Gallery Puts up Hitler Portrait

[woolfe9999]

Not protected by the First Amendment as it's on private property. As Bamacre said, the gallery owner could take it down. The government can't ban it from public property.

As to whether I find it "offensive," that depends on context. If its adulatory and displayed by a neo-Nazi, yes I find it offensive like I would a swastika. I don't really know the context here or why this artist chose Hitler as his subject. The image itself does not offend me any more than a photograph of Hitler would offend me.

- wolf

 

[Unheard]

The women is a whiny bitch. Wahhhh, it caused me to have a episode post-traumatic stress syndrome. WAHH, I don't like it, take it down!

 

[fantolay]

The women is a whiny bitch. Wahhhh, it caused me to have a episode post-traumatic stress syndrome. WAHH, I don't like it, take it down!

Lulz. QFT

 

[WHAMPOM]

Let us edit history like Texans do. Adolf was just an overzealous Commie hater and Roooozevelt a Jew/commie lover.

 

[Genx87]

That lady is a retard.

 

[classy]

That lady is a retard.

LOL, why am I not surprised by many of the responses. First I can't say whether it should or should not be taken down. It is art. What is the theme surrounding the exhibition? As far as the first amendment rights is concerned, as usual many are in error. You and I have the right to say and do a lot of things, but not always in public. I can have any picture and say anything I want in my own house, but that doesn't give me the right to express that in public or someone else's house persay.

If this is a history exhibition then I see no reason at all to remove it. But if this is just a exhibition for artists to display their talents, then the sponsors of this event should have asked the artist to submit another painting, and not displayed this painting because it is offensive. I look at this just like Erykah Badu, she has the right to take her clothes off, but not in public. But what is absent with many of the posters here is, they lack common decency despite the fact they may be legally correct in their responses.

 

[fantolay]

The artist is clearly not a Hitler-lover. In the painting's caption he talks about how Hitler was a horrible, horrible person.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

There's nothing wrong with this. As long as he's not praising Hitler (which he isn't), then the painting is fine. If you ask me, it was done quite well - the painting looks sort of ominous.

 

[Schadenfroh]

He could have depicted a religious figure, a Mexican boy playing or a number of other uncontroversial things! But, those would not have made national headlines.

 

[JSt0rm]

He could have depicted a religious figure, a Mexican boy playing or a number of other uncontroversial things! But, those would not have made national headlines.

sounds like a smart artist to me.