame the perpetrators of the crimes, not the person who pointed them out to you.

Yes, [b]Astro[b], you are blaming the victim. Knock it off. "What did she expect?" you ask. Well, maybve she expected that she would be accorded he rights as an American to be able to voice an opinion with being physically attacked. How silly of her.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I would hazard a guess that in criticizing the troops you would potentially have a far more more hazardous and defensive audience in the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, friends and supporters of the troops in the US, than the troops in the field.
How is criticizing the criminals at Abu Ghraib the same thing as criticizing "the troops?"

And how would criticizing the troops justify violence anyway? Any family members who feel they have the right to commit violence against a person who disagrees with them are just criminal scum themselves and I have no sympathy for them. they are not harmed in any way by these pictures.

[astro]

How is criticizing the criminals at Abu Ghraib the same thing as criticizing "the troops?"

And how would criticizing the troops justify violence anyway? Any family members who feel they have the right to commit violence against a person who disagrees with them are just criminal scum themselves and I have no sympathy for them. they are not harmed in any way by these pictures.


You're focusing on the issue of "justification", just as Zagadka was focusing on what is and is not "warranted". The attacks on the gallery owner were neither "justified" or "warranted" in any socially responsible legal or moral sense, but to anyone with an ounce of common sense, and a real world grasp of how anxious and distraught supporters of the troops might respond to an "in your face" provocation in the form of a painting displayed in the sidewalk window of a gallery, they should not have been unexpected.

The gallery owner has a perfect right to do this unmolested. Whether or not she should have a real world expectation to do this unmolested is another question.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You still seem fixated on this fallacious charge that the pictures were an attack on "the troops" in general. Since it would not be possible for any intelligent person toperceive them that way, then there was no way to expect or anticipate a violent reaction.

It would be just like if a gallery owner had displayed a painting of a lynching and then was attacked by people who claimed the painting was offensive to white people. The reasoning is just as stupid.

[astro]

You still seem fixated on this fallacious charge that the pictures were an attack on "the troops" in general. Since it would not be possible for any intelligent person toperceive them that way, then there was no way to expect or anticipate a violent reaction.

It would be just like if a gallery owner had displayed a painting of a lynching and then was attacked by people who claimed the painting was offensive to white people. The reasoning is just as stupid.

The images in the paintings (as described) were very powerful, and while you are entirely correct that they were specifically critcizing the sadistic behavior of the jailers, not the troops in general, the image of the American flag splattered in blood is a resonant symbol of disrespect for many people. After seeing that painting I would expect there are going to be a significant number of emotionally distraught people, spun up by those images that aren't going to be making the fine, or not so fine, distinctions, necessary to parse out that these symbols aren't indicting my troops, just those "bad" troops.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Too damn bad if they're "emotionally disraught." They are still responsible for their own actions and they have no right to censor the speech of others.

Frankly, I don't even buy the assertion that anyone would really be sincerely hurt emotionally by the images. They're just bullies and intellectual cowards, IMO.

[astro]

Too damn bad if they're "emotionally disraught." They are still responsible for their own actions and they have no right to censor the speech of others.

Frankly, I don't even buy the assertion that anyone would really be sincerely hurt emotionally by the images. They're just bullies and intellectual cowards, IMO.


Quite possibly, but it doesn't negate the common sense expectation that they can be easily riled and potentially dangerous.

[Evil Captor]

The images in the paintings (as described) were very powerful, and while you are entirely correct that they were specifically critcizing the sadistic behavior of the jailers, not the troops in general, the image of the American flag splattered in blood is a resonant symbol of disrespect for many people. After seeing that painting I would expect there are going to be a significant number of emotionally distraught people, spun up by those images that aren't going to be making the fine, or not so fine, distinctions, necessary to parse out that these symbols aren't indicting my troops, just those "bad" troops.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it leaves our freedom of speech hostage to violent scum. Organized groups who used violence to get their way can and have suppressed speech in exactly this way. I bet Weimar Germany had freedom of speech guarantees, for example, but evntually everyone knew what would happen if you exercised your freedom in ways that pissed off the brown shirts.

The people who beat up the gallery owner are EXACTLY the same sort of people who made up the brown shirts. They deserve NO support. They deserve to be hunted down like dogs and jailed for a very long time. If you tolerate the brown shirts, eventually you will be following their orders.

