Artist's Attempt To Highlight 'Horrifying Truth' Of KKK Backfires

[werepossum]

Heh.

Long since time to revise Warhol.

"In the age of PC stupidity, litterally *everyone* will have their 15 minutes of being a world-famous racist."

lol +1

 

[DrPizza]

"It is hurtful as a professional artist to be told what is art work and what is not art work," said Tanyolacar, 38, who has taught at colleges in Florida and came to Iowa on a prestigious one-year Grant Wood printmaking fellowship. "I'm speechless."

No, it's about damned time.

 

[Anubis]

He or it looks like a garden gnome.

this is also what I thought

 

[desy]

I thought why is Gandalph wearing newsprint?

 

[justoh]

Guy somehow missed the rosetta shirt nonsense. It's a new age now. Stupid motherfuckers rule. At least he held on to some of his dignity by way of a much weaker apology.

 

[unokitty]

University President apologizes. Urges university provided counselling to anyone offended by controversial art piece.

President Sally Mason has called the campus response “not adequate.”

“Nor did that response occur soon enough,” Mason said in a message sent Sunday to the university community. “For failing to meet our goal of providing a respectful, all-inclusive, educational environment, the university apologies..

Mason... plans to meet with concerned students Wednesday to “prepare a detailed plan of action” that will include input from those affected by the incident.

And she urged university-provided counselling for anyone negatively affected by the incident...

No word yet on whether or not any of you here that saw the image of that controversial art piece will be eligible for University of Iowa provided counselling...

Uno

 

[justoh]

University President apologizes. Urges university provided counselling to anyone offended by controversial art piece.
No word yet on whether or not any of you here that saw the image of that controversial art piece will be eligible for University of Iowa provided counselling...

Uno

Jesus... wtf. This can't be real...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Just because you made something you think is clever, it doesn't shield you from criticism from people who may not get it. Frankly, I don't really see what he was going for, and considering he never got permission for the installation, I have no problem with him being asked to remove it. I'm not big on art as a general rule so my opinion doesn't count for much, but I view this as one of those "Piss Christ" moments of art where someone does something idiotic and tries to use "but I'm an ARTIST!" as a shield. Your message was poorly communicated and you have no one to blame but yourself for a failure to connect with your audience.

 

[Perknose]

"It is hurtful as a professional artist to be told what is art work and what is not art work," said Tanyolacar, 38, who has taught at colleges in Florida and came to Iowa on a prestigious one-year Grant Wood printmaking fellowship. "I'm speechless."

No, it's about damned time.

No, it's not . . . just as it isn't "about damned time" to be told what we can say or can't say in words, either.

The TWO most comprehensive attempts to decide and decree what is art and what is not art were carried out in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.

The results:

1. Really bad art.

2. Worse repression.

FFS, anyone who looks at that art installation of a paper mache klan guy with the obviously instructive warning IN ENGLISH behind it and thinks the artist was promoting the KKK is an ignoramus and a moron.

And anyone who thinks this sad reaction wasn't simply moron pandering is making niggardly use of their brainpan.

 

[justoh]

Just because you made something you think is clever, it doesn't shield you from criticism from people who may not get it. Frankly, I don't really see what he was going for, and considering he never got permission for the installation, I have no problem with him being asked to remove it. I'm not big on art as a general rule so my opinion doesn't count for much, but I view this as one of those "Piss Christ" moments of art where someone does something idiotic and tries to use "but I'm an ARTIST!" as a shield. Your message was poorly communicated and you have no one to blame but yourself for a failure to connect with your audience.

You have only yourself to blame for being an idiot.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You have only yourself to blame for being an idiot.

"Not getting" bad art doesn't make one an idiot. Demanding that everyone agree with your interpretation or be branded an idiot? Well, that doesn't make you an idiot either; just an asshole.

 

[justoh]

"Not getting" bad art doesn't make one an idiot. Demanding that everyone agree with your interpretation or be branded an idiot? Well, that doesn't make you an idiot either; just an asshole.

