lots of countries censor art. get over it.

if you dont want censorship then live in a country where there is none.

101 problematic jews

Put Hoopers portrait in the boat:1orglaugh

I can't stand many of the so-called anti-semitism remarks by Israel.
It's a clearly political strategy followed that only hurts Israel.


"Such fears have been fed by a recent poll that found 59 percent of Europeans consider Israel a threat to peace; statements by popular Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis calling Israel "the root of evil;" and November attacks on two synagogues in Turkey that killed 23 people, at least six of them Jews. "



Mikis Theodorakis made a statement last November on a speech regarding Israel. His exact words were: "Today we can say that this small country is on the root of evil" and not "Israel is the root of evil."

If you attempt to use Israel in your speeches and you happen to be popular you'll get attacked and labeled as anti-semitism. Reactions in this case came within few hours when the minister of foreign affairs of israel called Mikis as Hitler, a person that was nomitated for the nobel peach prize last decade...

Countries may censor art but they dont send people to other peoples country to throw loudspeakers at it :)

Are we talking about ART or self-expression?

I have never studied Picasso but I fail to see why non Spanish people would desire to destroy the painting, after all the people of Guernica were killed by no reason of their own - they were not terrorists or oppressors, they did no harm to anyone. From what understand Picasso wanted the painting to awaken the world to what was going on in Spain - and I believe it helped in doing just that.

How do you know?

Picasso: "While it is being done, it changes as one's thoughts change. And when it's finished, it goes on changing, according to the state of mind of whoever is looking at it."

Could it be the quote from the artist himself saying the asshole was out of line and misunderstood his work?

I dont have the quote on hand, but someone posted it in this thread and I read it online somwehere, the artist himself SAID IT DIDNt.

in a modern art exhibition that takes place in most EU countries and major US cities there's a photo of a cock that ejaculates on a christian cross. You should read reactions about this hehe

theres the quote.

so it was to call upon the attention to it the same way Picaso did with guernica, hense my comparison.

What's the difference?

also so you folks know.

the exhibit was focused on "GENOCIDE"

so the artist was only staying within the theme of the show, and obviously the curators appreciated the piece enough to carry it within the show.

the guy was out of line.... heres another good quote.

"Mr Feiler accused Mr Mazel of "going crazy like a soccer fan" who had harmed the cause of Israel."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/ixworld.html

I doesnt matter what the artist said, after all you can say anything after the fact - re the quote from Picasso - it matters only who is looking at it and what they see.

Bottom line is he was out of line.

You can look at it however you want.

the ONLY people that support his actions are Sharon and the like.

I dont see the Stockolhm art commity saying anything supporting his actions.

Just people like Sharon and Mazel. Whether they are Israeli, Jewish, or fucking African French people. He was out of line.

No way around it.

He acted like a little kid.

Is Genocide Art?

Lots?everyone has self-expression and is not an artist. Art?the artist has a visual gift to contribute to society (alive or dead). :)

the theme was actually "anti genocide" I would have loved to see this exhibit.

Feilers piece was supposed to be "ANTI-GENOCIDE"

and if you think about it, its a good piece, can understad it.

But politicians and war mongers do not understand art.

Dumbass, we're holding a forum on genoicde with politicians from all over the world, it was started mainly because of what happened to the jews during WWII so that it shall no be forgotten, and as Fletch XXX said this was the theme.

:thumbsup sweden ... a foreign diplomat behaving like that in another country at an art exhibit? then pat on the back from Sharon, fucking childish.

I dont give a shit if you are black, white, jewish, muslim, i only hate assholes. I dont judge one person because of their country or religion. So, i feel free to say, what this guy did was fucked up. Hell i bet half of Israel thinks it was stupid.

"But politicians and war mongers do not understand art."

Oh I think they do, some of them and when they see the facts laid out before them so simply they tend to freak out and kill more people. Denial only lasts so long as they realise the things for which they have fought makes them nothing more than a calculating murderer...

Watch...

One day Bush will snap...

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.

Hey folks.

One thing that is being overlooked and is being reported here:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/384385.html

check this quote:

"The Israeli envoy, an experienced diplomat, made clear to Haaretz that he had planned his protest ahead of time, after the director of the event refused his request to remove the exhibit. According to Mazel, "That's not art, it's abominable."