[astro]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it leaves our freedom of speech hostage to violent scum. Organized groups who used violence to get their way can and have suppressed speech in exactly this way. I bet Weimar Germany had freedom of speech guarantees, for example, but evntually everyone knew what would happen if you exercised your freedom in ways that pissed off the brown shirts.

The people who beat up the gallery owner are EXACTLY the same sort of people who made up the brown shirts. They deserve NO support. They deserve to be hunted down like dogs and jailed for a very long time. If you tolerate the brown shirts, eventually you will be following their orders.

Again, the issue is not justification or toleration, it's expectation. In the real, direct face of person to person communication, whether by speech or images, freedom of expression as a constitutional right is always "hostage" in some form or fashion to the immediate real world reactions of those to whom you are delivering the message.

If I hold a gallery opening in the middle of Watts titled "Black Failures", and assemble a multi-media showcase of dysfunctional, self harming behaviors by black people, am I supposed to shocked and stunned if someone puts brick through my window?

You can stand on free expression rights to the last degree allowed under the law, but in the real world there is no magical, protective force field that surrounds people who want to make or enable controversial or disturbing messages. If you expect to deliver a highly provocative message to people who may react emotionally and violently, you had best take sensible precautions for your own protection. If you don't you are simply being foolhardy.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

If I go to a corner in Harlem and start lecturing the passerby on how they should speak better english, and not have out of wedlock children, or spend their rent money on designer clothes, and a group of locals express their displeasure by trying to put a cap in my behind, or introduce my head to a tire iron, am I a "victim" for simply expressing useful behavioral guidelines?



Ummm...this happens all the time.

It's called "a streetcorner ministry".

Streetcorner evangelism isn't new, & while I find it annoying, I really don't think they commonly get their fannies thumped.

[Zagadka]

Well, we seem to be stuck on, "it was a crime of passion, people shouldn't do anything that might possibly offend anyone, or they can expect to receive a beating"... that kind of reasoning is frightening. I take it you want to live in an ultra-PC zone where the only art and news is that officially approved? Or better yet, for you, no art! It might make people's brains work and incite violent responses!

It isn't even like the artist randomly made up some stuff to make the troops look bad. I mean, OK, I can see a little bit more to your argument there. This is just reflecting what really happened.

On a side note, has anyone noticed the funny part? Artwork depicting/protesting horrible human rights abuses by angry and backwards-minded people is met with physical attack by angry and backwards-minded people?

[rngadam]

violently, you had best take sensible precautions for your own protection. If you don't you are simply being foolhardy.

Only in freaky, traumatized, dangerous America could painting about something REAL that has been widely condemned and critized even by the government of the same country could warrant getting "protection". And that is what is scary.

Your examples are not at all valid since those pseudo-criticisms ("Black Failures") would be things that would not and should not be socially acceptable. In this case, the subject of the paintings itself is what is not (or at least should not) be socially acceptable!

That this would even happen suggest that there is deep unrational hostility in a large part of the population for any valid criticism against America and an unvoiced support for these actions. An extremely dangerous situation and if you can't see that, you also are part of the problem.

[astro]

That this would even happen suggest that there is deep unrational hostility in a large part of the population for any valid criticism against America and an unvoiced support for these actions. An extremely dangerous situation and if you can't see that, you also are part of the problem.

The issue of whether a specific criticism expressed via a painting is valid or not, is necessarily as exercise left to individual who views the art. With respect to the issue of a deep hostility toward perceived criticisms of the troops potentially existing in a segement of the American art viewing public, I believe that I have directly and explicitly acknowledged precisely that point, several times in this thread, and the need to take reasonable precautions if you intend to deliver this artistic message.


Re Your examples are not at all valid since those pseudo-criticisms ("Black Failures") would be things that would not and should not be socially acceptable. In this case, the subject of the paintings itself is what is not (or at least should not) be socially acceptable!

I'm afraid I don't quite grasp your point here. You don't think neighborhood black people might be pissed and embarrased by a gallery hanging a montage of neighborhood social pathologies in the front windows titled "Black Failures"? Or is your point that they shouldn't be embarrased because everyone knows this bad stuff anyway? It's a fairly critical distinction.

[Zagadka]

The issue of whether a specific criticism expressed via a painting is valid or not, is necessarily as exercise left to individual who views the art. With respect to the issue of a deep hostility toward perceived criticisms of the troops potentially existing in a segement of the American art viewing public, I believe that I have directly and explicitly acknowledged precisely that point, several times in this thread, and the need to take reasonable precautions if you intend to deliver this artistic message.
Does your theory of self-fault apply to any statements or displays, or only to art?