Well if you weren't an idiot maybe you would be focusing on relevant issues such as an institution of higher learning allowing these fools who aren't "getting it" to drive school policy, hold a ridiculous meeting about the nonsense, and actually calling for counseling for these morons. Of course they're free to "not get it," but nobody should be taken them seriously. If you weren't an idiot you would also understand what perknose posted. And this is all in the context of a recent flood of PC fucktard bullshit.

So, no, it's not about getting it or not. That's not important at all.

 

[Perknose]

If the intent of your piece can't be distinguished from the idea it's meant to criticize, you've probably missed the mark.

Absolutely! Which is why that whole Dadaist movement had no legs and wasn't the foundation and inspiration for the avant garde, surrealism, or pop art movements, and so, is totally forgotten and NEVER invoked or imitated today . . . right?

A reviewer from the American Art News stated at the time that "Dada philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man."

At the time Duchamp was a board member of the Society of Independent Artists. After much debate by the board members (most of whom did not know Duchamp had submitted it) about whether the piece was or was not art, Fountain was hidden from view during the show.[8] Duchamp resigned from the Board in protest.

In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British art world professionals.[19] The Independent noted in a February 2008 article that with this single work, Duchamp invented conceptual art and "severed forever the traditional link between the artist's labour and the merit of the work".[20]

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Well if you weren't an idiot maybe you would be focusing on relevant issues such as an institution of higher learning allowing these fools who aren't "getting it" to drive school policy, hold a ridiculous meeting about the nonsense, and actually calling for counseling for these morons. Of course they're free to "not get it," but nobody should be taken them seriously. If you weren't an idiot you would also understand what perknose posted. And this is all in the context of a recent flood of PC fucktard bullshit.

So, no, it's not about getting it or not. That's not important at all.

The institute of higher learning allowed these fools to drive school policy because "Tanyolacar hadn't sought prior permission for the display." Which is against school policy. So... yeah. This isn't the government censoring free speech (which is a valid concern), this is a professor posting a public display on private property without the permission of the owners.

As far as the counseling or whatnot... yes, that's ridiculous. But I didn't address that in my original post. So I really don't get why you're bringing that up to call me an idiot. Maybe it would help if you didn't take such an antagonistic tone with people you respond to. You might not come off as such an asshole.

 

[justoh]

The institute of higher learning allowed these fools to drive school policy because "Tanyolacar hadn't sought prior permission for the display." Which is against school policy. So... yeah. This isn't the government censoring free speech (which is a valid concern), this is a professor posting a public display on private property without the permission of the owners.

As far as the counseling or whatnot... yes, that's ridiculous. But I didn't address that in my original post. So I really don't get why you're bringing that up to call me an idiot. Maybe it would help if you didn't take such an antagonistic tone with people you respond to. You might not come off as such an asshole.

You're part of the problem for giving any credence at all to a bunch of morons who think being offended should be protected, at a university no less, where you're supposed to be challenged to think. Your post indicated a fundamental lack of understanding of what's important here: pandering to the world of idiots who think being offended is something we should give a shit about.

It isn't about the permission to display the statue. Fine. No permission. Take it down. That's the end of it. Why's it on the news? ffs.

 

[Subyman]

No, it's about damned time.

Haha, nice.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You're part of the problem for giving any credence at all to a bunch of morons who think being offended should be protected, at a university no less, where you're supposed to be challenged to think. Your post indicated a fundamental lack of understanding of what's important here: pandering to the world of idiots who think being offended is something we should give a shit about.

It isn't about the permission to display the statue. Fine. No permission. Take it down. That's the end of it. Why's it on the news? ffs.

The artist's statement is no more important than any of his critics. Obviously no one has the right to not be offended, but they are legally allowed to offer their opinion of offense. The issue of censorship is moot because the guy was displaying his art on private property without permission, and that has nothing to do with the state. So I don't really see what you're trying to argue here. He should have requested permission from the institution prior to putting up his display. If they had caved after giving him permission, you'd be right to call them cowards. As it is, this guy wanted a soapbox but didn't go through the steps required to legally obtain one, and his free speech rights trump everyone else's because... art? I don't get your angle. I mean, shit, let's run through this so we can get on the same page, because I feel there's a fundamental disconnect in our communication.

