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.