Things are getting ugly

[Francesco]

Jay, I am glad you called him a painter.

Do not feel sad for my views, they are mine and I am happy to share them - feel sad instead for the majority of soldiers who are honourable and have nothing to do with those bad eggs in that prison BUT who have been pronounced guilty by association, and reminded of it time and time again.

 

[blansky]

I believe the urinating soldier thing was proven to be a hoax.

Not sure.

One of the purposes of "art" is to evoke an emotional response. This painting certainly has done that.

Whether it's any good is another story.

I kind of agree with both sides here. Everyone agrees that she should not have been attacked. But we are torn on the concept of responsibility for ones own actions.

It's not a perfect world. The getting in peoples faces during heated times, is an example perhaps of bad judgement. We still need to be conscious of our own decisions, and sometimes the consequences of those decisions is not what we may have anticipated.

On top of that some people like to be controversial to gain attention. Sometimes they get more attention than they bargained for.

Don't have an answer.

Michael

 

[Aggie]

AT NO TIME DID ANYONE SAY SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SHE WOULD BE ATTACKED. THE WORD WAS KNOWN WHAT REACTION SHE WOULD GET, NOT THAT SHE WOULD BE ATTACKED. JDEF, SO YOU WILL UNDERSTAND AND NOT USE THAT EXCUSE AGAIN, WHICH YOU HAVE WITH OTHERS.

See woman open gallery.
See woman accept art work for gallery.
See woman except a political painting in gallery.
See woman place painting in front window of gallery.
See people throw eggs.
See people leave trash.
See people make nasty calls.
See people make threats.
See people do this for 2 weeks.
See woman get punched in face.
See woman surprised by the reaction.
See woman say she had no warning.

For those who said did you see the painting? Well yes. I saw it briefly as I drove by on the way to a fish market near the Maritime Museum. that was at the beginning of last week. Eggs on the window, and the painting in the front window prominently displayed so that from two lanes over I could see it plainly. It was my son who noticed it first. My comment at the time, "someone is upset." I didn't think anymore about it.

All through history art has engendered emotions. Some paintings are even painted to incite extreme emotional reactions. The French revolution is an example. Caravaggio in the late 1500's was murdered for his paintings that slapped at the sensibilities of the Catholic Church. It is nothing new. It is not singular to the USA. It will continue in the future.

I never said she deserved what she got or intimated it in any way. To twist words to make it sound like we did, is just creating a point to argue from, is crazy. None of us here thinks she deserved to be punched. I for one think she was just a bit too naive or very brilliant. This will ensure that her gallery will have a steady flow of traffic once it does reopen. Who is to say what was behind it. It happened. What is good if there is any good, is it was only a punch in the face. And that is not to say that I am about to go out and do worse or am in anyway encouraging or condoning someone to go and do worse to her. Do not twist the meaning of what I stated.

We are all different, and we all make things differently. We all have the freedom to choose, even if it is to dissent in a country that will not allow it. What we understand is that if we choose to do something that is known to bring a reaction, we should not be surprised by it. If we were all the same, what good would photography be? We would all be making the same exact picture. Scariest of all, you all might be just like me!

 

[Francesco]

I do not deny that a US citizen has been beheaded by madmen and videotaped. Where do you get off saying I deny atrocities were committed? The nerve!! Who do you think you are?

 

[jd callow]

See woman get punched in face.
See woman surprised by the reaction.
See woman say she had no warning.

I'm sorry I read the article and missed the part about her being surprised or say she had no warning. I also have a hard time understanding how that is relevant.

I know that you cant be advocating that once she realized she was pissing some people (or low lifes) off she should have voluntarily censored herself

That, of course, would be bull sh!t and completely counter to what America stands for.

"These Colors don't Run"

 

[bjorke]

So a gallery owner should only display works that are non-controversial, or that they are willing to fight for? So should I assume that violence against gun stores should be tolerated in your world, because they are only there to make a buck, and some people disagree with their product?

