Hopefully they would have received condemnation from everyone, no matter the political leanings. It was wrong and that's why she has apologized...more than certain presidents have done. I repeat myself here.
This is so wrong. It's awful. Trump's tweet is pretty awful as well if he mentions his son being upset just to get attention and his son has never seen it (that's my thoughts, so it certainly might not be true).
Everyone should be losing their shit over this. I'm not into the the whole "fire that person" etc crap that many seem to jump on whenever someone makes a mistake. But in this case, I do think she should be more accountable then just say "sorry". It's a legit threat against a sitting president. If other people's comments matter and they should be accountable for the idiots that mimic them or take it to the next level (and they should)....then she certainly should be held accountable as well.
No - the motivation does matter some...so in my opinion a picture of a hanging Obama is still worse than this.
In no way did I think an apology was enough. I knew it wouldn't end there and she'll be going through a lot because she made a very bad choice. One quote from the article by her made it obvious that she knew it was going to cause a huge uproar but she did it anyway. I think it's important to listen to our inner monologues and if you know it's going to upset people, why the hell do it? Something wrong there but at least she did apologize. That's an important thing in life too. Good to see you, Cincy.
Hey to you to Kat.
After thinking about it more, I wish we'd make this stuff more about the message then the person. I don;t care if she gets fired, etc....I want people to all understand how awful it is. And get rid of the stupid "it's art" argument. That does not give you a license to do whatever you want. So - I'm ok with her apology and wish it wouldn't impact her more as long as she is honest about her motivations for the apology. 1 stupid incident doesn't make a trend. But I'm not ok with "art" that shows the murder of specific....still living people.
How can you get rid of the "it's art" argument? Just because you're disgusted, that doesn't mean that argument isn't valid, or that that argument works on everything that offends people. I get that you're not okay with it (I also think it's stupid at best, and that Griffin did it makes it even more distasteful just because it's here), but that is actually completely irrelevant at all in the context of the freedom of expression argument. The "it's art" argument is completely valid where you like it or not.
I just think calling everything art is kinda lazy, and a very easy way of explaining away someone's distasteful actions. I don't consider it art if it's inciting hatred.
Who's calling everything art? I'm calling Griffin's photo shoot in particular art, not everything. Also, I don't think what she did incites hate at all. That is a very specific thing and has legal connotations, and that photo wasn't it.
it just seems today people think they can pick up a camera, or write something on a wall, anything they want, and hide behind the "it's art" shield when people get outraged.
Well.... art photography IS art. I don't think anyone has to use the "it's art" term as a shield. It just is. If it happens to work as a shield against people who think such a thing should be illegal, great, but it isn't a contrived or fake notion. I am not saying that people should not get outraged over art. Actually, I think it's GOOD when people are outraged by art. No matter how much you hate it, at least the art is doing its job. It is eliciting an emotional response. Isn't that what art is supposed to do? And sure, there are things that don't qualify as art. For instance, a swastika spray painted on a Church doesn't qualify. However, I think this photo very obviously does qualify. I don't think whether or not this is art is even logically up for debate. Everything about it screams photographic art. It was planned, arranged, thought out, sends a specific political message via a designed image, and it's stylized, light and shadow and colour are in play, etc. The fact that people are outraged and disgusted changes nothing.
I'm not equating outrage = not art. to me that's irrelevant. I'm just saying that not everything you put in a photo is art.
why can't the swastika symbol qualify? you do know that before it was co-opted by the nazis, that it was a symbol of peace and prosperity, right, and is used in many different cultures with many different but similarly positive meanings. so you are saying because the western world deems it offensive, then it can't be art?
Right... I'm not claiming that everything you put in a photo is art either, necessarily, but actually, if someone purposefully stages a photo, yeah, it is art.
