Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Canada
Thats not the bottom line - it is only your opinion.
You are giving rights to the artist that you are taking away from the Ambassador - freedom of expression is a two way street - expression draws reaction - just because it involved the destruction of another persons property does not have to mean that it should be dismissed.
After all much art involves the destruction of other persons property - everything from Graffiti Art to much of performance art can rely on the destruction of eith public or private property to make a statement.
The bottom line changes depending on who is looking at it - you should know this, you have said that you studied art for three years - nothing is black and white, there is no bottom line.
|
You are comparing illegal art, to art that is in a respected exhibit and held with respect.
There is a difference.
anyway, im not arguing with you about this, other than Sweden feels he was out of line, and most of the world does too.
But Sharon and his government does not, so if Sweden was not offended I could see your point, but they are, so... Mazel will have to answer to someone about it, this alone proves he was out of line, as the rest of the world can clearly see, and thats the only real point I ever had.
he planned it, and knew it was there.
shame on him
he couldd have protested by not going to the exhibit, instead he diod so with the intention of destroying it.
not good.