Because if it does, the next time I see someone supporting the war in Iraq, I'm opening up with a f*ing uzi. They're asking for it.

[bizzwire]

Shouldn't the OP be titled "Woman punched in the eye for displaying painting of abuse in Abu Ghraib," rather than "Woman beaten for displaying painting of abuse in Abu Ghraib?"

I think it's a bit disingenuous and inflamatory to describe the gallery owner's treatment as a 'beating', which (to me, anyway) implies extensive and repeated assault, as opposed to getting a shiner from some disgruntled "patriot."

I'm not blaming the victim here, nor trying to make light of the incident; I'm just suggesting a little perspective and proportion.

[PunditLisa]

Personally I hope the police catch whoever did this to her and beat them the exact same way those prisoners were beaten.

Until you allow your enemies to enjoy the same rights your friends enjoy, then you cannot be considered a true proponent of liberty. You are not defending our constitution when you quash due process; you are trampling on it. That's what the attorneys representing the prisoners at Gitmo were arguing and I'll have to admit they have a point.

That's not to say I agree with the shop owner's ill-advised decision to display such a painting in her window. Our countrymen are in Iraq and risking their lives as we speak. Why would you further enflame public sentiment against the United States, especially after the Nick Berg incident? If she is too naive or too stupid to anticipate such a reaction, she really should stay out of politics altogether, for her own safety.

It goes without saying that the man who popped her in the eye should be punished in accordance with the law. Being upset does not give you the right to physically attack someone.

[rngadam]

I'm afraid I don't quite grasp your point here. You don't think neighborhood black people might be pissed and embarrased by a gallery hanging a montage of neighborhood social pathologies in the front windows titled "Black Failures"? Or is your point that they shouldn't be embarrased because everyone knows this bad stuff anyway? It's a fairly critical distinction.

Are you misunderstanding on purpose? It is none of these things. What I said is that "Black Failures" is an invalid example because they are not true and would certainly be an awful thing to say in a decent society. On the other hand, those paintings depict something REAL, DOCUMENTED and widely condemned. That the latter would lead to people beating on other people is incredible.

[rngadam]

I'm not blaming the victim here, nor trying to make light of the incident; I'm just suggesting a little perspective and proportion.

Let me get this straight: if I punch my wife in the face, I'm not a wife-beater but just a wife-puncher?

I'll make sure to give that perspective to the officers when the cops come to lock me up! Hopefully the judge will make a "proportion"-al sentence.

[astro]

Does your theory of self-fault apply to any statements or displays, or only to art?

Because if it does, the next time I see someone supporting the war in Iraq, I'm opening up with a f*ing uzi. They're asking for it.

Theory. of . self . fault

Ah ... you mean my whimsical notion that people who deliver extremely provocative messages should take reasonable precautions for their own personal safety in delvering that message.

In this entire thread the, not necessarily related to your messages, but just as an overview of several of the responses, I have to admit that I am surprised by the notion that the right of freedom of expression is (or apparently should be) essentially detached from the responsibility of an individual (a gallery owner in this case) to take reasonable precautions in light of passions the art's message might stir in the viewing public.

If I display a painting of an Israeli armored division mowing down Palestinian civilians in the front window of a big city gallery, how long do you think it's going to be before someone is in my face or worse?

The people who attack artists (or gallery owners) are committing violent illegal acts and should be punished to the full extent of the law if they are caught and convicted, but this idea that the gallery owner has no responsibility at all in arriving at a place where they are being threatened is absurd. Whether the people who threatend and attacked her and the art are the worst kind of cultural Vogons or not, the fact remains that if you are going to go face to face with provocative stuff you need to watch your back. Why is this a news flash?

[Zagadka]

Ah ... you mean my whimsical notion that people who deliver extremely provocative messages should take reasonable precautions for their own personal safety in delvering that message.
"extremely provocative messages"? Like... WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?

Your America is a place where you can say whatever you want, as long as you don't mind having to defend yourself when people come to beat the crap out of you for saying it.


If I display a painting of an Israeli armored division mowing down Palestinian civilians in the front window of a big city gallery, how long do you think it's going to be before someone is in my face or worse?
Dunno, have Israeli armored divisions mowed down Palestinian civilians?

There is a difference between reporting and reflecting actual events and making up crazy crap to victimize people.