Lol, if you want a swastika spray painted onto a synagogue to be art and ignore the context and instead talk about how a backwards swastika is a symbol of peace, fine. If it is, then burning a cross in front of a church is art too. Whatever. I'm just saying that the Griffin photo in particular is unarguably art. You seemed to be saying that if's not and suggested that calling it art was just a lazy and easy way to explain away a distasteful action. You also said that if it's inciting hatred you don't think it's art. Well, swastikas and burning crosses are hateful acts and based on racism and are specifically meant as a hate message against people of an entire ethnicity/religion. That is not even close to the same thing as someone making an artistic statement about a particular political figure. If the Griffin thing isn't art, then neither is Bu$hleaguer.
I never said synagogue, or burning crosses. You are arguing specifics and putting words in my mouth, while I am speaking generally. swastikas are hateful acts given the context. I never mentioned that specific context, you did.
is the griffin thing art? you say it is without question, I say it is debatable.
art is subjective, which means that nothing is "unarguably art".
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Hopefully they would have received condemnation from everyone, no matter the political leanings. It was wrong and that's why she has apologized...more than certain presidents have done. I repeat myself here.
This is so wrong. It's awful. Trump's tweet is pretty awful as well if he mentions his son being upset just to get attention and his son has never seen it (that's my thoughts, so it certainly might not be true).
Everyone should be losing their shit over this. I'm not into the the whole "fire that person" etc crap that many seem to jump on whenever someone makes a mistake. But in this case, I do think she should be more accountable then just say "sorry". It's a legit threat against a sitting president. If other people's comments matter and they should be accountable for the idiots that mimic them or take it to the next level (and they should)....then she certainly should be held accountable as well.
No - the motivation does matter some...so in my opinion a picture of a hanging Obama is still worse than this.
In no way did I think an apology was enough. I knew it wouldn't end there and she'll be going through a lot because she made a very bad choice. One quote from the article by her made it obvious that she knew it was going to cause a huge uproar but she did it anyway. I think it's important to listen to our inner monologues and if you know it's going to upset people, why the hell do it? Something wrong there but at least she did apologize. That's an important thing in life too. Good to see you, Cincy.
Hey to you to Kat.
After thinking about it more, I wish we'd make this stuff more about the message then the person. I don;t care if she gets fired, etc....I want people to all understand how awful it is. And get rid of the stupid "it's art" argument. That does not give you a license to do whatever you want. So - I'm ok with her apology and wish it wouldn't impact her more as long as she is honest about her motivations for the apology. 1 stupid incident doesn't make a trend. But I'm not ok with "art" that shows the murder of specific....still living people.
How can you get rid of the "it's art" argument? Just because you're disgusted, that doesn't mean that argument isn't valid, or that that argument works on everything that offends people. I get that you're not okay with it (I also think it's stupid at best, and that Griffin did it makes it even more distasteful just because it's here), but that is actually completely irrelevant at all in the context of the freedom of expression argument. The "it's art" argument is completely valid where you like it or not.
I just think calling everything art is kinda lazy, and a very easy way of explaining away someone's distasteful actions. I don't consider it art if it's inciting hatred.
Who's calling everything art? I'm calling Griffin's photo shoot in particular art, not everything. Also, I don't think what she did incites hate at all. That is a very specific thing and has legal connotations, and that photo wasn't it.
it just seems today people think they can pick up a camera, or write something on a wall, anything they want, and hide behind the "it's art" shield when people get outraged.
Well.... art photography IS art. I don't think anyone has to use the "it's art" term as a shield. It just is. If it happens to work as a shield against people who think such a thing should be illegal, great, but it isn't a contrived or fake notion. I am not saying that people should not get outraged over art. Actually, I think it's GOOD when people are outraged by art. No matter how much you hate it, at least the art is doing its job. It is eliciting an emotional response. Isn't that what art is supposed to do? And sure, there are things that don't qualify as art. For instance, a swastika spray painted on a Church doesn't qualify. However, I think this photo very obviously does qualify. I don't think whether or not this is art is even logically up for debate. Everything about it screams photographic art. It was planned, arranged, thought out, sends a specific political message via a designed image, and it's stylized, light and shadow and colour are in play, etc. The fact that people are outraged and disgusted changes nothing.
