NationStates Jolt Archive

The art in question is a sheet of mock postage stamps by artist Al Brandtner showing President Bush with a gun pointed at his head, captioned “Patriot Act.”


http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/news/archive/local_22616213.shtml

The art in question is a sheet of mock postage stamps by artist Al Brandtner showing President Bush with a gun pointed at his head, captioned “Patriot Act.”


http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/news/archive/local_22616213.shtml
HA! HA! That's really fu...

OH NO! CIA!! Bye everyone!

I saw this on TV. It was shown at an exhibit in lower Manhattan for extreme political art. Had lots of twisted things in it, like a painting of Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road in Central Park, with the Twin Towers burning in the backround. Or something that looked like a suitcase bomb (the artist was later arrested for stockpiling illegal weapons and explosives).
In regards to this piece, however, it is plainly illegal. I do disagree with this law, but it is illegal to threaten the life of the president. It may be wrong, but then again, no one has seen it as a direct violation of the First Amendment. Therefore, the artist needs to be censured, if not arrested.

In regards to this piece, however, it is plainly illegal.
but it is illegal to threaten the life of the president.


?
What do you mean?
How do you come across with it being a threat to his life?

That may be what YOU are reading into it. As with any art, that
is what it is good for.
But that is but ONE opinion. Only.

I don't see that at all.

To me it is a show that the Patriot act is a joke.
Going after those who express themselves in
ways the gov't doesn't like is
going after the artist because the gov't doesn't like the way the artist is expressing themselves. Plain and simple.



Which is why government should not be censoring, period.
Oh, and, none of this "government secrets" in our supposed
"open and free" society either.

?
What do you mean?
How do you come across with it being a threat to his life?

That may be what YOU are reading into it. As with any art, that
is what it is good for.
But that is but ONE opinion. Only.

I don't see that at all.

To me it is a show that the Patriot act is a joke.
Going after those who express themselves in
ways the gov't doesn't like is
going after the artist because the gov't doesn't like the way the artist is expressing themselves. Plain and simple.



Which is why government should not be censoring, period.
Oh, and, none of this "government secrets" in our supposed
"open and free" society either.

I've always known that artists have a different mindset than anyone else. That's what makes art. But it's not what makes the world work. We need to forget subjectivity and submit to the cold calculus that artists can't understand, especially these giggling girls.

I really don't see how a picture of Bush holding a gun to his own head is advocating assassination. The expression "holding a gun to your head" is like "shooting yourself in the foot", it's saying you're harming yourself, not that others should harm you.

?
What do you mean?
How do you come across with it being a threat to his life?

That may be what YOU are reading into it. As with any art, that
is what it is good for.
But that is but ONE opinion. Only.

I don't see that at all.

To me it is a show that the Patriot act is a joke.
Going after those who express themselves in
ways the gov't doesn't like is
going after the artist because the gov't doesn't like the way the artist is expressing themselves. Plain and simple.



Which is why government should not be censoring, period.
Oh, and, none of this "government secrets" in our supposed
"open and free" society either.

When you have an image depicting a threatening portrayal of a man of rank, with a quotation that insinuates that said image may actually be a good thing, that can be interpreted as a threat to his/her life. If you want to plaster horns on Bush with a "F--- you, Mr. Bush" caption, then fine. Do it for all I care. But do not depict a potentially violent act and insinuate that you support said violent act. That should be censored.

When you have an image depicting a threatening portrayal of a man of rank, with a quotation that insinuates that said image may actually be a good thing, that can be interpreted as a threat to his/her life. If you want to plaster horns on Bush with a "F--- you, Mr. Bush" caption, then fine. Do it for all I care. But do not depict a potentially violent act and insinuate that you support said violent act. That should be censored.

man of rank

What do you mean? This is America. Or is he "first among equals".
Then I guess we aren't equals and some consider him first.


Oh, I get it now. What you are trying to say...
With that "Patriot Act" under it.
See, proves art is interpretted by the viewer.
You are saying with the words "Patriot Act" under it, you believe
the artist is trying to say that it might be a "patriotic act" to
put a gun to Bushs head.