And yes, if you wanted to make a painting showing Israelis slaughtering Palestinians, you are more than welcome to. I don't live in a country where you can express yourself at significant risk of harm. Do you?

[bizzwire]

Let me get this straight: if I punch my wife in the face, I'm not a wife-beater but just a wife-puncher?

I'll make sure to give that perspective to the officers when the cops come to lock me up! Hopefully the judge will make a "proportion"-al sentence.

No. In my opinion, if, say, once, in twenty years of marriage, you punched your wife in the face, you would be an "asshole," but not necessarily a wife beater. If you routinely punched her on many occasions ("many" being, IMHO more than once), then yes, you would be a wife-beater.

But I think that you are missing my point. I am not condoning or absolving the act which I think is despicable, cowardly, lame, and most of all stupid and pointless. I hope that the stupid douchebag (who will doubtless have a "support our troops" bumper sticker on his vehicle) is nailed, sentenced, fined, jailed, and/or publicly humiliated. When I read the OP, I envisioned some poor artist repeatedly pummelled and thrashed to within an inch of her life for having the conviction to commit her opinions to public art, when the fact of the matter was much more prosaic.

it's a lot simpler than you think.

[astro]

Are you misunderstanding on purpose? It is none of these things. What I said is that "Black Failures" is an invalid example because they are not true and would certainly be an awful thing to say in a decent society. On the other hand, those paintings depict something REAL, DOCUMENTED and widely condemned. That the latter would lead to people beating on other people is incredible.

Y'know oddly enough I read your statement the way you just stated it above the first time I saw it, but I decided you had to mean something else, because your statement made absolutely no logical sense re my example re-stated below.

"If I hold a gallery opening in the middle of Watts titled "Black Failures", and assemble a multi-media showcase of dysfunctional, self harming behaviors by black people, am I supposed to shocked and stunned if someone puts brick through my window?"

So you're saying it's "not true" that some black people, in distressed neighborhoods engage in self harming, socially pathological behaviors that cause harm to themselves and others, and that an artistic statement representing this as a social criticism via art would not, and should not, be tolerated because it's "not true" and it's "an awful thing to say in a decent society".

You're right I must be mis-understanding you, because that makes no sense whatsoever. It is objectively true and self evident to any rational person that some black people, in distressed neighborhoods engage in self harming, socially pathological behaviors that cause harm to themselves and others. How this is empirically or objectively "not true" to you is a real stumper.

With respect to

On the other hand, those paintings depict something REAL, DOCUMENTED and widely condemned. That the latter would lead to people beating on other people is incredible

It may indeed be illegal, immoral and unethical, but given a reasonable estimation of emotional human nature and how strongly some people feel about perceived criticism of the troops it's hardly "incredible". In fact I find the hazard level involved in making or enabling an artistic statement like this be entirely credible and worthy of precautions.

[Evil Captor]

You can stand on free expression rights to the last degree allowed under the law, but in the real world there is no magical, protective force field that surrounds people who want to make or enable controversial or disturbing messages. If you expect to deliver a highly provocative message to people who may react emotionally and violently, you had best take sensible precautions for your own protection. If you don't you are simply being foolhardy.

What magical, protective force are YOU talking about? I'm talking about the COPS, a very real protective force, hunting down these guys via tried and true techniques, and sticking them in an actual jail with iron bars and everything for a year or two.

I'm saying that you SHOULD say to people, "You have EVERY right to freely express your opinion, and anyone who treats you violently for doing so can and will be arrested, fined, jailed, and called 1200 different kinds of asshole by the judge."

I agree, free speech is a perilous thing in the real world, but the societies worth living in make it as safe as they possibly can. A society whose response is "You should watch what you say around people" when someone is attacked is a piss-poor excuse for a society.

[flickster]

What magical, protective force are YOU talking about? I'm talking about the COPS, a very real protective force, hunting down these guys via tried and true techniques, and sticking them in an actual jail with iron bars and everything for a year or two.

I'm saying that you SHOULD say to people, "You have EVERY right to freely express your opinion, and anyone who treats you violently for doing so can and will be arrested, fined, jailed, and called 1200 different kinds of asshole by the judge."

I agree, free speech is a perilous thing in the real world, but the societies worth living in make it as safe as they possibly can. A society whose response is "You should watch what you say around people" when someone is attacked is a piss-poor excuse for a society.
You are not grasping the concept of taking proactive measures to protect yourself. The COPS will take reactive measures to try to bring whoever assaulted her to justice (as they should), but that's not going to prevent the violent response from happening (so they're not a very good magical protective force).

