|
|
Post by goz on Jan 16, 2019 22:23:39 GMT
Oh, but rest assured, they're not snowflakes...their revulsion and angst is righteous indignation, they have, you know, to defend their God at all costs. Because their God is also a snowflake. From that article I have chosen this quote to discuss mainly because it has the word 'disrespectful' in it which summaries some points from all the disciplines we studied in this Art Course. It could be asserted that the artwork combines an archetypal Western icon of Ronald McDonald representing capitalism, on the cross of the religious Jesus in juxtaposition to the commonly venerated icon by Christians, exhibited in Israel and objected to ( named disrespectful) in certain conservative quarters. Fascinating. Further the idea of 'disrespect' in presenting artworks or in broader sense words, icons films etc etc is what is interesting to me. Just as I don't believe in 'blasphemy' I recognise it as a deeply held tenet of many religions, I view the freedom of thought and expression ( including visual ) to be a greater freedom, as it usually comes down to an honest 'difference of opinion'. The very FACT that religious people see their icons/symbols and tenets as above and beyond comment, reproach or criticism, is what really worries me. Remember the whole Salmon Rushdie thing? the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy and Christians are no better it seems.
I don't deny that there are times when respect is required....ironically the example that comes to mind is a 'Christian' group Why do Christians have a monopoly on the use of crucifixion in imagery? Jesus of Nazareth was not the only person (allegedly) crucified. I could answer this facetiously as is my wont ( "as is my habit (or custom)" however Christians have a long history of accepted iconography Symbols in art and society are used to translate simply the messages of Christianity and obviously to the uneducated, and give an instant pre-established meaning. They are still very powerful in the current economic use of commercial 'logos'. I could research how this came about butt Christian iconography is not my bag, however in our study of religious art, we learned about the many uses of symbolism that were accepted over time in both religious study and the artwork of all kinds that resulted and still remain in the Christian ( and particularly Catholic Church ) iconography
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jan 16, 2019 22:23:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 16, 2019 22:30:15 GMT
'Some people are such arrogant 'princesses'! In the scheme of things what does it matter that artists portray things that against their personal establishment?
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jan 16, 2019 22:31:14 GMT
Christians have a long history of accepted iconography Symbols in art and society are used to translate simply the messages of Christianity and obviously to the uneducated, and give an instant pre-established meaning. They are still very powerful in the current economic use of commercial 'logos'. I could research how this came about butt Christian iconography is not my bag, however in our study of religious art, we learned about the many uses of symbolism that were accepted over time in both religious study and the artwork of all kinds that resulted and still remain in the Christian ( and particularly Catholic Church ) iconography Accepted by them doesn't mean that everyone else must also accept their associations. It would be different if the McJesus statue had "INRI" written on the cross, or the title was something like "Ronald McDonald of Nazareth." My personal feeling is that people should avoid making statements that they know will upset other people--to the extent that that upset is not based on the bigotry of the person who is likely to get upset. While I support freedom of political speech generally, I don't think an absolute right to freedom of expression should extend to certain forms of hate speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 16, 2019 22:39:47 GMT
Photo of the painting at link.
I relish the word ' affront' especially to Catholics! GozTrivia. I have been to Poland and see an original Black Virgin in the Cathedral...Black Madonna of Czestochowa.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 16, 2019 22:50:53 GMT
Christians have a long history of accepted iconography Symbols in art and society are used to translate simply the messages of Christianity and obviously to the uneducated, and give an instant pre-established meaning. They are still very powerful in the current economic use of commercial 'logos'. I could research how this came about butt Christian iconography is not my bag, however in our study of religious art, we learned about the many uses of symbolism that were accepted over time in both religious study and the artwork of all kinds that resulted and still remain in the Christian ( and particularly Catholic Church ) iconography Accepted by them doesn't mean that everyone else must also accept their associations. It would be different if the McJesus statue had "INRI" written on the cross, or the title was something like "Ronald McDonald of Nazareth." My personal feeling is that people should avoid making statements that they know will upset other people--to the extent that that upset is not based on the bigotry of the person who is likely to get upset. While I support freedom of political speech generally, I don't think an absolute right to freedom of expression should extend to certain forms of hate speech. I disagree. 'Upsettedness' like beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder butt in the control of the beholder. There is nothing 'intrinsic' about speech or artwork or meaning that is TOTALLY universal. It is always open to interpretation and that is in the hands of the viewer/hearer. You are ignoring the FACT that many forms of speech, books and artworks have changed views over time and a reformatory. If it doesn't make a point, evil things at times cannot be overturned. Just look at the iconography of the Nazi Swastika ( I fully accept the accusation of Godwin's Law here btw) In the hands of the neo-Nazis it has a different meaning to those who want to prevent the Nazis rising again, using the same iconography. ie It has to be interpreted and placed in context. Artworks can be the same, and indeed some are INTENDED to shock and teach a lesson that is broader than the iconography itself as viewed by the mainstream 'owners' of that iconography. That is the power of what has happened here and it is artwork and progressive philosophies that head up 'modern' and cutting edge thinking.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jan 17, 2019 2:59:24 GMT
It has to be interpreted and placed in context. This is one of the points I was making. A graffito of a Nazi swastika displayed painted on the wall of a synagogue or a Holocaust museum is unambiguous in its intent as hate speech. And especially so if it is accompanied by threatening or disaparing disparaging language. A swastika displayed at the threshold of a Hindu home or on a Buddhist statue is almost certainly not intended to be hate speech. Communication is not a one-way street, with the entire onus on the person who is hearing or otherwise perceiving the message. Part of the responsibility lies with the person who is making the statement. That's why their intent matters. My view is that speech or imagery that is used with unambiguously hateful intent against people on the basis of class such as ethnicity or gender should not be afforded the protection of free expression due to political speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 6, 2019 21:30:54 GMT
Its disgusting Shithead spears did the samethong. Modern art is often intended to be controversial. That is an integral part of its form and function.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Apr 6, 2019 23:13:01 GMT
As I understand it, there were good people on both sides.
|
|
