Subject:
|
Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:26:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1340 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
>
> > Oh what was that quote from West Wing--Republicans being 'small-minded,
> > xenophobic, anti-choice, gun worshipping...' oh I can't remember--going to
> > have to watch a tape tonite! :)
>
> Well, I don't watch TV much, so I wouldn't know...
> >
> > Yes, in *your* opinion, the holocaust set were not art. In *my* opinion, a
> > black canvas with a red stripe down the middle isn't art either, but the
> > Canadian government and the Art Gallery thereof, obviously disagreed with
> > me, buying the painting for 1.3 million dollars (this was years ago). I
> > didn't care for it, but in the *general* definition of art, it was art. You
> > cannot say 'This is art and this isn't'. The artist who made it can say, 'I
> > made this. It is my representation. It is art.' It doesn't matter if it
> > was made out of cow paddies and tuna fish.
>
> So you are comfortable calling a image depicting child molestation art, merely
> because the slime who created it says it is? So what use is art, if it's
> anything and everything anyone says it is? It becomes, literary, *meaningless*
Am *I* comfortable with it? Not at all. As stated, I didn't appreciate a
red stripe on a black canvas. That was just a stripe! There is a bigger
picture, and I think the history of my posts have said again and again--I
have the freedom to do whatever I want as long as it does not infringe on
someone else's freedoms--'Swinging my arms as long as they don't connect
with your nose'. That's 'big picture'. So let's get into how this Dave
Axiom relates to the way I look at life.
If a person got 2 kids in his/her apartment, stripped them naked and took
sexually suggestive pictures of them, that is infringing on the kids
freedom. I would definitly say that some 'nose punching' occured. Arrests
should occur.
If someone makes a crude drawing/computer animation/cow paddie/tuna fish
sculpture depicting sexual content amongst kids, he has that right. That's
what freedom is. I also have the freedom to *not* buy said 'art'. If the
person in question used real live kids for inspiration, then again, freedom
was curtailed and arrests should be made. But if it was from his own
imagination, what can you arrest him on. Thoughts are not arrestable
actions. Actions are arrestable actions. If we start arresting people for
thoughts, then, as a Christian, you know we all 'fall short' and would all
be in jail.
I know this is such a 'big issue' for you yanks, but if you fought for
'freedom, then that freedom not only means that you stand by your flag, but
it also means that someone else can burn that same flag in protest, no
matter how much it offends you. That's freedom. That's where the rubber
hits the road.
You take away one bit of freedom from *someone*, the whole suffers as a
result. That's the slippery slope scenario--not the other way--'well if we
let him draw his imaginary drawing of sexual kids, then he's gonna want
pictures.' No--there's the line. Going the other way, 'Well, if we take
away his right to draw his imagination, then we may find other things that
we find 'offensive'' Next thing you know, women's ankles are covered and
you're sleeping with a board between you and your wife, for seeing her in
bed may lead to 'obscene' thoughts.
I also believe that consenting adults can do whatever they want to with
their own lives. It has been said (again, West Wing quote) Republicans want
to reduce the size of governement to the point where it'll fit into your
bedroom.
Since we're being specific here, I'm not having sex until I get married.
That's *my* decision (and it was a decision--not that I'm sooo geeky that I
couldn't 'get any') That said, others can make their own decision on this
issue. It's not up to me to make their decisions for them. I can only
discuss why I'm not doing it.
>
> The *only* critique I would
> > offer is that artists can make whatever they want--that does *not* mean we
> > have to buy it or appreciate it. Public art galleries should be acquiring
> > art that could be appreciated by the people for it is funded *by* the
> > people. Be risque to push the envelope a bit, for that causes growth.
>
> Okay, I'm a "performance artist" and I shoot a dog in the head. "Art"?
It infringes on the freedom of the dog. Some may sat it's 'just a dog' but
again, you take the freedom away from the least, it'll come back and bite
you in the butt. What was that old story--'They came for the crippled and
the handicapped, but I didn't stand up and said nothing. They came for the
old and the infirm, but I didn't stand up said nothing. They came for the
blacks and the Jews, but I didn't stand up and said nothing. Then they came
for me, but there was no one left to stand up and say anything.'
Don't fall into the trap of jumping to what you believe is the end result of
someone else's ideas and ideals.
>
> > Don't jump across the line 'just because it is there' however.
>
> But why not!!! That *IS* "art" today! Who can be the most perverse, the most
> shocking. It's a disgrace.
True, and the more you shout and point at it, the more the meda gets it in
the papers and what happens--a nobody artist who did something obscene, who
would have otherwise have faded into obscurity and eventually would have to
get a real job to support him or herself, is known throught the world. You
just gave him *free* advertising to do as he pleases. When your child
throws a tantrum and you give him the attention he wants, you're just
reinforcing what the kid knew--do this and people will notice!
>
> Private
> > galleries, on the other hand, can do whatever they plese for it's their own
> > money.
> >
> > I like the Brick Testament. I'm a Bible believing, church going Christian
> > and I *like* the Brick testament.
>
> He mocks you and your faith; why would you *like* that?
He mocks my faith? How so? He literally interprets the scriptures.
Where's the mockery? Just looking at the Cain and Abel story (one of the
first), it's how I read it.
>
> I don't care if it's made by a
> > non-believing person. Rev. Smith has crossed no lines as far as I'm
> > concerned. He reads the Bible passages, literally (almost to a fault) and
> > makes scenes. He actually interpreted some scriptures with his scenes and
> > got across the ideas better than some of my Sunday School teachers could.
> >
> > If this was made by a bona-fide upstanding 'pillar of the church community',
> > would it make any difference at all?
>
> A "pillar" wouldn't do it in the first place.
Christians don't create with LEGO? Christians wouldn't make Bible scenes
out of LEGO? Or just make art? I don't mean to sound taunting, that is not
my intent. Clarify what a pillar wouldn't do. I think had Rev. Smith been
an upstanding Christian, his Brick Testament would have been considered in
'proper taste'. Had I took the time to read a passage and do a translation
into LEGO, that it would have bee nwelcome in church circles. Michelangelo
did that interpretation of God and man and people were offended! Blasphemy!
Today is the best in the history of art. Eh, whatreya gonna do.
When I fist stumbled across the Brick Testament, I thought it was a bonafide
Christian endeavour. I was very amused at the 'rules for marriage'
especially, for a direct literal interpretation, that's *exactly* what the
Bible says. I have been in many debates with fellow Christians about Paul
and his 'women should be silent'. Paul also says that we should be 'subject
to one another'. It doesn't matter who you
are--male/female/black/white/rich/poor/whatever--we are all subject to one
another. We need each other, we need to be there for each other. As our
Saviour said, 'Who is last, shall be first' Think of other people before
yourself.
As for Rev Smith, I believe that 'the law of God' is also written on his heart.
>
> -John
>
> Not to me. Mayhaps to those that are
> > 'offended' that someone outside the church circles took their 'good book'
> > and actually read it literally.
> >
> > I really have said enuf here.
> >
> > As usual, as clear as mud.
> >
> > Dave
Again, more than enuf.
Dave
p.s. If you've never seen my little humble LEGO page--
http:\\sparky.i989.net\lego.htm
Is located on my personal server and is sometimes tempermental, so please be
patient.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
| (...) Warning! Dave Koudys is espousing Libertarian rhetoric in the above :-) (...) Just as a note, the US Supreme Court ruled on this very topic this week and for once, by 5 to 4, got it right. (they ruled that depictions of acts by adults in a way (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Canceled Lego Theme...?
|
| (...) Well, I don't watch TV much, so I wouldn't know... (...) So you are comfortable calling a image depicting child molestation art, merely because the slime who created it says it is? So what use is art, if it's anything and everything anyone (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
