|
Post by debutante on May 8, 2014 21:28:30 GMT -5
Dear Raybar:
I guess -- but I think most people wouldn't find it attractive at all. And I have a real problem with ugly stuff in public places.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 8, 2014 21:30:31 GMT -5
Dear Lily:
I know...but I doubt God cares one way or the other. He has better things to occupy His time.
But really, the thing is an eyesore -- very bad art.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 21:34:34 GMT -5
I don't know what you mean about God not caring one way or the other. This really isn't about God. And, again, the satan monument is supposed to be ugly.
P.S. The satan people really don't want the satan monument there. There wasn't the purpose. They were using the satan monument to get rid of the Christian monuments, like the Ten Commandments.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 8, 2014 21:47:27 GMT -5
Dear Lily: It's like this -- I know it's supposed to "rile up" the Christians. But if God doesn't care, why would I? However, that statue is horrible on an visual level. As a piece of art, it stinks. There's nothing terribly unique about the design or craftsmanship. It's not by anyone famous enough to excuse its lack of aesthetics. I am not overly fond of this thing either: However, it is by Picasso, and I imagine his fame makes it tolerable even though I think it's hideous garbage. But at least you can say, "it's a Picasso". If everyone has to look at something as an artwork -- then it should have artistic merit (or at least a claim to fame to justify its presence). But that's just the artist in me speaking. --Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 22:10:55 GMT -5
Oh, for Pete's sake, I just lost my post. What I was saying is that I understand that you're saying that you don't care if Christian monuments aren't allowed on government property. Neither do I.
I do understand what you're saying about the visual value of the monument because of your artiistic background. For me, it's irrelevant because I'm more interested in the purpose of what they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 8, 2014 22:14:02 GMT -5
Debutante --
I have to repeat the "eye of the beholder" phrase.
You are, of course, entitled to your views. So is everyone else. If you don't like it, that's fine.
But " ... I have a real problem with ugly stuff in public places ... " " ... the thing is an eyesore -- very bad art ..." " ... that statue is horrible on an visual level. As a piece of art, it stinks ... "
Really? Who made you the arbiter of taste?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 8, 2014 22:21:28 GMT -5
Dear Lily:
You're making the assumption that they will object to it on religious grounds. Why should they bother? They have perfect grounds to reject displaying it because it lacks artistic merit. No exhibition jury would deem that worthy of display in a public space. And if it came down to it -- then there should be a competition for the space. I am sure many artists would love to have their sculptures displayed in that area.
That statue is not good art and as such, I don't think they have any obligation to display it just because someone wants to give it to them. (I assume that is going to be a "gift" -- surely they don't think anyone in the government would pay them for that thing).
I think even non-religious people wouldn't want to see that thing in their face every day (God knows the Chicago Picasso is bad enough).
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 8, 2014 22:23:42 GMT -5
Dear Raybar:
I was accepted into a major Chicago gallery at the ripe old age of 22. (Yeah-- I had a little bit of talent! LOL!)
Those were the days, my friend...
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 8, 2014 22:44:08 GMT -5
Congratulations, but irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 8, 2014 22:47:34 GMT -5
Dear Raybar:
I guess it depends on how you look at an artist's work.
I never had to "donate" anything to have it displayed. People bought my things. So yeah, I know how the game gets played.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 23:01:10 GMT -5
Dear Lily: You're making the assumption that they will object to it on religious grounds. Why should they bother? They have perfect grounds to reject displaying it because it lacks artistic merit. No exhibition jury would deem that worthy of display in a public space. And if it came down to it -- then there should be a competition for the space. I am sure many artists would love to have their sculptures displayed in that area. That statue is not good art and as such, I don't think they have any obligation to display it just because someone wants to give it to them. (I assume that is going to be a "gift" -- surely they don't think anyone in the government would pay them for that thing). I think even non-religious people wouldn't want to see that thing in their face every day (God knows the Chicago Picasso is bad enough). --Debutante They can't reject it on artisitc grounds, because it will be considered an excuse, and then it will be taken to court, unless they also will take down the 10 Commandments monument. Even if the satan monument was the most beautiful statue on the planet, the state will not accept it because they don't want any other religious monument except for Christian. And especially not satan. That's a fact.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 8, 2014 23:18:37 GMT -5
Dear Lily:
Unless it's very much different from Chicago -- they most certainly can! There's a special department that only has the authority to put up public art. And people who serve on that board are usually artists themselves. Trust me when I tell you that nobody with an art degree is going to give the go ahead to have that statue placed in a public area. It's not good art -- plain and simple. And there's your "reason" right there.
They can surmise the rejection is for any other reason they want -- but the truth is -- that statue is not a good piece. And you'll not get anyone in a position of artistic authority to say otherwise because their reputation would be at stake.
Then there's the little matter of -- if there's public space for art -- who is going to get it?
It's not what you think Lily -- believe it or not, art is very cut throat. It's actually rather an ugly process when you get down to it. And it is jealously guarded by those who have these things sewed up. Outsiders haven't got a snowball's chance in hell.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 23:40:32 GMT -5
But it's not being preseented as art. It's a religous icon that being presented as equal rights of display by another religion other than the Christian one that is specifically the Ten Commandments. It's the separation of church and state issue that is being challenged. It's not for the art department to examine and approve or disapprove. Now if it's specifically determined that the monument is not acceptable as is but another one for the same satan religion would be if it fits some critiera, then that might be different. But if they keep turning down every monument, than that will be challenged in court.
Do you really think that the Ten Commandment monument is there as onlya peice of art? If you re-read the article, that is what they are challenging.
Edit: By the way, the photo of the statue is only the mold. It's going to be cast in bronze. And they will keep the mold because they expect the statue to be vandalized. I personally think it is despiciable to have small children standing either side of satan worshipping him. But that's what they want...the shock value. They're hoping that the state will have to take this monument if they don't take down the Ten Commandments monument. This group is really are not seriously wanting the statute to be there. They are not satanists. They are doing this is a dirty way to get want they want.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 9, 2014 0:04:30 GMT -5
Dear Lily:
I read an article about this the other day, so I didn't bother with the one posted here. There wasn't any photo of the Ten Commandment monument in the article I read. Is it aesthetically pleasing? I think the assumption is being made that it isn't. What's the execution? Who was the artist? (More importantly, who does the artist "know"?) There is always more than meets the eye when there's public art.
Here's the thing -- a monument is technically art. Thus, it would fall to whatever department has the authority to put up public displays of art. Once you get involved on that level -- well, that's a closed society. In no way are "insiders" going to give public space to someone who's not "in the loop". Plus that statue is not a particularly good piece and was created just to ruffle someone else's feathers.
Seriously Lily -- artists will do anything short of poisoning one another to get gallery space, a one person showing, an installation in public space (think fame and fortune) -- they're not going to let some group of outsiders come in and dictate who gets space they can....let's just say "negotiate" for among the usual "select".
It's really an ugly little scene behind the scenes in the art world.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 9, 2014 0:52:43 GMT -5
That Picasso is superb. Art is not "in the eye of the beholder". You're confusing art with beauty. Art doesn't have to be pretty. There is good art and bad art, and anyone who understands and appreciates good art has no trouble recognizing it.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 9, 2014 2:31:58 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
That Picasso -- eh, I've seen better works by lesser known artists. For one thing, it certainly doesn't belong in the "space". I don't know if you've ever seen it in person -- but it doesn't display well where they have it -- and that might have something to do with my distaste for the piece. It's too tightly wedged in between the buildings and I think it needed to be in a space three to four times larger than where they've placed it. And that, I think, is part of my problem with the piece.
By the way, my favorite painter doesn't paint "pretty" by any stretch of the imagination. But he's extremely visceral -- and that's a quality that comes through in everything he does. I will always go for emotional content over intellectualized "statement pieces" any day of the week. I've found that the "statement" artists are prone to mental masturbation. They eventually come to believe that everything they do is profound. Considering there's more than enough lackys about to stroke their over inflated egos -- they never come to the realization that they're a very small part of a very large universe.
That Picasso -- eh, to me, it doesn't really pack a lot of emotional weight. It isn't particularly something that appeals to intellect either. And I don't find it all that visually exciting (admittedly it's hampered by the confinements of the space). Anyhow, I've seen works by Picasso that I liked much better.
That Satanist statue isn't visually attractive. But it's also very static in terms of design elements -- there's nothing really new there to see.
There's no way in hell that particular statue would qualify for an exhibition space as a juried selection.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 9, 2014 2:57:33 GMT -5
You might find it a bit tricky finding a jury comprised of people who know more about art than Picasso. (And no statue was ever erected to a critic.)
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 9, 2014 7:23:47 GMT -5
Dear Zak:
Are you suggesting Picasso would think the Satanist piece worth public display space?
Ah --- I doubt it.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 9, 2014 9:41:30 GMT -5
Lily asked: >Would you do away with charitable donations as a tax deduction?
Only the religious ones. LOL. Actually, there are many fake non-profits running around that only exist to give the people who run them a salary (some of them are religious, some are not). We will never tax churches (not in my lifetime, anyway), but we really do need to weed out the bad eggs amongst the non-profits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 11:29:22 GMT -5
Okay, Deb. Getting back to the real purpose of placing the satanic monument on government prroperty, and assuming that it's aesthetic value was approved by the powers that be, what do you think of a monument to satan placed next to a Ten Commandments monument?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 9, 2014 12:01:55 GMT -5
If I might interject... you are both muddying the water here with your talk of the aesthetic/artistic work of the sculpture in question.
Statues are erected for two very different reasons:
1. To honor or pay tribute to a person, idea or event. 2. As a decorative feature.
The latter are supposed to be aesthetically pleasing. The former are meant only to commemorate something, and don't necessarily have to be "pretty".
So the question is: Is the primary reason for the statue to commemorate someone or something? Or is it merely intended as a decoration?
Spain, where I live, is constitutionally a secular state. Yet there are religious (Catholic) statues and monuments everywhere, and regular Catholic processions that take over the streets.
Would a group representing some other religion be allowed to erect statues to commemorate their god/prophet/founder or whatever? No, they would not. Nor would they be allowed to hold processions. So there is a hypocrisy here, and it is the same in many other countries.
There is nothing aesthetically pleasing about a statue of a man nailed to a cross, and yet there are numerous crucifix statues here. So the issue isn't an artistic or aesthetic one. A statue of Satan would not be allowed because, notwithstanding the constitutional status of the country, it is in reality still steeped in Catholic notions of morality.
Satanism is no less valid a belief system than Christianity. In a truly secular society Satanists would have as much right to erect a statue to their deity as Catholics. The alternative would be to ban all religious statues from public places.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 12:11:03 GMT -5
I certainly am NOT muddying the waters. I was only arguing against what Deb brought up. I think that the satan monument as a work of art is TOTALLY irrelevent!
Yes, that is what this group is trying to do. But, and if anyone actually read the article (which Bob posted, not me) they say they are NOT satanists. They're wanting to push the envelope.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 9, 2014 12:17:09 GMT -5
Exactly. They're confronting the hypocrisy and challenging the status quo. Which has to be a Good Thing, in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 13:55:24 GMT -5
Lily asked: >Would you do away with charitable donations as a tax deduction? Only the religious ones. LOL. Actually, there are many fake non-profits running around that only exist to give the people who run them a salary (some of them are religious, some are not). We will never tax churches (not in my lifetime, anyway), but we really do need to weed out the bad eggs amongst the non-profits. Cheer up, Fred. There may be an atheist mega-church coming somewhere near you. www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/10/atheist-mega-churches/3489967/
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 9, 2014 16:04:01 GMT -5
Okay, Deb. Getting back to the real purpose of placing the satanic monument on government prroperty, and assuming that it's aesthetic value was approved by the powers that be, what do you think of a monument to satan placed next to a Ten Commandments monument? Dear Lily: Truthfully? I personally don't care (because God wouldn't) -- but you're talking an area of the country where people might decide to "do something about it" after a night out at the local bar. I'd be afraid someone would take a shotgun to the thing and someone else would get accidently get caught in the crossfire. I have never been one to purposely pour oil on a fire. Nobody with any common sense does. Whenever someone sets out to deliberately provoke someone there is always a potential for violence. --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 9, 2014 16:27:22 GMT -5
Truthfully? I personally don't care (because God wouldn't) (emphasis Ray's) Know the mind of god, do you? Or, as I once said to a creationist when he was going on and on and no, maybe you should stop telling god what to do. ... you're talking an area of the country where people might decide to "do something about it" after a night out at the local bar. That could happen anywhere, but hardly ever does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2014 16:37:13 GMT -5
Okay, Deb. Getting back to the real purpose of placing the satanic monument on government prroperty, and assuming that it's aesthetic value was approved by the powers that be, what do you think of a monument to satan placed next to a Ten Commandments monument? Dear Lily: Truthfully? I personally don't care (because God wouldn't) -- but you're talking an area of the country where people might decide to "do something about it" after a night out at the local bar. I'd be afraid someone would take a shotgun to the thing and someone else would get accidently get caught in the crossfire. I have never been one to purposely pour oil on a fire. Nobody with any common sense does. Whenever someone sets out to deliberately provoke someone there is always a potential for violence. --Debutante If you read the article, you'd know they'd already know that. It's a principle to them...separation of church and state. It's like any consitutional argument. There's been numerous such issues where people have done things that they knew there would be a backlash, some violent.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 9, 2014 17:18:00 GMT -5
Dear Lily:
I can't approve of deliberate attempts to cause violence or death. They are gleefully setting up a situation where someone innocent might end up dead for THEIR issues. And what will they say if some little kid gets killed in the crossfire? "We're sorry" hardly would cut it. I have no sympathy for either side in this.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 9, 2014 17:22:37 GMT -5
So nobody should take any action to assert their rights if there's an outside chance that somebody might get hurt?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 9, 2014 18:09:40 GMT -5
So nobody should take any action to assert their rights if there's an outside chance that somebody might get hurt? No - I'm saying choose your battles carefully. A monument isn't worth that kind of risk. Sorry for abbreviated reply -- have appointment now. --Debutante
|
|