Nowhere did I say that violence against anyone should be encouraged or tolerated. But I do indeed think that if either Guy Colwell or Lori Haigh really felt strongly about their art they'd stand up for it, rather than trying to pretend that it's not political. Yes, they should be willing to fight for their art, or they are posers. Political art challenges ideas and takes personal risks. Political posing pretends to take on issues merely for low-risk personal gain. Posers prefer a whiffle-ball existence, where "issues" are remote and distant and no one ever gets hurt by bad publicity, least of all if it brings in some attention and sales.

Where is the "knuckle-dragging neanderthal" in this? What's his statement? Where are the cops? How do we know he didn't argue with this woman before? Perhaps there is money involved? Maybe he just thinks Guy Colwell's drawing style sucks? Maybe he's one of the people who left angry messages calling Haigh a coward for moving the painting to the back of the gallery? Colwell is hardly a stranger to the cheaply sensational. Capobianco Gallery is now closed because neither Colwell or Lori Haigh are willing to stand up for their supposed convictions. This isn't what she had planned — isn't it all wine and cheese and 85% off the top? What's the point of displaying controversial works when people get all worked up about them and don't even buy anything? How much does a security guard cost, when you're already being threatened? How about a proper door?

This is not blaming the victim. Though apparently, in these denials, she feels she is somehow avoiding blame. Placing such an image on the street is a sort of violence, perpetuated against the public — quite different from a woman wearing a skirt and somehow "attracting" a rapist. For Lori Haigh to be anything but a dilletante, she much have been aware of this — unless she really does have the delusion that political art should only raise high prices, not high stakes.

As for gun stores, in "my world" one can protest their presence without having to be violent. To do otherwise would not only be self-contradictory, it would probably be tactically unwise.

 

[mobtown_4x5]

The motives behind such artwork may not be entirely altruistic, nor it's prominent display. Still, intentional or no, a higher purpose is served.
However, to expect the absorption of these events into the national consciousness and the subtle role such confrontational expression plays in what is (ultimately) a healing process to not to be beyond the immediate comprehension of the combatants is naivete. (The tiny cognitive abilities of our charming public aside.)
The business about the "un-american types" and the "she was asking for it" is simply too moronic to justify a response.

 

[L Gebhardt]

As for gun stores, in "my world" one can protest their presence without having to be violent.

My point exactly. So why should a gallery have to accept violence? Even if her motives are profit, there is no excuse for violence. So why attempt to justify it, or do anything other than condemn it?

To do otherwise would not only be self-contradictory, it would probably be tactically unwise.

I choose the analogy for that reason.

Placing such an image on the street is a sort of violence, perpetuated against the public

I don't see it as violence. If it were violent, than anything that I disagree with I could consider an assault. Maybe I need to call the police on some of the newspaper and magazine publishers - I certainly found the images disturbing. Or some of the posts in this thread ;-)

 

[bjorke]

...why should a gallery have to accept violence?

I don't think anyone posting here has said that they should. Several seem quick to accuse, however.

Just the same, I do go along with the klansman-robes-in-Compton analogy in terms of sympathy to Haigh and Colwell. Haigh's denial of political basis is like the rhetorical klansman claiming, after his beating, that he was only wearing the costume because he liked pointy hats, especially in that color. It actually has nothing to do with whether I agree or do not approve with the "statement" of this artwork (which I actually believe is nothing but "look at me!"). The events in Iraq are obviously loathesome and frankly I think the worst conspiratorial theories about government complicity in these crimes are mostly correct. This is a real stain on the supposed heritage of American Principles we like to wave in one another's faces. Capitalizing on it as a profitable source of cheap entertainment is another.