I'm not equating outrage = not art. to me that's irrelevant. I'm just saying that not everything you put in a photo is art.
why can't the swastika symbol qualify? you do know that before it was co-opted by the nazis, that it was a symbol of peace and prosperity, right, and is used in many different cultures with many different but similarly positive meanings. so you are saying because the western world deems it offensive, then it can't be art?
Right... I'm not claiming that everything you put in a photo is art either, necessarily, but actually, if someone purposefully stages a photo, yeah, it is art.
Lol, if you want a swastika spray painted onto a synagogue to be art and ignore the context and instead talk about how a backwards swastika is a symbol of peace, fine. If it is, then burning a cross in front of a church is art too. Whatever. I'm just saying that the Griffin photo in particular is unarguably art. You seemed to be saying that if's not and suggested that calling it art was just a lazy and easy way to explain away a distasteful action. You also said that if it's inciting hatred you don't think it's art. Well, swastikas and burning crosses are hateful acts and based on racism and are specifically meant as a hate message against people of an entire ethnicity/religion. That is not even close to the same thing as someone making an artistic statement about a particular political figure. If the Griffin thing isn't art, then neither is Bu$hleaguer.
I never said synagogue, or burning crosses. You are arguing specifics and putting words in my mouth, while I am speaking generally. swastikas are hateful acts given the context. I never mentioned that specific context, you did.
is the griffin thing art? you say it is without question, I say it is debatable.
art is subjective, which means that nothing is "unarguably art".
I'm not putting words in your mouth man. So why don't you try and explain why it was not art? And I completely disagree that nothing is unarguably art. Would you say that if someone tried to say that the Mona Lisa or the statue of David isn't art? I'd like to see you try.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Hopefully they would have received condemnation from everyone, no matter the political leanings. It was wrong and that's why she has apologized...more than certain presidents have done. I repeat myself here.
This is so wrong. It's awful. Trump's tweet is pretty awful as well if he mentions his son being upset just to get attention and his son has never seen it (that's my thoughts, so it certainly might not be true).
Everyone should be losing their shit over this. I'm not into the the whole "fire that person" etc crap that many seem to jump on whenever someone makes a mistake. But in this case, I do think she should be more accountable then just say "sorry". It's a legit threat against a sitting president. If other people's comments matter and they should be accountable for the idiots that mimic them or take it to the next level (and they should)....then she certainly should be held accountable as well.
No - the motivation does matter some...so in my opinion a picture of a hanging Obama is still worse than this.
In no way did I think an apology was enough. I knew it wouldn't end there and she'll be going through a lot because she made a very bad choice. One quote from the article by her made it obvious that she knew it was going to cause a huge uproar but she did it anyway. I think it's important to listen to our inner monologues and if you know it's going to upset people, why the hell do it? Something wrong there but at least she did apologize. That's an important thing in life too. Good to see you, Cincy.
Hey to you to Kat.
After thinking about it more, I wish we'd make this stuff more about the message then the person. I don;t care if she gets fired, etc....I want people to all understand how awful it is. And get rid of the stupid "it's art" argument. That does not give you a license to do whatever you want. So - I'm ok with her apology and wish it wouldn't impact her more as long as she is honest about her motivations for the apology. 1 stupid incident doesn't make a trend. But I'm not ok with "art" that shows the murder of specific....still living people.
How can you get rid of the "it's art" argument? Just because you're disgusted, that doesn't mean that argument isn't valid, or that that argument works on everything that offends people. I get that you're not okay with it (I also think it's stupid at best, and that Griffin did it makes it even more distasteful just because it's here), but that is actually completely irrelevant at all in the context of the freedom of expression argument. The "it's art" argument is completely valid where you like it or not.
I just think calling everything art is kinda lazy, and a very easy way of explaining away someone's distasteful actions. I don't consider it art if it's inciting hatred.
Who's calling everything art? I'm calling Griffin's photo shoot in particular art, not everything. Also, I don't think what she did incites hate at all. That is a very specific thing and has legal connotations, and that photo wasn't it.
it just seems today people think they can pick up a camera, or write something on a wall, anything they want, and hide behind the "it's art" shield when people get outraged.
