Okay, so there was this art exhibit. It depicted Jesus "in a homosexual act". But we're America, right? We're not the Taliban! When people use their First Amendment rights to offend us, we defend their right to do so, even as we call their art trash, right?
Kathleen [Folden] heard of an “art” exhibit in Denver. This piece of ... ummm…“art” depicted Jesus engaged in a homosexual act. Kathleen thought to herself (I am mind paraphrasing here) “Oh no you didn’t. Not on my watch honey.”
So she put on her “tougher than nails” t-shirt and got in her truck. (I love that image) She drove the 690 miles to see the exhibit. She obtained her own art instruments, in this case a crowbar, and entered.
She broke the case with the crowbar and tore it to pieces saying “How can you desecrate my Lord?”
Now, the writer says that he does not support Kathleen's criminal act (btw, Kathleen, it's a fucking picture, not your omnipotent god. Get a grip.), but here's how he starts the article:
Bad. Shouldn’t do things like this. Bad. Not Funny.
Ok, maybe a little funny.
No, it's not funny at all, asshat. This is a civilized society and the laws apply equally to everyone. The First Amendment is for artists and for Christians and for everyone else. Laws against vandalism apply equally to us all. There's no special rules for offended Christians or less protection for provocative artists. Everyone. All of us. Created equal.
Not even a little bit funny.
It's subjective, obviously, but I disagree with you: it's a little funny.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I can't imagine the art being good; sounds more like someone who wanted to be controversial rather than artistic. There was a time in my life when controversy and art went hand-in-hand, but I've since graduated high school, and now look for a bit more subtlety (and even subjectivity).
Second, her reaction was obviously over the top.
So yeah, juvenile artist meets self-righteous theist. Watch the sparks fly. It's funny.
/$0.02
I was having this conversation with my 8 year old son Will about a TV show he likes (and I don't).
ReplyDeleteMe: The people on the show are not that smart and they do mean things to each other.
Will: That's what makes it funny.
Check and mate.
The thing is that the tragic often masquerades as funny. However, what the writer does is say, "Ooooo that is so wrong," and then gives the reader a wink (implying it's not that bad... maybe kinda good?). That's my problem with the article.
http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/2010/10/christocrat-party-platform.html
Read the comments under that article and you won't think it's so funny.
ReplyDeleteYou can see the actual crappy artwork here.
Brought to you by the same mentality that went after cartoonists lampooning Muhammed.... Except the cartoon were well done. :)
ReplyDeleteGoddammit Uzza, warn us before you link to pictures like that!
ReplyDeleteI don't care about the sexy, but you just did permanent damage to the art-appreciation section of my brain. That was 'orrible.
But it was still the artists property, and that makes what Ms Defender-Of-Poor-Ikkle-Jesus did wrong.
I'm with WEM, though: I can see the humour. It's not the happy-clapper humour the gigglers at the other link are going on about, though. It's the fact that some hick read about a piece of art, freaked out, drove 690 miles (that's more than 11 hours, paying for fuel along the way!) just to madly charge into an art gallery and smash it up.
Aftermath: she gets charged, the picture get's spammed all over the internet, and the artist and gallery get loads of free publicity. Now that's funny.
I love how easy it is for an uninvolved bystander to call the "art" in question "crap". Where's the link to your art portfolio? :)
ReplyDelete