 

[noblebeast]

What amazes me the most in following this thread is how quickly and confidently so many individuals are able to enter and map the psyche of the artist and the gallery owner. I had no idea that, besides so many talented photographers, APUG also plays host to many gifted psychologists, for whom the complexities of the human mind pose not the slightest problem. And all this from a few paragraphs of a news story! And apparently no one has seen the work in question, nor sat down and spoken to the two protagonists, and yet they are able to dissect every bit of thought and motivation behind the events down to the most subtle nuance of human consciousness. Remarkable!

I need to learn the address for this wonderful correspondence course immediately. Oh, and does the cost include a ready-to-frame diploma?

Joe

 

[jd callow]

I need to learn the address for this wonderful correspondence course immediately. Oh, and does the cost include a ready-to-frame diploma?

Joe

There is no need for courses or even correspondence. It is the school of the self anointed administered by that great self anointer John Ashcroft without the benefit of a single tax dollar. No diploma either, but you do get cool x-ray glasses.

 

[bjorke]

And apparently no one has seen the work in question...

The work in question was shown in the local papers.

Guy Colwell's previous works can be found in many comic book stores. Go in the back where it's marked "Adult over 18" and ask around. His publisher was Rip Off Press.

 

[Aggie]

What amazes me the most in following this thread is how quickly and confidently so many individuals are able to enter and map the psyche of the artist and the gallery owner. I had no idea that, besides so many talented photographers, APUG also plays host to many gifted psychologists, for whom the complexities of the human mind pose not the slightest problem. And all this from a few paragraphs of a news story! And apparently no one has seen the work in question, nor sat down and spoken to the two protagonists, and yet they are able to dissect every bit of thought and motivation behind the events down to the most subtle nuance of human consciousness. Remarkable!



I need to learn the address for this wonderful correspondence course immediately. Oh, and does the cost include a ready-to-frame diploma?



Joe

Comes after hours of labor, and a life time of rearing small children to take responsibility for their actions.



As for Ashcroft, I have said many times in other threads he is a a$$hole. He should have repeated enemas administered with someones steel toed work boots. Does that make me part of the Ashcroft conspiracy as it seems to be here? Hell no. I have an opinion of my own. To say that I am part of Ashcroft is doing exactly like it was stated about getting into someone elses psyche.



How many of you MEN have wives, sisters, or mothers? I bet you have at least one of those mentioned. What happens when you do something you know will upset (piss them off) them? What do you do? Do you hide and blame someone else? or do you take responsibility for your actions. There is a third option. Or do you have responsibility foisted back at you by said female?



As for the Gallery owner, she must have had a few classes in art history. There would have been references about historical problems with an image some may not like. She also resides in San Francisco area. There are some areas in town you just do not go into, ie the Tenderloin. If she had her gallery in the Castro section, it would have been applauded. It just happened to be in the one small enclave that is conservative. As for the other a$$hole that did punch her, the taxpayers can save a bundle. Just put me in the back with him and my instructions for vasectomies and my dull spoon.



As for knowing she would get *A* reaction yes she should have. Now what kind of reaction you would have to take the variables into account. I for one did not say *WHAT* reaction she should have expected. Given the 2 weeks prior to the event that she was getting negative feedback, that would in my small illiterate pea brain of incomprehensibility have told me that something was wrong. WOMEN do know the dangers of being accosted by a man. I am NOT by saying this excusing what happened. Walk a few days in a womans shoes and tell me what you think of that (that for the MEN of this thread.) Notice I am the only female that dares to speak up. Why? Because I learned a long time ago to not take the crap that is fed to me by SOME men. I get tired of the patronizing pats on the head, and the attitude that the male is all knowing. As for condescending, that comes with the statements of being unable to understand. The putting it into a kindergarten text did not work, it was still over the heads of many here. Maybe a few "SEE spot run." should have been added. If dissention is NOT what you are after, then do not start threads where someone is not going to agree with you. Is that not what this is really about? Someone did not agree with what was happening. Yet we here in this thread are doing likewise. We are verbally attacking and belittling others. What does that teach children? that adults are little better than those who did the attack in real life. What do you teach your children? Do you teach them to take responsibility if they do something wrong? What do you teach your sons, brothers, or just other younger acquaintances about dealing with women? Pass a bad mood off as that time of the month? Guess what guys I am this way 24/7/365.