Well.... art photography IS art. I don't think anyone has to use the "it's art" term as a shield. It just is. If it happens to work as a shield against people who think such a thing should be illegal, great, but it isn't a contrived or fake notion. I am not saying that people should not get outraged over art. Actually, I think it's GOOD when people are outraged by art. No matter how much you hate it, at least the art is doing its job. It is eliciting an emotional response. Isn't that what art is supposed to do? And sure, there are things that don't qualify as art. For instance, a swastika spray painted on a Church doesn't qualify. However, I think this photo very obviously does qualify. I don't think whether or not this is art is even logically up for debate. Everything about it screams photographic art. It was planned, arranged, thought out, sends a specific political message via a designed image, and it's stylized, light and shadow and colour are in play, etc. The fact that people are outraged and disgusted changes nothing.
I'm not equating outrage = not art. to me that's irrelevant. I'm just saying that not everything you put in a photo is art.
why can't the swastika symbol qualify? you do know that before it was co-opted by the nazis, that it was a symbol of peace and prosperity, right, and is used in many different cultures with many different but similarly positive meanings. so you are saying because the western world deems it offensive, then it can't be art?
Right... I'm not claiming that everything you put in a photo is art either, necessarily, but actually, if someone purposefully stages a photo, yeah, it is art.
Lol, if you want a swastika spray painted onto a synagogue to be art and ignore the context and instead talk about how a backwards swastika is a symbol of peace, fine. If it is, then burning a cross in front of a church is art too. Whatever. I'm just saying that the Griffin photo in particular is unarguably art. You seemed to be saying that if's not and suggested that calling it art was just a lazy and easy way to explain away a distasteful action. You also said that if it's inciting hatred you don't think it's art. Well, swastikas and burning crosses are hateful acts and based on racism and are specifically meant as a hate message against people of an entire ethnicity/religion. That is not even close to the same thing as someone making an artistic statement about a particular political figure. If the Griffin thing isn't art, then neither is Bu$hleaguer.
I never said synagogue, or burning crosses. You are arguing specifics and putting words in my mouth, while I am speaking generally. swastikas are hateful acts given the context. I never mentioned that specific context, you did.
is the griffin thing art? you say it is without question, I say it is debatable.
art is subjective, which means that nothing is "unarguably art".
I'm not putting words in your mouth man. So why don't you try and explain why it was not art? And I completely disagree that nothing is unarguably art. Would you say that if someone tried to say that the Mona Lisa or the statue of David isn't art? I'd like to see you try.
fine, it's art.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Hopefully they would have received condemnation from everyone, no matter the political leanings. It was wrong and that's why she has apologized...more than certain presidents have done. I repeat myself here.
This is so wrong. It's awful. Trump's tweet is pretty awful as well if he mentions his son being upset just to get attention and his son has never seen it (that's my thoughts, so it certainly might not be true).
Everyone should be losing their shit over this. I'm not into the the whole "fire that person" etc crap that many seem to jump on whenever someone makes a mistake. But in this case, I do think she should be more accountable then just say "sorry". It's a legit threat against a sitting president. If other people's comments matter and they should be accountable for the idiots that mimic them or take it to the next level (and they should)....then she certainly should be held accountable as well.
No - the motivation does matter some...so in my opinion a picture of a hanging Obama is still worse than this.
In no way did I think an apology was enough. I knew it wouldn't end there and she'll be going through a lot because she made a very bad choice. One quote from the article by her made it obvious that she knew it was going to cause a huge uproar but she did it anyway. I think it's important to listen to our inner monologues and if you know it's going to upset people, why the hell do it? Something wrong there but at least she did apologize. That's an important thing in life too. Good to see you, Cincy.
Hey to you to Kat.
After thinking about it more, I wish we'd make this stuff more about the message then the person. I don;t care if she gets fired, etc....I want people to all understand how awful it is. And get rid of the stupid "it's art" argument. That does not give you a license to do whatever you want. So - I'm ok with her apology and wish it wouldn't impact her more as long as she is honest about her motivations for the apology. 1 stupid incident doesn't make a trend. But I'm not ok with "art" that shows the murder of specific....still living people.