In a perfect world it would never happen, but as we all know this is not a perfect world.

[Zagadka]

You are not grasping the concept of taking proactive measures to protect yourself. The COPS will take reactive measures to try to bring whoever assaulted her to justice (as they should), but that's not going to prevent the violent response from happening (so they're not a very good magical protective force).

In a perfect world it would never happen, but as we all know this is not a perfect world.
So you're saying that everyone interested in expressing an opinion should pack more gats than a pimp in Compton?

[flickster]

So you're saying that everyone interested in expressing an opinion should pack more gats than a pimp in Compton?
I'll admit it - I had to do a little research on gats :confused:
But that's not what I've been saying at all. All I've been trying to say is that if you are going to be make a statement that a good % of ppl may find to be bold and provocative, then you should not be naive enough not to expect someone may make an equally bold response.

[Zagadka]

I'll admit it - I had to do a little research on gats :confused:
But that's not what I've been saying at all. All I've been trying to say is that if you are going to be make a statement that a good % of ppl may find to be bold and provocative, then you should not be naive enough not to expect someone may make an equally bold response.
A painting depicting a true event is "equally bold" as a punch to the face? I simply fail to see how merely expressing an opinion - on canvas, nonetheless - warrants physical violence. I was raised in a country with freedom of speech.

On a side note, I am somewhat surprised that this happened in San Francisco. The Bay Area isn't exactly conservative. I mean, it isn't Freedomtown, USA, but some pretty "liberal" stuff happens there, and there usually isn't much of a backlash.

[flickster]

None of us are saying the response was warranted, but under the circumstances I don't find it all that surprising.

Another angle that hasn't been mentioned (and I understand the natural assumption) is that the assault was in response to her removing the painting from the window. If you read the article linked in the OP, she was receiving heat for that as well. As I have already stated, I understand everyone's natural assumption going in the opposite direction but you know what assuming does.

[Zagadka]

None of us are saying the response was warranted, but under the circumstances I don't find it all that surprising.
Much like I was not surprised by 9/11, but everyone else seems to be?


Another angle that hasn't been mentioned (and I understand the natural assumption) is that the assault was in response to her removing the painting from the window. If you read the article linked in the OP, she was receiving heat for that as well. As I have already stated, I understand everyone's natural assumption going in the opposite direction but you know what assuming does.
Hm.


I think you need to get your gallery out of this neighborhood before you get hurt," one caller said.

She removed the painting from the window, but the gallery's troubles received news coverage and the criticism continued. The answering machine recorded new calls from people accusing her of being a coward for moving the artwork.

Last weekend, Haigh said a man walked into the gallery, pretended to scrutinize the painting for a moment, then marched up to her desk and spat in her face.

On Thursday, someone knocked on the door of the gallery, then punched Haigh in the face when she stepped outside.
I don't think it is quite fair to say "the assault was in response to her removing the painting." There were calls calling her a coward for removing it - OK. There were DEATH THREATS when it was up. Now, applying Occam's Razor, which scenario is more likely - the stoned hippie with dreds, or the mad Texan with 6-shooters?

[flickster]

I don't think it is quite fair to say "the assault was in response to her removing the painting." There were calls calling her a coward for removing it - OK. There were DEATH THREATS when it was up. Now, applying Occam's Razor, which scenario is more likely - the stoned hippie with dreds, or the mad Texan with 6-shooters?
While I can't rule out the possibility, I do agree that it not very likely. I'm just not going to assume without any evidence. The story does not give a description of the assailant (even though the victim must have been able to give one if she stepped outside to talk with them).

Wonder what Sharon Tate thought of the stoned hippies that visited her?

[Zagadka]

While I can't rule out the possibility, I do agree that it not very likely. I'm just not going to assume without any evidence. The story does not give a description of the assailant (even though the victim must have been able to give one if she stepped outside to talk with them).

Wonder what Sharon Tate thought of the stoned hippies that visited her?
Point taken. But they weren't very good hippies, they thought he was Jesus O_o

[borax]

Ah ... you mean my whimsical notion that people who deliver extremely provocative messages should take reasonable precautions for their own personal safety in delvering that message. OK so people should take care of themselves. Well that's obvious. But what does that have to do with the fact that the assaulter was a complete asshole?