As for being sophisticated? Hell no I never want to be that. The term came about in the middle ages. It was the term used when a brewer of beer added sugar to the process to speed up the fermentation. It was punishable by death. Beer was thought of as liquid bread and a staple of life. In other words sophistication is the adulteration of the pure form. I leave that up to those who deem themselves so superior to be sophisticated. That is not claiming I am superior by saying that. I know full well I will be *VERBALLY ATTACKED* for saying as I have. I am use to it. I get it all the time being a female. It is either that or we are supposed to hide in the corners and pretend we have no opinion. We are to defer to the all knowing knowledgable male who is closest relation to us.



I applaud the men who here have stood up to voice an opinion that the woman did indeed have a brain. She was not some bit of fluff that had no clue. that was a movie, not real life. It still doesn't make what happened right. If you walk with blinders on, you will get run over or bump into something and possibly get hurt. I do not as another female expect she was walking around in a rose colored haze with blinders on. The world is not a pristine pastoral picture. Reality sucks. As for the aftermath she now has free at taxpayer expense a heightened patrol of North Beaches finest.

There are times a female does get attacked that she did not have warning of. I might pose the question at this point. Who was it that did the attack? Was it not a male? Ask the woman who many years ago was raped by one of the Kennedy's in Florida what she has to say about liberal justice. The crap that happens to women goes across all political boundaries. No one is excused.

 

[happysnapper]

AGGIE,

Might be time to get the meds refilled maybe? Only someone filled with resentment and anger toward the opposite gender could possibly understand your rant.
AND, I think you managed to offend the other women here by declaring yourself the only female to speak up, and taking it upon yourself to carry the flag for them. Are you so sure they want you as their representative?
Oh. I'm so sorry, you probably have a degree in Psychology and you know that's what they want.
One quick question though... how does what you say about *MEN* make you any different than those *MEN* you would so gladly castrate?

 

[Eric Rose]

This is all very tiresome and much to personal in nature to be of any redeeming benefit to the members of this forum. Please people, take your sand back to your own boxes and settle down.

 

[Sean]

This is all very tiresome and much to personal in nature to be of any redeeming benefit to the members of this forum. Please people, take your sand back to your own boxes and settle down.

agreed. :rolleyes:

 

[noseoil]

A wonderful thread

I have followed this thread with great fascination. It never ceases to amaze me, the truth about human nature is revealed by the behavior and words of individuals. In this case an "artist" has created a work of some stature. It was placed in a gallery by the owner. A critic then closed the exhibit without a word. Case closed, or is it?

This whole scenario is bad enough, but the reaction by those in this thread is even worse. People are verbally assaulting each other, and, I have no doubt that there would be bloodshed over these words if they were expressed at close quarters. It seems to me the real problem with this whole scenario is the reason there will never be peace in the middle east. People are opinionated, they are willing to express these opinions with whatever means they have at their disposal (words, fists, bombs, guns, knives, torture and infrequently, civility). One would think, after several thousand years of this type of interaction, that humans would learn from their mistakes. Obviously, this is not to be.

Where does this leave us? I am grateful to live in a country where this form of expression (word) is not only tolerated, but accepted. Freedom without limits is called anarchy (yes, there must be limits). Civility and manners allow us to make things better. Diversity of opinion is divisive, but it is also necessary. Let's all have a nice group grope and agree to disagree.

