View Full Version : Political Artwork appropriate?
KD6NIG
07-19-2005, 01:57 PM
Link (http://www.kxtv10.com/storyfull1.asp?id=12077)
This artwork is apparrantly hanging in the CA State Attorney Generals office.
Now, I don't agree with everything Mr. Bush has done in office, but is this an appropriate display in a State office?
Inquriring minds want to know.
KW4MW
07-19-2005, 02:18 PM
No.
w5klb
07-19-2005, 02:23 PM
What? Ahnold hasn't terminated this display? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
KA9VQF
07-19-2005, 02:28 PM
No, this guy needs hit with a stick.
n5tjd
07-19-2005, 02:36 PM
Not illegal and shouldn't be. BUT, it is childish and unprofessional. Also, how is that art? It looks like a little kid drew it while riding on a school bus on a very bumpy road. Ughh, all the yuppies have ruined art.
When you can't tell the difference between a modern art painting by a "famous" artist and a finger paint drawing by a monkey, maybe, just maybe we are useing the term "Art" a bit too liberally.
K8ERV
07-19-2005, 03:11 PM
No comment on the item, but the splash page has some nice-looking women.
TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
W5MJL
07-19-2005, 03:28 PM
That picture depicts the liberal definition of rallying around the flag.
w5klb
07-19-2005, 03:50 PM
No, it's an accurate display of where their ideas for America is going.
Maybe they are trying to tell us that they can be replaced by a toilet that flushes. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ July 19 2005,06:57)]This artwork is apparrantly hanging in the CA State Attorney Generals office.
Now, I don't agree with everything Mr. Bush has done in office, but is this an appropriate display in a State office?
Might be!
An official charged with enforcing the law must be reminded why he does so -- and not to go too far.
Of course, Bill Lockyer didn't mean it that way; he's a Democrat, and leans more toward Pierce's view of Washington than President Bush's view of California. #
However, a velvet Elvis is more "art" than this example of the polemic brush.
KE7DFP
07-19-2005, 05:20 PM
The state or anyone sponsoring has a right to censor any works deamed inappropriate, offense to some citizens, or not suitable for subsidy by the tax paying public. These works are in a "Jurored" show, which means the judge or judges have already censored many works and not allowed to be displayed. I can gaurantee that had someone submitted a painting done with technical mastery, and the subject matter was a proud Marine saluting the flag, it would have been censored. The fact is, our entire public funded Art program system is entirely taken over by (mostly) gay liberals. To the point that a white Heterosexual is severely discriminated against when it comes to the handing out of grants and public support. They've also decided that the purpose of art is to make a political statement, (guess who's politic statement). As someone who is a real artist and supports themself as such, I say, dump funding for the Arts, none of that money ends up for Art. To Artists I say, "Your a fiddler? Then Fiddler for your supoper." There will always be private sector support for arts that are worthwhile.
In the first place the painting isn't IN the Attorney Generals Office! Ya didn't read the article... It is in an exhibit:
Quote[/b] ]"It's part of an exhibit sponsored by "California Laywers for the Arts" that's just been unveiled in the cafeteria of the office building of Attorney General Bill Lockyer."
I don't think it is art, but then again I think it would make an excellent poster... might even sell a lot of them... a lot of folks agree with the idea the artist is presenting...
Anyway, I don't see holding the Attorney General responsible for some art show in the same building as his office... How narrow minded can we get here... That is sorta like holding me responsible for some neighbor having a Bush sign in their yard... I think it is in bad taste, but then it isn't MY yard... and it isn't HIS building... Just happens to be where his office is...
All this nit-picky crappola on both sides is really getting stupid...
but I DO like this exchange, kinda shows where each side wants things to be:
Quote[/b] ] "I'm sure that the Attorney General's office has some discretion as to whether or not they would hang artowrk that is obsolutely offensive to the gay and lesbian community or any artwork that would display violence towards women," said Karen Hanretty, a spokesperson for the California Republic Party. "I bet they wouldn't hang that in there. But they will hang artwork that is so blatantly offensive to our military and what we are doing in Iraq to fight a war on terrorism."
A spokesperson for Lockyer said the Attorney General is not in the business of censorship. "Of course, if someone were breaking the law by engaging in art by illegally discriminating against someone or committing a hate crime, well, then that's a crime," said Nathan Barankin. "But expressing your political views is not a crime, at least not yet until Karen Hanretty has her way."
w0aew
07-20-2005, 12:31 AM
Hanging a politician in the building would be more appropriate.
k5mke
07-20-2005, 03:18 PM
Hi All,
I take great offense at this, so-called art being displayed anywhere.
Mr. Bush has a great responsibility and task at hand. While I may not support the "lack"of ALL of "W's" policies, (envronment, ethical treatment of Native Americans, energy policy, lack of proper medical care for all), I do support his efforts in trying to remove terrorist threats from our shores.
If the artist doesn't like it here, maybe we can get up a collection for a one-way trip to North Korea, France, Germany, maybe? He could make tons of $$$ selling his artwork there.
I support our troops, no matter WHERE they are in the World, protecting us and those countries we're in. May GOD bless them and keep them safe home.
Respectfully,
73,
Buck/K5~MKE
That's a crappy painting.
KC2HJN
07-21-2005, 11:44 PM
Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ July 19 2005,19:31)]Hanging a politician in the building would be more appropriate.
Best answer yet!
n0jaa
07-22-2005, 01:02 AM
The guy is expressing his opinion. Whether you agree with his opinion or not is irrelevant.
MKE, if you take great offense at this guy's artwork, then you have a clear choice... don't look at it.
As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue.
Paul, N0JAA.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif