ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
The NY Post is a rag and always has been.
Chris
Chris
They are coming after us
- Thread starter bushwick1234
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 86
- Views 8K
charjohncarter
Veteran
Is America's Mary Cassatt next. Social engineers (politicians mostly) always think they know what is best for us.
peterm1
Veteran
OK if we are going to start banning works of art lets start with so-called art by artists like Andres Serrano who's disgusting installation of Christ on a crucifix in a bottle of urine is regarded as a piece of wonderful art by the likes of those who signed the petition to ban the Balthus painting. (I am not even a Christian or particularly religious if it comes to that and I am revolted by it and the degradation it represents). But that would be intolerant wouldn't it? He was criticizing religion and that is OK. But apart from thinking it is disgusting I don't think it is art at all - I am old fashioned enough to believe it takes talent to create art. Give me a bottle of beer, a little time, a crucifix and an empty bottle and I can knock up a reproduction of this "art work" in 30 minutes flat without even trying.
Or better still how about banning the infamous photos by Robert Mapplethorpe of what I regard as unbelievably violent sex acts which in any other setting could easily pass for sexual assault. But those acts we carried out between males so it would be intolerant to ban them, wouldn't it? Google the words "Mapplethorpe and fisting" if you do not believe me, but you better have a strong stomach to view the photos.
You see it is all a matter of perspective. One painting is "promoting pedophilia" (even though I think that with the painting in question that is a long stretch of the bow to say that - I don't find it in the least bit arousing for example) but other art pieces are "great works of art". Why - well you see, it depends not just on the subject, and not just on who is viewing it, but it depends on who created it.
In other words it is yet another exercise in feminist identity politics. It is all a bit reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Remember from the history books when the Nazi's banned "Jewish art" and "Jewish literature"? There is just a faint hint of that I think in attempts to ban Balthus' work (Not because he was Jewish, but rather because he is emblematic of the hatreds of our day. And of course because he is not one of the trendoid favoured "golden ones"). He was a bloke after all and his politics were probably wrong and as some feminist very recently was reported as saying - it is better to see many men falsely accused than to let one sexual abuser go free (thereby turning a bedrock principle of justice on its head. It's what you get when you have "social justice' instead of real justice).
Here is a nice little closing thought - the kind of people who want this work of art banned are the kind of people, remember, who say that Roman Polanski should be forgiven. What did Roman Polanski do? He drugged then anally raped a 14 year old girl then fled the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution. But Polanski is seen as one of their kind. Identity politics - another term for hypocrisy. And I say this with sorrow as I am in fact a huge fan of Polanski's work as a film director. But unlike them I think that if you do the crime - you do the time. No matter how talented you are - or no matter how politically correct you are).
Or better still how about banning the infamous photos by Robert Mapplethorpe of what I regard as unbelievably violent sex acts which in any other setting could easily pass for sexual assault. But those acts we carried out between males so it would be intolerant to ban them, wouldn't it? Google the words "Mapplethorpe and fisting" if you do not believe me, but you better have a strong stomach to view the photos.
You see it is all a matter of perspective. One painting is "promoting pedophilia" (even though I think that with the painting in question that is a long stretch of the bow to say that - I don't find it in the least bit arousing for example) but other art pieces are "great works of art". Why - well you see, it depends not just on the subject, and not just on who is viewing it, but it depends on who created it.
In other words it is yet another exercise in feminist identity politics. It is all a bit reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Remember from the history books when the Nazi's banned "Jewish art" and "Jewish literature"? There is just a faint hint of that I think in attempts to ban Balthus' work (Not because he was Jewish, but rather because he is emblematic of the hatreds of our day. And of course because he is not one of the trendoid favoured "golden ones"). He was a bloke after all and his politics were probably wrong and as some feminist very recently was reported as saying - it is better to see many men falsely accused than to let one sexual abuser go free (thereby turning a bedrock principle of justice on its head. It's what you get when you have "social justice' instead of real justice).
Here is a nice little closing thought - the kind of people who want this work of art banned are the kind of people, remember, who say that Roman Polanski should be forgiven. What did Roman Polanski do? He drugged then anally raped a 14 year old girl then fled the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution. But Polanski is seen as one of their kind. Identity politics - another term for hypocrisy. And I say this with sorrow as I am in fact a huge fan of Polanski's work as a film director. But unlike them I think that if you do the crime - you do the time. No matter how talented you are - or no matter how politically correct you are).
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Wut? I call it pedofile art and my relative lost all of her seven man in war with Nazy. She was alone and this is how she has turned into religion.
I see left as bad as commies , who were no different from Nazy, but close relations before War.
And I think, this bottle of beer Peter M is talking about should be in Polanski butt and smashed...
I see left as bad as commies , who were no different from Nazy, but close relations before War.
And I think, this bottle of beer Peter M is talking about should be in Polanski butt and smashed...
peterm1
Veteran
Ke Fo. I understand you have had bad experience. I am truly sorry. But I just do not think the painting by Balthus is "pedophile art". Maybe you are sensitized to the issue and I suppose that you are entitled to be in the circumstances but it does not mean I have to agree. Unfortunately in today's political climate the moment someone says their "feelings" are involved and they are "offended" we are supposed to agree with them - whatever they say they think. But I am not this way inclined as I believe it leads to chaos and terrible outcomes for society. Everyone has different feelings. Everyone is offended by something different.
