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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
I’ll admit it - I had to do a little research on gats
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.
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.
Much like I was not surprised by 9/11, but everyone else seems to be?
Hm.
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?
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.