So all this talk of "he reacted" is bullshit.

he knew it was there, chose to go over to it and CHOSE to try and destroy it after his request for removal was not accepted.

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.

Yeah allright...politicians dont have any clue on how to manipulate and swerve public opinion - propoganda has nothing to do with understanding art or media.

"illegal art" :1orglaugh

All right - with logic like that, I know I'm done.

"respected exhibit and held with respect"

Seriously - have you been drinking?

you said graffiti, here in California thats illegal.

Arguing about art with some kid named Captain Canada, isnt my idea of a conversation.

Argue with yourself guy, you said graffitti, and thats the illegal art I spoke of.

no, the minister was just as entitled to paint a picture of him destroying it as the artist was his installation, otherwise in your trite analysis the artist is validated in breaking into the ministers home and smashing his tv set as an "expression" against his "expression".

Exactly, as I said, Mazel knew the piece was there. He could have protested and made a big event of "not going to the forum" because of the piece, or something like that.

Instead, he chose to go and deliberately tried to destroy it.

Its plain and simple.

he could have "protested" it in another way, but his ignorance got the best of him.

:winkwink:

Really? Not because her brother and uncle where killed by the IDF?

He reacted in a criminal way and should be put in prison, if anyone of us would've done the same thing we would be in prison now. If living in such an environment makes you a criminal, how exactly is it everyone else's fault? You don't see me appologizing for Saddam because his father tortured him.

Actually I was trying to be sarcastic - I dont feel that someone can do anything in the name of art - that was the point of my argument, surely the Ambassador was not taking an Artistic stand towards the art work.

As far as the artist breaking into the Ambassadors house - he could - but that would be illegal art. :Graucho

WTF??? His post was not anti-semite, as much as the article was not... You are mixing up things or are very confused...

I do some business here with people that have completely oposite point of vue of mine... that's business. I want them qualified, trustworthy and reliable.


You should revise your statment: it doesn't make you look good.

And BTW, I never did business with FletchXXX; maybe one day, because he is good.

:2 cents:

You are right - I am not trying to apologize for the Ambassador just stating that he lost control and acted on his emotion, something that I think is understandable on both sides.

Good Find FletchXXX

I'm sure its already been said (no sense reading this bullshit thread)
but my dear anti-semite, get a clue. I'm sure you've taken a shit and then demanded its protection by calling it art but intelligent people with a clue know its just shit in just the same way as you are.

Are we forgetting what civil disobedience is? Proper civil disobedience is nonviolent and doesn't harm anyone or their property.

It's like if there was a jewish cemetary and a group of nazis found that offensive. They could stand outside with signs as long as they didn't harass anyone or deface the cemetary. Going in and knocking over gravestones would be out of line.

What that stupid zionist did was going into the cemetary and knocking over a few tombstones.

I hate Israel. I hate Palestine. I'm not about to physically confront any jews or arabs over it.

good post.

and tomorrow is Martin Luther King day here in America ;)

As I said, him "planning his protest" ahead of time, gives him no validity for "acting on emotion"

He could have made more of a stink and stated in public that he would not attend this Genocide forum or the event because of an offending piece of work, thus drawing attention to it and creating a nonviolent, noncriminal form of protest.

Again as mentioned, instead he planned it, followed through and exectued a criminal act.

If it was any one of us, especially me that did that, Id be in jail tonight and probably catch a lot of shit over it.

Then to have him appluaded by his government for doing so, only makes the matter woprst.

This really has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine for me, its a question or art, and free speech.

especially you?

I am an enemy of society.

a thinker.

an atheist.

an anarchist.

Im sure theyd pull a Patriot Act on me and tie me to some local terrorist crap like http://www.raisethefist.com/index1.html since its within blocks of me and say I was over there trying to start more wars, or instigate a riot.

We all have a past, and I don't like cops, so Id just assume the worst.

Well at least you seem to have some good points :thumbsup

Understandable, yes perhaps. An act based on emotion I can accept that but the problem is that he refuses to appologize and refuses to see the piece as anything else but a propaganda tool against the Jews even though the author himself is Israeli and he stated publicly that that's not the intention of the piece. It's a way for the artist to represent the sad reality of the situation and I think it's pretty damn good.