I put this question to you. The painting below is a famous and classic work of art by Jean-Baptiste Greuze in 1785. She is indisputably very young - really a child in fact. She is showing a breast and nipple, and she is holding a broken vase in one hand and flowers in the other. All are symbols that this young woman has prematurely lost her virginity. Something that would have been in-your-face obvious to anyone viewing it back when it was first exhibited. Are we to ban it too? Why would we not ban it if the work by Balthus is to be banned. It is clearly about pedophilia anyone might argue. If so then where does it end? I am not a libertarian who believes "anything goes". But I do believe in applying a test of "reasonableness". This test has been applied by courts for hundreds of years and is a cornerstone of our system. It is just not enough to say someone is offended or "thinks" something is offensive. If that were the test nothing but the most anodyne and politically correct would be permitted. But why am I even talking of what is permitted? It should not be an issue - we live in a democracy - we are supposed to live in a society where it is exceptional for something to be prohibited and when it is it is only prohibited on grounds of "public interest." Not because someone is offended. But we are quickly moving to a world where more, and more, and more is being banned - all because vocal voices screaming loudly intimidate weak, irresolute careerist politicians who rush to buy votes by agreeing with them and giving them what they want. Thereby encouraging the next person, and the next and the next to scream too. Pretty soon all we have is no freedom but plenty of people still screaming. I ask again where should we draw the line - should the painting below be banned too and if so where does it end?
Huss
Veteran
Actually it is the opposite. Polanski's supporters are in the art establishment.
His defenders are his peers in the movie industry.
peterm1
Veteran
The two things you said are the same. But in any event assuming you mean his detractors are in the art establishment and his supporters in the movie world, I am talking more generally rather than specifics about art world or movie world.
There seems to be a general idea afoot in the popular culture that if you like someone (i.e. he is politically "your kind of person") you go easy on them no matter how disgusting their behaviour. OK people like Weinstein is getting belted right now and so he should be, but he should never have been protected for 30 years. His comuppance should have happened back then. What he did not see is that the ground has shifted. A few years ago that never would have happened.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Politics aside, in the USA anything goes right now: even Harvey has many supporters. So if you break the law, if the 'correct' group is looking out for you are fine. Garrison Keillor somehow got in the argument and his complete history has been wiped by NPR. So the Polanski crime, is OK for 35 years, but Balthus, who has been around for since the 30s is now 'S***' listed. To bring it back to photography, I hope Sally Mann keeps a low profile.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
n/t
Ten characters.
Ten characters.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
But he (Polanski) has never had to face a jury, he has avoided it since the 70s. Maybe with the help of some 'leftist'/feminist/whatever you want to call it.
Peter Jennings
Well-known
Too many trying to politicize this thing to satisfy their own agendas...
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
n/t
Ten characters.
Ten characters.
Last edited:
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
I don't particularly care either way about the painting. In all honesty, since that style of painting doesn't appeal to me (I prefer more abstract work) i would probably just walk right by it without even noticing it.
This is just another case of a person who thinks they are the moral arbiter of the entire world. Frankly, those people can kiss my lily white tooshie. I am glad the museum told her to go pound sand. The funny thing is that because she made a stink, the painting is now in a newspaper and being broadcast across the internet so if there are any pedophiles who are interested in this type of thing, they have been thusly informed of the painting. Stupid.
This is just another case of a person who thinks they are the moral arbiter of the entire world. Frankly, those people can kiss my lily white tooshie. I am glad the museum told her to go pound sand. The funny thing is that because she made a stink, the painting is now in a newspaper and being broadcast across the internet so if there are any pedophiles who are interested in this type of thing, they have been thusly informed of the painting. Stupid.
Peter Jennings
Well-known
No, it's just because he has never entered the U.S. since then. If he isn't there, how can he be prosecuted?
mgrinnan
Member
I’ve never even heard of this painter until this thread... you guys should read up on Egon Schiele was jailed for his artistic endeavors and would surely be deemed “degenerate art” by nazis, past or present... Schiele was a true artist with true hipster talents, I’d take a sketch of his over 10,000 mapplethorp prints. He may not get as much from the line as Ernst but he’s a baller in my book... RIP Egon
charjohncarter
Veteran
Ah, but we had an extradite order that was really never enforced on our side or on the Polish side.
And his work was never wiped clean by anyone: as with Garrison and Balthus.
peterm1
Veteran
I will answer that claim this way. Yes I do have a source - multiple sources. Just Google "Polanski supporters" if you disbelieve me.
In 2009 when he was arrested in an attempt to bring him back to USA to face justice, over 100 actors, actresses and others in the Hollywood milieu signed a petition in support of him in an attempt to get him released.
http://www.indiewire.com/2009/09/over-100-in-film-community-sign-polanski-petition-55821/
And a quote from News.com.au
" Only in Hollywood could the brutal rape of a child be fantasized away. In her grand jury testimony, Geimer (then Gailey), barely a teenager, describes Polanski giving her part of a Quaalude, denying her pleas to “go home,” then raping her vaginally and anally. To read it is to weep."You’d think Roman Polanski split the atom. Cate Blanchett named one of her sons after him. Hollywood awarded him the Best Director Oscar in 2003, replete with standing ovations from many, including Martin Scorsese and Meryl Streep. No matter that for legal reasons — that outstanding rape sentencing — he couldn’t attend. In 2008, HBO ran a gauzy documentary on him. .....etc.
So Nick - no support?
Look, personally I like Polanski, he actually reminds me of my dad (who was not Polish but Hungarian, but very eastern European in character) - very similar in some respects to Polanski though to my knowledge he never raped anyone. As a result I feel a kind of affection for him. But he did the wrong thing and he refuses to face up to it. And many continue to protect him and deny.
Peter Jennings
Well-known
This Left/Right garbage gets really tiresome. There are loathsome people of all stripes. Trying to categorize them politically is just so very pointless and narrow-minded. It does nothing to help advance any kind of argument.
Mod action: Some posts in this thread have been minimally edited to remove partisan political content, while trying to retain the continuity and sense of the conversation. RFF is non-partisan, non-political, without regard to preferences one side or the other. Peace, friends! 🙂
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
Similar threads