This man has freedom of speech to create art as he sees fit.
Everyone who views the art has freedom of speech to critique the art as they see fit.
The University has the right to decide what thy will allow displayed on their property.
This man did not seek permission from the University prior to using University property to display his art.
The University has the right to request removal of unsanctioned displays on their property.

Are we in agreement here? If the man had sought and obtained permission from the University and then they changed their minds after people complained, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But he didn't do that. He's not entitled to use their space just because institutions of higher learning should challenge people.

 

[Moonbeam]

Man are you ever a freaking treasure, Perk. You have an intellectual sophistication that just defies my comprehension. Of course, I'm just an ignorant and uneducated putz and and shouldn't really have such an opinion, but I just don't think I'm wrong. I want to thank you for informing this artistically ignorant person about the DADA thingi. I looked into it a bit and found it deeply interesting. The notion of anti-art is absolutely fascinating.

When I was in Europe earlier this year, and seeing the historical sights, the art and everything else I begin to feel how utterly small I am and how limited my knowledge is. There's nothing in this world that doesn't have behind it some gigantic historical story connected to a billions of other things each connected to billions more.

I have heard of Dada but I never knew what it was. I'm sure I still don't really. But I can appreciate, in my own small way, what it's like to have a vision of a world that appears to be insane, and to hold up a mirror to it. I'm thinking of calling myself an artist of the Lazy-Ass school. You set up a fragment of silvered glass in some public place and watch the sculpture that develops over time as people throw what they see back at it, and from each according to his or her means.

Thank you again for this wonderful morning journey into a world I missed even if only to wet my toe. It's amazing. So many insightful beings so far ahead of poor dummies like me. All I can do when I see all those dead soldiers in the trenches is shake my head in disbelief.

 

[justoh]

The artist's statement is no more important than any of his critics. Obviously no one has the right to not be offended, but they are legally allowed to offer their opinion of offense. The issue of censorship is moot because the guy was displaying his art on private property without permission, and that has nothing to do with the state. So I don't really see what you're trying to argue here. He should have requested permission from the institution prior to putting up his display. If they had caved after giving him permission, you'd be right to call them cowards. As it is, this guy wanted a soapbox but didn't go through the steps required to legally obtain one, and his free speech rights trump everyone else's because... art? I don't get your angle. I mean, shit, let's run through this so we can get on the same page, because I feel there's a fundamental disconnect in our communication.

This man has freedom of speech to create art as he sees fit.
Everyone who views the art has freedom of speech to critique the art as they see fit.
The University has the right to decide what thy will allow displayed on their property.
This man did not seek permission from the University prior to using University property to display his art.
The University has the right to request removal of unsanctioned displays on their property.

Are we in agreement here? If the man had sought and obtained permission from the University and then they changed their minds after people complained, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But he didn't do that. He's not entitled to use their space just because institutions of higher learning should challenge people.

blah blah. Just how thick are you anyway? Why are you still going on about the permission to display the statue when it's irrelevant to anything I have posted and to anything else that could meaningfully be said about this non news story.

All that should have happened is the statue be removed and whatever penalties for not requesting permission beforehand be enforced. It's not news. No statements should have been made legitimizing and supporting the complaints of those offended. No counseling should be offered. No meetings should have been convened about it. No committee of students and community members for so-called cultural competency training should be formed specifically because of this incident - though if done sensibly, that's a good idea, generally speaking.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The only reason it's in the news is the artist was upset his art was misunderstood and he was deemed to be a racist.

 

[Moonbeam]

The artist's statement is no more important than any of his critics. Obviously no one has the right to not be offended, but they are legally allowed to offer their opinion of offense. The issue of censorship is moot because the guy was displaying his art on private property without permission, and that has nothing to do with the state. So I don't really see what you're trying to argue here. He should have requested permission from the institution prior to putting up his display. If they had caved after giving him permission, you'd be right to call them cowards. As it is, this guy wanted a soapbox but didn't go through the steps required to legally obtain one, and his free speech rights trump everyone else's because... art? I don't get your angle. I mean, shit, let's run through this so we can get on the same page, because I feel there's a fundamental disconnect in our communication.

This man has freedom of speech to create art as he sees fit.
Everyone who views the art has freedom of speech to critique the art as they see fit.
The University has the right to decide what thy will allow displayed on their property.
This man did not seek permission from the University prior to using University property to display his art.
The University has the right to request removal of unsanctioned displays on their property.