How can you get rid of the "it's art" argument? Just because you're disgusted, that doesn't mean that argument isn't valid, or that that argument works on everything that offends people. I get that you're not okay with it (I also think it's stupid at best, and that Griffin did it makes it even more distasteful just because it's here), but that is actually completely irrelevant at all in the context of the freedom of expression argument. The "it's art" argument is completely valid where you like it or not.
I just think calling everything art is kinda lazy, and a very easy way of explaining away someone's distasteful actions. I don't consider it art if it's inciting hatred.
Who's calling everything art? I'm calling Griffin's photo shoot in particular art, not everything. Also, I don't think what she did incites hate at all. That is a very specific thing and has legal connotations, and that photo wasn't it.
it just seems today people think they can pick up a camera, or write something on a wall, anything they want, and hide behind the "it's art" shield when people get outraged.
Well.... art photography IS art. I don't think anyone has to use the "it's art" term as a shield. It just is. If it happens to work as a shield against people who think such a thing should be illegal, great, but it isn't a contrived or fake notion. I am not saying that people should not get outraged over art. Actually, I think it's GOOD when people are outraged by art. No matter how much you hate it, at least the art is doing its job. It is eliciting an emotional response. Isn't that what art is supposed to do? And sure, there are things that don't qualify as art. For instance, a swastika spray painted on a Church doesn't qualify. However, I think this photo very obviously does qualify. I don't think whether or not this is art is even logically up for debate. Everything about it screams photographic art. It was planned, arranged, thought out, sends a specific political message via a designed image, and it's stylized, light and shadow and colour are in play, etc. The fact that people are outraged and disgusted changes nothing.
I'm not equating outrage = not art. to me that's irrelevant. I'm just saying that not everything you put in a photo is art.
why can't the swastika symbol qualify? you do know that before it was co-opted by the nazis, that it was a symbol of peace and prosperity, right, and is used in many different cultures with many different but similarly positive meanings. so you are saying because the western world deems it offensive, then it can't be art?
Right... I'm not claiming that everything you put in a photo is art either, necessarily, but actually, if someone purposefully stages a photo, yeah, it is art.
Lol, if you want a swastika spray painted onto a synagogue to be art and ignore the context and instead talk about how a backwards swastika is a symbol of peace, fine. If it is, then burning a cross in front of a church is art too. Whatever. I'm just saying that the Griffin photo in particular is unarguably art. You seemed to be saying that if's not and suggested that calling it art was just a lazy and easy way to explain away a distasteful action. You also said that if it's inciting hatred you don't think it's art. Well, swastikas and burning crosses are hateful acts and based on racism and are specifically meant as a hate message against people of an entire ethnicity/religion. That is not even close to the same thing as someone making an artistic statement about a particular political figure. If the Griffin thing isn't art, then neither is Bu$hleaguer.
I never said synagogue, or burning crosses. You are arguing specifics and putting words in my mouth, while I am speaking generally. swastikas are hateful acts given the context. I never mentioned that specific context, you did.
is the griffin thing art? you say it is without question, I say it is debatable.
art is subjective, which means that nothing is "unarguably art".
I'm not putting words in your mouth man. So why don't you try and explain why it was not art? And I completely disagree that nothing is unarguably art. Would you say that if someone tried to say that the Mona Lisa or the statue of David isn't art? I'd like to see you try.
fine, it's art.
What's with the 'tude? I am not saying any of this with a confrontational tone, if that's what you're thinking, lol. I seriously wanted to know why you think it's not art, if you still think that. But heh... lately you seem to have no interest in discussing things with me if I'm disagreeing with you, so never mind!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
is the griffin thing art? you say it is without question, I say it is debatable.
art is subjective, which means that nothing is "unarguably art".
-EV 8/14/93
So why don't you try and explain why it was not art? And I completely disagree that nothing is unarguably art. Would you say that if someone tried to say that the Mona Lisa or the statue of David isn't art? I'd like to see you try.
-EV 8/14/93