More examples of 'art', from our friends over in England.

 

 

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=410542005]

 

I would kill this guy. My first new car got keyed 2 weeks after I got it. That bugged me for years!

I have a big problem with artwork being investigated by federal authorities. It creates a chilling effect towards the exercise of free expression. And those who believe in democracy and American ideals that we hold dear ought to have a problem with it too.

 

I think there is a difference in investigating and taking inappropriate action. I believe the secret service has a responsibility to investigate any perceived threats to the President to determine if it is a threat or not. Calling it art, does not exempt it from any laws. I do not believe this is a threat, so the feds should look, shake their heads, laugh, get mad, cry, fall to their knees, or any emotional response they like.

 

I can easily see this as art. While it doesn't exactly peg the creativity gage and seems rather sophomoric at best, it does elicit an emotional response, both positive and negative, and I believe art should. The fact that the artist has people here questioning his work, discussing it, arguing it's merits, is victory for the artist.

 

The harshest criticism of an artist is to say nothing, to feel nothing.

I think an art exhibit picturing a fake stamp with a portrait of a president with a portrait of a gun to his head would not actually be a perceived threat. Or maybe I'm wrong.

I think an art exhibit picturing a fake stamp with a portrait of a president with a portrait of a gun to his head would not actually be a perceived threat. Or maybe I'm wrong.

 

I think the Secret Service is right to at least check into it to see if its a threat.

Edited April 20, 200520 yr by YASNY

More examples of 'art', from our friends over in England.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=410542005]

 

I would kill this guy.  My first new car got keyed 2 weeks after I got it. That bugged me for years!

 

It may be art, but the thing about art is that it gives you the choice in participating. Keying cars without the owners approval is not a choice. He should be tossed in jail and made to pay for the repairs.

 

As for the stamp...again, it is choice of participation. As Texsox said, the fact that there is discussion and the secret service is investigating is a win for the artist. You don't like it, don't talk about it and don't see it. You have that right and that choice.

Being a student of that college, most of those people need a swift kick in the ass in terms of politcs. They have an extreme liberal outlook on things and act as if the United States breaches on every human right they have. It makes me sick sitting in class and having a discussion about the U.S. Goverment. Some of the kids just don't get a damn thing. Granted, I'm not saying Bush is a savior or anything remotely close, but to say "The Axis of Evil"? Bull s***.

I think the Secret Service is right to at least check into it to see if its a threat.

Just to clarify, Don't you mean

 

I think the Secret Service is right to at least check into it to see if the artist is a threat.

I don't think anyone would say the picture is a threat?

Just to clarify, Don't you mean

 

I think the Secret Service is right to at least check into it to see if the artist is a threat.

I don't think anyone would say the picture is a threat?

 

"Its" is refering to whole incident or scenario.

I have a big problem with artwork being investigated by federal authorities. It creates a chilling effect towards the exercise of free expression. And those who believe in democracy and American ideals that we hold dear ought to have a problem with it too.

 

 

then you should have no problem with my paintings of Kevin Spacey and Nathan Lane with the caption "Global extermination: I hate f**s"

 

I think it's probably not a bad idea for the feds to make a little stop at this "artists" place and encourage him to think before he paints.

then you should have no problem with my paintings of Kevin Spacey and Nathan Lane with the caption "Global extermination: I hate f**s"

 

That just makes you an asshole, not investigation worthy.

still no responses about the Mayor Washington picture that chiacgo aldermen just ripped off the wall... no investigation... no nothing.. they didn't like it so down it came... they are hiding the truth that the great mayor harold was actually found dead in womens underwear of a cocaine overdose...

I feel even more embarrassed with the fact that the I went to the college in question. Definitely not art. Pure, plain stupidity. You may have opinions about our President but having something like that is not funny at all.

I feel even more embarrassed with the fact that the I went to the college in question.  Definitely not art.  Pure, plain stupidity.  You may have opinions about our President but having something like that is not funny at all.

 

 

Where was it stated that the intentions of the artist were humorous?

Edited April 22, 200520 yr by Wong & Owens

By that rational, he has the right to make idiotic statments (and I'm not saying that's what it as) due to the fact the constituation backs him on doing so, therefore you shouldn't have the right to refute or speak out against his statement.