Are we in agreement here? If the man had sought and obtained permission from the University and then they changed their minds after people complained, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But he didn't do that. He's not entitled to use their space just because institutions of higher learning should challenge people.

I think you are looking at the matter from a limited and legalistic point of view. You have accepted certain assumptions, such as the notion of entitlement. Who is entitled to what and on what basis. Suppose those who are entitled are authoritarians who believe that art should offend no one. There will then be those people who will not agree to such entitlement.

So what do you do with a world where the private ownership of entitlement is in the hands of folk who have no idea what freedom really is and will do what they can to deny its expression. And why would they do this is the next question. The notion of higher learning and exposure to new things goes by the wayside, perhaps, when tuition is threatened, when controversy exists, etc.

When the university combines its artistic ability to rationalize away the notion of freedom, what is the artist's job then? Take a look again at what truths we supposedly hold to be self evident but are so so easily forgotten. "and by opposing, end them."

I declare that all art that offends me be outlawed, in those few areas where it already hasn't been. If you find that life approaches zero, maybe we can get you therapy.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think you are looking at the matter from a limited and legalistic point of view. You have accepted certain assumptions, such as the notion of entitlement. Who is entitled to what and on what basis. Suppose those who are entitled are authoritarians who believe that art should offend no one. There will then be those people who will not agree to such entitlement.

So what do you do with a world where the private ownership of entitlement is in the hands of folk who have no idea what freedom really is and will do what they can to deny its expression. And why would they do this is the next question. The notion of higher learning and exposure to new things goes by the wayside, perhaps, when tuition is threatened, when controversy exists, etc.

When the university combines its artistic ability to rationalize away the notion of freedom, what is the artist's job then? Take a look again at what truths we supposedly hold to be self evident but are so so easily forgotten. "and by opposing, end them."

I declare that all art that offends me be outlawed, in those few areas where it already hasn't been. If you find that life approaches zero, maybe we can get you therapy.

There are plenty of public places where he could display his art. And I'm pretty sure if he had asked for permission beforehand, the institution would have agreed. Freedom of speech does not guarantee one a choice of venue. You can get into all the slippery slope arguments you want about people controlling property controlling speech, but what's the flip side of that coin? Allow any expression on any property provided someone somewhere sees artistic merit in it? Should students be allowed to spray graffiti all over campus because colleges should be in favor of free artistic expression?

 

[Moonbeam]

There are plenty of public places where he could display his art. And I'm pretty sure if he had asked for permission beforehand, the institution would have agreed. Freedom of speech does not guarantee one a choice of venue. You can get into all the slippery slope arguments you want about people controlling property controlling speech, but what's the flip side of that coin? Allow any expression on any property provided someone somewhere sees artistic merit in it? Should students be allowed to spray graffiti all over campus because colleges should be in favor of free artistic expression?

I suggested that your problem was you belief that entitlement confers legitimacy. Asking permission from those who are entitled to grant it doesn't escape that issue. A piece of art displayed without permission brings attention to this dilemma, at least for those open to thinking about it. If you are unwilling to entertain a critical analysis of the nature of permission and what it implies, you are simply robotically following a program you learned when you played, Mother May I.

 

[justoh]

It's like he replies without reading or thinking at all, this atomic dumbass.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You have only yourself to blame for being an idiot.

Well if you weren't an idiot

blah blah. Just how thick are you anyway?

It's like he replies without reading or thinking at all, this atomic dumbass.

OK, you convinced me. I was on the fence after the first couple insults, especially because all you did was repeat the word "idiot," but you mixed it up with "thick" and then you sold it with "atomic dumbass." Did you think of that one all on your own? Did it give you a little bit of a headache? That seems like way too much cleverness to be contained in one brain. I bow to your superior intellect.

See, if you had just discussed the issue reasonably, I would probably have agreed with you about the idiocy and cowardice of the college's response. But you had to be an asshole about it. So, with all due respect, fuck you. I'll just keep right on being stupid. If the alternative is agreeing with your obnoxious fuckwittery, I'd rather be wrong.