Exactly what the debate is here has yet to be defined, but I fail to see your point.

You make it sound as the assaulter was bereft of choice, some animal that when provoked could only do what instinct told it to do. They made the choice to attack. In this instance it appears to even be pre-meditated since she had already taken it out of her window.

The displaying of paintings of news events in a window, would never in my mind constitute an act so provocative that an assault should be expected.

The people who attack artists (or gallery owners) are committing violent illegal acts and should be punished to the full extent of the law if they are caught and convicted, but this idea that the gallery owner has no responsibility at all in arriving at a place where they are being threatened is absurd. Well, I'm surprised that this painting elicited such a strong reaction, especially in San Francisco. Maybe in some backwater town where people don't have anything better to do I could see it. Perhaps you also expected newspaper editors to be threatened for publishing the photos of the abuse too? Maybe they were. Maybe people are so ingorant that I should expect it, but it would still be an outrage, and a completely unwarranted response.

[astro]

OK so people should take care of themselves. Well that's obvious. But what does that have to do with the fact that the assaulter was a complete asshole?

Exactly what the debate is here has yet to be defined, but I fail to see your point.

You make it sound as the assaulter was bereft of choice, some animal that when provoked could only do what instinct told it to do. They made the choice to attack. In this instance it appears to even be pre-meditated since she had already taken it out of her window.

The displaying of paintings of news events in a window, would never in my mind constitute an act so provocative that an assault should be expected.

Well, I'm surprised that this painting elicited such a strong reaction, especially in San Francisco. Maybe in some backwater town where people don't have anything better to do I could see it. Perhaps you also expected newspaper editors to be threatened for publishing the photos of the abuse too? Maybe they were. Maybe people are so ingorant that I should expect it, but it would still be an outrage, and a completely unwarranted response.

I think you need to read this entire thread as I have already responded to most of the questions you raise.

OK so people should take care of themselves. Well that's obvious. But what does that have to do with the fact that the assaulter was a complete asshole?

You statement here makes no sense. The main question I was addressing in my posts in this thread was the need for people who make provocative statements to take reasonable precations for self protection. That the attacker was being an asshole is sort of beside the point to that discussion.

You make it sound as the assaulter was bereft of choice, some animal that when provoked could only do what instinct told it to do. They made the choice to attack. In this instance it appears to even be pre-meditated since she had already taken it out of her window.

I don't think I have indicated in any way, shape or form that the attackers were "bereft of choice". My point was that it did not strain the boundaries of common sense or reasonable caution to imagine that a provocative, hot button artistic statement, with intense, high impact images might cause some people to make the "choice" to attack the messenger.

The displaying of paintings of news events in a window, would never in my mind constitute an act so provocative that an assault should be expected.

I think painting went beyond the category of simply being the equivalent of a newspaper current events paste up - From the OP's link

Guy Colwell's painting, titled "Abuse," depicts three U.S. soldiers leering at a group of naked men in hoods with wires connected to their bodies. The one in the foreground has a blood-spattered American flag patch on his uniform. In the background, a soldier in sunglasses guards a blindfolded woman.

While it is evident that the topic of the painting addresses the sadistic misbehavior of some of the prison troops, to some people, especially those who might be heavily emotionally invested in supporting the troops, the huge shame involved with US soliders behaving in this fashion is almost more than they can bear, and presenting this image in the context of a displayed gallery work, is in their minds, a blanket attempt to shame the US and the troops.

In this context, I think that displaying this painting could easily be expected to "constitute an act so provocative that an assault should be expected" and that reasonable precautions shuld have taken.

[borax]

I think painting went beyond the category of simply being the equivalent of a newspaper current events paste up - From the OP's link
One can see the painting in the background of the link. It's no more shocking or shameful than the actual photographs already published repeatedly in newspapers across the nation.

I don't know maybe it's just me, but I don't find the New York Times or CNN all that provocative.

While it is evident that the topic of the painting addresses the sadistic misbehavior of some of the prison troops, to some people, especially those who might be heavily emotionally invested in supporting the troops, the huge shame involved with US soliders behaving in this fashion is almost more than they can bear, and presenting this image in the context of a displayed gallery work, is in their minds, a blanket attempt to shame the US and the troops. What exactly is it about the "context of a displayed gallery work" that implies shaming the whole US?

The painting is not in itself provocative. The reaction to it was highly irrational and involved placing motives on the victim that were never clearly expressed.