 

Not sure what I just said? I'll reword it: It's somewhat like saying a person has the right to create this picture of our President with a gun to his head but the law does not have the right to investigate it.

 

It's no different than you questioning his 'statement'. The law is simply questioning it's hidden intent (if any such intent exists).

 

 

 

 

I don't care whether anyone thinks it's art or not.  You were not stating an opinion when you say--"I know it's certainly not art" and that is what I called an idiotic statement.  Not your opinion.

One small detail a lot of people who spew freedom and constitutional rights in this country seem to miss.

 

Freedom and Anarchy are two different things.

 

Freedom gives you the right to live as a law abiding citizen under the flag of a countries protection. It does not give you the right to speak whever you want. It does not give you the right to do whatever you want.

 

Anarchy is the right to do whatever you want, including murder, rape, and general destruction of all mankind.

 

Freedom sounds better, even if it's not the freedom we often think of.

 

-y2

By that rational, he has the right to make idiotic statments (and I'm not saying that's what it as) due to the fact the constituation backs him on doing so, therefore you shouldn't have the right to refute or speak out against his statement.

 

Not sure what I just said?  I'll reword it:  It's somewhat like saying a person has the right to create this picture of our President with a gun to his head but the law does not have the right to investigate it.

 

It's no different than you questioning his 'statement'.  The law is simply questioning it's hidden intent (if any such intent exists).

 

 

Can't understand a word.

One small detail a lot of people who spew freedom and constitutional rights in this country seem to miss.

 

Freedom and Anarchy are two different things.

 

Freedom gives you the right to live as a law abiding citizen under the flag of a countries protection.  It does not give you the right to speak whever you want.  It does not give you the right to do whatever you want.

 

Anarchy is the right to do whatever you want, including murder, rape, and general destruction of all mankind.

 

Freedom sounds better, even if it's not the freedom we often think of.

 

-y2

 

You might want to try getting your definitions straight. Anarchy is, by definition, the lack of government. Murder, rape, revelations, et al have nothing to do with anarchy. If I lived in a place with no government, I can assure you I would not suddenly embark on a killing spree or rape binge.

 

Freedom and Anarchy are two different things, but so are apples and ferris wheels. To quote Will Ferrell's impersonation of Harry Caray when asked if he had been dead for a couple years-- "What's your point?"

One small detail a lot of people who spew freedom and constitutional rights in this country seem to miss.

 

Freedom and Anarchy are two different things.

 

Freedom gives you the right to live as a law abiding citizen under the flag of a countries protection.  It does not give you the right to speak whever you want.  It does not give you the right to do whatever you want.

 

Anarchy is the right to do whatever you want, including murder, rape, and general destruction of all mankind.

 

Freedom sounds better, even if it's not the freedom we often think of.

 

-y2

 

Freedom of Speech is a double edged sword. You can say just about anything you want (except yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater), but you also have to allow others to say what they want, even if you disagree wholeheartedly.

 

In the words of General Colin Powell:

 

Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.

Some things you just don't do and expect people to just pass it over. One is ANY kind of threat against a President, and the other is just saying "bomb" on a plane. I for one am glad that some forms of our "freedom" are questioned and are investigated.

 

Oh yeah, and it is crap.

 

 

I totally agree. Total and complete freedom to do whatever you want to and when you want to without any rules or restrictions defines one word.......

 

 

The word is anarchy.

Freedom. That's just some people talking.

 

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

then you should have no problem with my paintings of Kevin Spacey and Nathan Lane with the caption "Global extermination: I hate f**s"

 

I think it's probably not a bad idea for the feds to make a little stop at this "artists" place and encourage him to think before he paints.

 

I don't think an artist should have to think if the government would approve of the material. Did you think about the government's reaction it before making your post? I would guess not.

 

When we have the freedom to make this type of statement, we know that the line is still drawn far enough out there to allow for the kinds of statements we all would agree should be protected.

 

Having the government step in on something like this gives the government power to censor any criticism of itself and would be a giant step backwards, but a politician's dream.

more liberals thinking that threatening the pres is funny

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattabt.htm

 

they didn't win, so now they just threaten the president... ???

more liberals thinking that threatening the pres is funny

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattabt.htm

 

they didn't win, so now they just threaten the president...  ???

 

Consider the source.