 

[doughowk]

As I said early on, America is becoming as during the '60s a very polarized, divided country. This thread has demonstrated that divisiveness even among photographers who share a common interest. I have to seriously wonder about the political/social health of the larger community for most do not share any commonality except tenuous geographical/historical ties.
I do wish to raise one issue, though. We liberals in the past have been accused of condoning criminal behavior for pointing out the backgrounds of the criminals as a contributing factor for ther anti-social behavior. Are not those who expect the possibility of violence due to the emotional nature of some issues thereby accepting that behavior. If you accept the possibility of violence by the radical & religious right, have you thereby excused their behavior? I raise this issue for fear that good people will unwittingly allow this country to become a Germany of the '30s.

 

[Jim Chinn]

I went back and re-read the article and I did not find any mention of any of the participants political affiliations. I guess it is easy to be lazy and just assume that the aggressor is some right wing nut. But for some, resorting to insults and steroetyping is the easiest thing to do. Maybe the guy is a vet and liberal and just did not like to see the US or military maligned. For liberals it was ok to spit on and assualt soldiers who returned from Vietnam. I mean gee, they deserved it. For liberals all things are relative. Yesterday's violence perpetrated by the left becomes nostalgic stories to tell around the campfire before singing Kum-by-ya.

To actually consider any other possibility other then a right wing conspiracy would deflate the fantasy world they want to live in.

 

[noseoil]

The real issue

"I raise this issue for fear that good people will unwittingly allow this country to become a Germany of the '30s...." Hitler rose to power because he wanted to unite Germany. His altruistic goals were lofty, to restore the majesty of a conquered people and return Germany to its rightful place of leadership in Europe. The National Socialist Party gained strength, the military was resurrected and W.W.II was the result.

He was stopped by America, not by France, not by Poland, not by Russia, not by England. Japan was stopped by America. Not by China, Korea, Australia or other Pacific nations. This is not to discount the sacrifice of other nations in both theaters, the countless lives lost, the cities burned to ash, the innocents raped, tortured, murdered, starved or lives ruined and left in a living hell of the survivors (my father).

Perhaps there is an issue here which is important. Hitler is back. He dresses in a head scarf. The same evil walks among us now, as it always will. He would cut the genitals off of women for their own good. He would make them wear clothing that covers their bodies completely. He would kill not only Jews, but all Christians and other non-muslims. Do you think "gay bashing" is a national sport in America now? Think again.

While so many are busy bashing Bush, Ashcroft, Rice, Rumsfeld and any "conservative" who opens his (or her) mouth, they seem to have lost track of the fact that this war was declared many years ago. In Munich, in Iran, in Somalia, in Israel and more recently in New York, Washington and a field in Pennsylvania people have died. The flight attendants who had their throats slashed were not soldiers, they were mothers, daughters and wives. The 2800 civilians who died that day were going to work, not to war. The former administration chose to ignore the problem and by doing so made it worse. Is this what you want again?

The soldiers in Iraq now are decent human beings (for the most part). They are from America, Australia, England, Italy and other countries in eastern europe who knew evil for many years in the form of corrupt communism. To call all soldiers wonton torturers and killers is as stupid as to call all Muslims murderers.

If the militant version of Islam is allowed to go on killing, bombing, beheading and destroying, it will have to be stopped later and not sooner. A quick look at Afghanistan under Taliban rule should be enough, but obviously it isn't. You did see the video of the woman shot in the head at close range in the stadium for adultery, didn't you? Is this what you want in Iraq if the U.S. and others pull out, an Iraq with unlimited wealth using the oil revenues to build on a sick version of an idealist 7th century nightmare? Do you think that Bin Laden and his followers will just walk away from the power vacuum?

Like it or not, we are at war. If you choose to undermine the troops in Iraq, please remember, they are dying so you can sit here and continue the idle blathering, sniping and insults which you hold so dear about a painting of little value. Wake up people and start looking at the real enemy. It is not Bush or Ashcroft, but an idealist who will kill women and children to get 72 virgins as a reward in a heaven where women are treated like sheep.

When the next shoe drops in America, you will all start shouting that Bush has not done enough? For now he has gone too far, eh? Which is it? Please continue the bickering.

 

[Sean]

"Wake up people and start looking at the real enemy."

