# Woman beaten for displaying paintings of Abuse in Iraq **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2004, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-beaten-for-displaying-paintings-of-abuse-in-iraq/247801 "2004-05-30T16:12:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-beaten-for-displaying-paintings-of-abuse-in-iraq/247801/41 "2004-05-31T17:24:25Z")
> [@borax](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![borax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/838e76/32.png) [@borax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borax)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-beaten-for-displaying-paintings-of-abuse-in-iraq/247801/42 "2004-05-31T18:47:27Z")
> [@astro](#): > > 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-beaten-for-displaying-paintings-of-abuse-in-iraq/247801.md?page=2)