• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-Bush Drawing Called 'Hate Speech'

Grammatron

Philosopher
G
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
5,444
From the article:
An award-winning drawing blaming President Bush for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was pulled from a small-town exhibit over "insurance issues" after a businessman withdrew his $300 prize and called the piece a form of "hate speech."

Artist Chuck Bowden's drawing, "The Tactics of Tyrants Are Always Transparent," won second place in the Redwood Art Association's annual fall exhibit, held earlier this month in Eureka, Calif. In the 11-inch-by-14-inch drawing, a crown and halo-topped Bush stands on a grave, his hand dripping with blood as bodies fall to the ground from the World Trade Center towers in the distance.
Click to expand...

To me this looks like a ploy for a failed artist to get attention so he can make some money. Perhaps conspiracy theory market is more lucrative than I ever thought it was.
 
Yes, it sounds similar to the talentless buffoon who did the piss Christ...
 
The three posts above are classic totalitarian support for suppression of political speech.

Can't say that there's much more here.
 
jj said:
The three posts above are classic totalitarian support for suppression of political speech.

Can't say that there's much more here.
Click to expand...

Hmm... this post is classic totalitarian support for suppression of free speech.
 
Nasarius said:


I'm not an artist, though my fiancee is, so I've picked up some things from her. I'd say those are some rather good human figure drawings.
Click to expand...

I agree that the art isn't bad, which is why my comments were not directed to his art but what he had written in those two links. One about the love of his art and it not being about the money followed by his new price range
 
jj said:
The three posts above are classic totalitarian support for suppression of political speech.

Can't say that there's much more here.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Where did I say anything about his political speech? Try reading and clicking on the links before making assumptions.
 
How is this a suppression of free speech? One guy who didn't like it withdrew and started complaining about it. Doesn't HIS right to free speech (and his right not to pay for things he doesn't like) support his actions here?

That's the thing about freedom...it goes both ways.
 
shanek said:
How is this a suppression of free speech? One guy who didn't like it withdrew and started complaining about it. Doesn't HIS right to free speech (and his right not to pay for things he doesn't like) support his actions here?

That's the thing about freedom...it goes both ways.
Click to expand...

The businessman pledged a prize.

Then the businessman withdrew the prize, based on the submitted artwork.

Neither of us know if that businessman had an agreement where he got to judge the artwork and decide to withdraw his prize depending on what he saw.

That is an unusual, although probably not nonexistant, kind of agreement.

You would seem to suggest that the businessman is fully free to withdraw his prize at any time and place, and you appear to be equating that to freedom. Neither you nor I have in any fashion indicated that either of us knows the rules by which the prize was provided, the article does not indicate the situation, yet you have decided that regardless of any such agreement, the businessman is fully justified in withdrawing his offer, unlaterally.

While we do not know the businessman's agreement involving the prize, you appear to have decided that in the name of "freedom" this businessman is free to withdraw his prize regardless of the situation.

Is that in fact your position? Do you argue that in the name of freedom that the businessman should always, regardless of agreement, be allowed to withdraw his/her prize?

Do tell, shanek, do tell.
 
Troll said:


I agree that the art isn't bad, which is why my comments were not directed to his art but what he had written in those two links. One about the love of his art and it not being about the money followed by his new price range
Click to expand...

I presume, then, that you did not intend for your original article to look otherwise? (At least to me, of course.)
 
jj said:


I presume, then, that you did not intend for your original article to look otherwise? (At least to me, of course.)
Click to expand...

Like I said, I merely commented on the guy's mind from the two views he posted that I linked to. Not his art or his views pertaining to politics or world events.
 
jj said:
Neither of us know if that businessman had an agreement where he got to judge the artwork and decide to withdraw his prize depending on what he saw.
Click to expand...

True, but even if the agreement specified otherwise, we have a breach of contract, but it's still not a restriction of free speech.
 
shanek said:


True, but even if the agreement specified otherwise, we have a breach of contract, but it's still not a restriction of free speech.
Click to expand...
Absoutely true...If a TV station or an art gallery or anyone else either refuses to show my stuff or decides to stop halfway through thats just tough luck.....Its not as if they are dragging me off the street and preventing me from saying something in a public place. Of course, this does not mean that the TV station or gallery cannot be accused of acting badly.
 
The Fool said:

Absoutely true...If a TV station or an art gallery or anyone else either refuses to show my stuff or decides to stop halfway through thats just tough luck.....Its not as if they are dragging me off the street and preventing me from saying something in a public place. Of course, this does not mean that the TV station or gallery cannot be accused of acting badly.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the guy wasn't being a total jerk. I'm just refuting jj's notion that "the three posts above are classic totalitarian support for suppression of political speech" when all they were doing was exercising their political speech.
 
shanek said:


I'm not saying the guy wasn't being a total jerk. I'm just refuting jj's notion that "the three posts above are classic totalitarian support for suppression of political speech" when all they were doing was exercising their political speech.
Click to expand...

I agree, The art contained a political statement so it leaves itself open to political statements in reply...... If people attempt to supress it rather than reply to it then they can justifiably be accused of attempting to supress political opinion. If you control a forum or information outlet you can regulate what is allowed to be expressed but also be critisized for whatever regulation you do. You can also be critisized for supporting what the forum owner does too which (I think) is what JJ was getting at....
 
BTox said:
Yes, it sounds similar to the talentless buffoon who did the piss Christ...
Click to expand...

Talentless buffoon?http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502.html

I believe one of the roles of Art in society is to trigger the exact sort of contoversy and debate that Serrano, with Piss Christ, did so effectively.

It showed, for example, that a church in Australia, by making a few phone calls, can close down an exhibition in a major public gallery. Is that a good Idea?
 
shanek said:


True, but even if the agreement specified otherwise, we have a breach of contract, but it's still not a restriction of free speech.
Click to expand...

Agreed, if that's the case it's an ethical lapse.

You appeared to be suggesting that free speech should allow a lapse of ethics. I'm glad you didn't mean that.

To be clear, the guy who offered the prize is welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to say "why, what a total bit of dia*9789 ***t, that's the most &**(&^ thing I've ever seen, heard, or imagined". That's speech.

His action in withdrawing the prize is the issue. The articles that appear to be ripping into the artist on issues unrelated to his art, of course, are also an issue.

The question is not one of free speech, one is free to speak in a way that may be intended to suppress someone else, or at least there is no possibility of prior restraint...
 
The Fool said:

Absoutely true...If a TV station or an art gallery or anyone else either refuses to show my stuff or decides to stop halfway through thats just tough luck.....Its not as if they are dragging me off the street and preventing me from saying something in a public place. Of course, this does not mean that the TV station or gallery cannot be accused of acting badly.
Click to expand...

Unless there is some implied or expressed contract, yes?

I could certainly be wrong, but it would seem to me that advertising a prize is at least implying some kind of compensation for the winner...

The issue here is not that the guy didn't like it...

He made a political statement by withdrawing the prize, but does the fact that the withdrawal was part of a political statement justify the withdrawal, and/or when and if would it do so?
 
jj said:


Unless there is some implied or expressed contract, yes?

I could certainly be wrong, but it would seem to me that advertising a prize is at least implying some kind of compensation for the winner...

The issue here is not that the guy didn't like it...

He made a political statement by withdrawing the prize, but does the fact that the withdrawal was part of a political statement justify the withdrawal, and/or when and if would it do so?
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree, he can be held accountable for his actions but withdrawing a prize is s possible breach of contract and probably a civil offence so he is only subject to the possibility of civil action which he will have to deal with when, and if, it ever happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom