Attack on piece of art at the Museum of History in Stockholm
- Thread starter horvendile
- Start date
Isn't the museum government funded?
Partly, but not entirely. But it's not like the government sat down together and chose the exibitions. The museum gets a budget, and that's it. Then it's up to the museum to use the money as it see it fit. The responsibility for this is on the museum and the artist, and not the government as they have absolutely no control of what art is presented.
Yes, it was in bad taste, but it doesn't justify what the ambassador did. We got freedom of speech. The ambassador has to respect that like everyone else, regardless if he likes it or not. If he don't, he has his freedom to express his deprecation. As an official represenatative of his country it should be even more important.
Yes, it was in bad taste, but it doesn't justify what the ambassador did. We got freedom of speech. The ambassador has to respect that like everyone else, regardless if he likes it or not. If he don't, he has his freedom to express his deprecation. As an official represenatative of his country it should be even more important.
It was life-threatening the short circuit in the pool. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1125679,00.html
Bad taste or not the ambassador had no right to do it.
Bad taste or not the ambassador had no right to do it.
How would the responses change if the 'art' in question had the tables turned?(glorifying Jewish settlers that killed palestinian activists)
If the Israeli government bought/funded the piece, then they can destroy it. Until then it's someone else's property.
It's just as easy to turn the table back against them.
How would they like it if someone from Sweden went over to Israel and destroyed a piece of art in their museum on the pretense that it offended them?
Sounds like a PR move to me.
It's just as easy to turn the table back against them.
How would they like it if someone from Sweden went over to Israel and destroyed a piece of art in their museum on the pretense that it offended them?
Sounds like a PR move to me.
You know what, I'm going to go burn all my ABBA CDs in protest over this. Oh, wait, should I really publically admit owning those?? :?
This is why the government should not fund museums, build stadiums, subsidize art, or anything of that nature. Best to let the people fund it privately - all this nastiness would be avoided.
While the Palestinians who are Islamist freaks drive me crazy probably none of you (unlike me) have had the bitter experience of being chased off your land by foreign invaders. Living like a serf in only a slice of the land your family has lived under for millenia does produce the will to kill the "innocents" who have taken your country from you without so much as a drip of remorse or shame - and in fact celebrate the complete annihilation of the indigenous people of their so-called "country" as if it's something to be god damn fucking proud of.
It's just a bitter, cruel shame that not everyone has the iron will to fight and die as the Palestinians have.
While the Palestinians who are Islamist freaks drive me crazy probably none of you (unlike me) have had the bitter experience of being chased off your land by foreign invaders. Living like a serf in only a slice of the land your family has lived under for millenia does produce the will to kill the "innocents" who have taken your country from you without so much as a drip of remorse or shame - and in fact celebrate the complete annihilation of the indigenous people of their so-called "country" as if it's something to be god damn fucking proud of.
It's just a bitter, cruel shame that not everyone has the iron will to fight and die as the Palestinians have.
horvendile
Regular
akira888 said:
Sabastian said:
What on earth makes you believe that? Unless, of course, that is how you define good art.
There is much I could say about what has been written in this thread. For now I'll make do with:
I still completely fail to see how this art piece (is it called "installation" in English?) glorifies suicide bombers. I admit that if you choose to look at only parts of it it can be interpreted that way but that would be a case of, as it were, the devil reading the Bible.
Yes, there are indications that antisemitism is up in Europe. In Sweden that is noticed as an increase in antisemitic web pages (not anything else so far, thankfully). It is however extremely important to see the difference between criticism against Israel and antisemitism. (Note: I am no longer talking about this, er, installation.) Sharon and his government systematically call all critics antisemites, which is not only intellectually dishonest but also quite disgusting. The holocaust was one of the worst crimes ever and aimed directly against the Jews (and a few other groups). There is no denying that, but that does not lead to Israel having the right to do whatever it wishes - or even pretending to speak for all Jews. It must be allowed to criticise a state without being accused of antisemitism.
akira888 said:
I don't see how that would change anything. Why wouldn't this thing go up just because it was privately funded? In fact, with private funding the interest in public fuzz about the art becomes even more important. Right after this come on the news it seems just about everyone just had to go to the museum and see the thing themselves.
RussSchultz said:
For me no change.
1 - Is it a good art? No, for me is very bad taste
2 - Is it anti-semite? Probably not, specially when you see that one of the artists is Israeli born.
3 - Could it be ofensive? Yes, depending on your viewpoint.
4 - Should the ambassador complain? Probably yes, he should discuss the points with museum director and expose his indignity.
5 - Should the ambassador try to destroy it like he did? No, it was dangerous and promoted worldwide this piece of 'art'.
Ambassadors are supposed to be cool head.
Now if you allow someone destroy art then maybe they will start to burn books, censor everything, attack websites
IMHO some minimal Caos should be allowed in society in the form of freedom of speech.
I guess nobody quite caught on to the mirror image question I was posing.
How many people would be outraged if it were a PA member that destroyed a piece of Jewish art glorifying the death of palestinians?
My guess is, there'd be a lot of apologists on this board rather than the same condemnation we're getting now.
But, thats just my guess.
How many people would be outraged if it were a PA member that destroyed a piece of Jewish art glorifying the death of palestinians?
My guess is, there'd be a lot of apologists on this board rather than the same condemnation we're getting now.
But, thats just my guess.
You're right.pascal said:
horvendile said:
Couldn't agree more. Living in the American midwest it reminds me of how quick people are to label you unpatriotic and/or unAmerican if you criticize the president or his policies.
I don't think criticism is a problem, in general. But, when the only thing that comes out of your mouth is criticism at the cost of logic, then it borders on 'ism'.
That Israel can end up at the top of a poll as being the greatest threat to world peace ahead of Al Qaeda is a strong indication that a great number of somebody's moral compasses are askew.
That Israel can end up at the top of a poll as being the greatest threat to world peace ahead of Al Qaeda is a strong indication that a great number of somebody's moral compasses are askew.
Similar threads