It's sad that in some ways the west created this "enemy". I think to truly wake up we need to understand how this all came to be. A precious substance is involved that ensures a western lifestyle can be maintained. The substance lives in a hostile region. Dirty deeds and lord knows what else has gone on in this region for decades to ensure this substance, this "drug" of our society is protected at all costs. There is no excuse for the actions of terrorists, but we can't just ignore that we had absolutely no part whatsoever in the rise of terrorism, can we? I sense things that our culture does in the name of oil, after all this time are starting to horribly backfire, and it's probably not gonna be pretty these next few months. I see Bush trying to put band-aids on everything, not getting to the root cause, and sooner or later there will be no more band-aids available. What a predicament

 

[Francesco]

Unfortunately all decisions in the real world are made on the lesser of two evils, which is why it is always so difficult for the one making it. But it always seems to me that diplomacy and deliberation originates from the West. Who said that life was fair? Too bad (or too good) that Alaska is a protected environment otherwise I believe there is more oil there than the whole of OPEC:

 

[doughowk]

Sean,
We in America are harvesting alot of bitter fruit of late. Our continued oil dependency & gov't willingness to support Taliban, Saudi Arabia, or any other group as long as they are willing to deliver us oil. Another bitter fruit results from our Cold War, anit-communist extremism in which any sign of tolerance of other's beliefs is viewed as unpatriotic. The term "liberal" has become a red flag to those extremists. Liberals hold their own beliefs but are willing to recognize that other beliefs may ultimately be proved "true" - see Karl Popper's Open Society. This is branded as relativism by the right & is blamed for everything wrong in America. A neo-Nazi dictatorship could be right around the corner unless we make a drastic change in directions. Tolerance of violence is only one indicator of the problem.

 

[noseoil]

Its not about oil

Oil is not the problem, it is "human Nature" in all of its many interations. The Islamists have been butchering each other and the "infidels" since the 700's. There was no oil involved in this. The Crusades, as is so often quoted as a part of this scenario, were the result of a Moorish invasion of Islam in europe prior to the reaction by Crusaders. How often is this mentioned?

We can seek agreement from a coffee pot, a toaster or a history book, it matters not. We can seek agreement from others we correspond with, who cares? "We" did nothing to inflame the minds of those idiots who are trying to kill us now. They are most typically young men with no future and have exchanged the present for a future filled with an afterlife of constant sex with virgins. Somewhat deluded? How about 144,000 will go to heaven, or if you have 12 children you get your own planet. So really, this war is about sex, why else cut the clitoris from a woman's body.

As to the label of conservative, I most certainly am. I am an independent. My knuckles do drag on the earth as I walk. I have enough "force" at my disposal to end arguments permanently, but I do not. Liberals revel in the false impression of a potential utopia, this is based on a fantasy. It will never be a utopia on this small planet, my friends. Human nature will never allow it to happen. Look at this thread if you need evidence. Try the Soviet union as an example of eco-purity. Take a look at China as an example of "human rights." The majority of the tax dollars in the U.S., are spent on social programs, not the military.

If you want to stop the consumption of oil, come up with a better, cleaner, cheaper energy source (beside the hot air in this forum). Do you think the idiots in head scarves will just stop attacking because we don't buy their oil? Do you think they are able to feed their own people a diet of sand and oil? There are permanent interests between countries, we need oil, the middle east needs food, water, clothing and technology. Is this not fair? A little war is good for the planet. It removes some of the surplus population. It inspires art, music and
weapons systems. Liberalism is, after all, a mental disorder.

Perhaps the Middle East should look on things differently. What did they do to make us invade Iraq? What can they do to help us get more oil so we don't have to invade another country?
Please flame away, I just had my Nomex dry cleaned, my skin is getting thicker and I need comic relief to read at work.

 

[Francesco]

Liberalism (define it as you will) and its consequences - in my mind personified by the character Upham in Saving Private Ryan.