I honestly did not link the words in that way at first.

Without the words I did, but with the words I was thinking
that in my earlier post: that by painting this pic it would induce
the gov't in claim the patriot act and crack down on stuff they don't
like, what the patriot act & cointelpro were deseigned to do.

Now I think it is saying rather what another person is saying,
which I didn't see after I read their post either:
that it might be a patriotic act if the prez put a gun to his
own head.

-----
all said, i don't think such things solve anything,
the same fascist police state would still be in place.
we'd still have the world's largest prison population,
most imprissoned for non-violent offenses,
we'd still be destabalizing other people's countries
that we don't like their policies and we'd still be in Iraq
on a pack of lies. it would not bring back those 2000 almost
us soldiers or 100,000+ Iraqis or 3,000 Afghanis.
or 500,000-2 mill Iraqis because of sanctions either.

no. such things are useless.

1: I presume he uses "man of rank" to distinguish from the average citizen, who is protected against libel and character assassination, unlike political figures.

2: Why couldn't they just re-draw the picture with something less violent? Advocating removing someone from office is fine, and often good. Advocating killing someone is hardly as justifyable.

I interpet it as removing bush would be patriotic.... or if he was never in power

or that the patriot act is shooting yourself in the foot.

What do you mean? This is America. Or is he "first among equals".
Then I guess we aren't equals and some consider him first.
Well, he is Commander in Chief. That's the highest rank you can have in the United States. So yes, he is a man of rank. ;)

Oh, I get it now. What you are trying to say...
With that "Patriot Act" under it.
See, proves art is interpretted by the viewer.
You are saying with the words "Patriot Act" under it, you believe
the artist is trying to say that it might be a "patriotic act" to
put a gun to Bushs head.

I honestly did not link the words in that way at first.

Without the words I did, but with the words I was thinking
that in my earlier post: that by painting this pic it would induce
the gov't in claim the patriot act and crack down on stuff they don't
like, what the patriot act & cointelpro were deseigned to do.

Now I think it is saying rather what another person is saying,
which I didn't see after I read their post either:
that it might be a patriotic act if the prez put a gun to his
own head.
It may or may not be what he's saying, but it seems to be the most probable. And again, I'm not for censorship of anti-Bush/anti-war/anti-whatever art. It's just this example seems to be pushing beyond what freedom of speech permits.

all said, i don't think such things solve anything,
the same fascist police state would still be in place.
we'd still have the world's largest prison population,
most imprissoned for non-violent offenses,
we'd still be destabalizing other people's countries
that we don't like their policies and we'd still be in Iraq
on a pack of lies. it would not bring back those 2000 almost
us soldiers or 100,000+ Iraqis or 3,000 Afghanis.
or 500,000-2 mill Iraqis because of sanctions either.

no. such things are useless.

I don't think I wanna touch this bit. But :fluffle: for you, anyway.

Well, he is Commander in Chief. That's the highest rank you can have in the United States. So yes, he is a man of rank. ;)




Ah, but Commander in Chief of the armed forces only - not regular citizens.
And then probably only in times of war.
Maybe only during ACTUAL declared wars. In which case, he might
not be CiC at all right now, what without an actual declaration?

Ah, but Commander in Chief of the armed forces only - not regular citizens.
And then probably only in times of war.
Maybe only during ACTUAL declared wars. In which case, he might
not be CiC at all right now, what without an actual declaration?

Unless someone can correct me, I'm of the belief that he's always Commander in Chief, regardless if the country is in a state of declared war or not. And yes, his rank applies only to the military, but to make a threat or advocate inflicting harm upon a certified officer, whether you're a citizen or not, is still against the law.

What do you mean? This is America. Or is he "first among equals".
Then I guess we aren't equals and some consider him first.


we start equal, we all have a choice of what we do in life. we are not equal forever, the president is not the same as some wlefare recepient sitting on his couch watching jerry springer. the difference is what the president did in his life that the welfare recepient didnt. what you are thinking of, of us being equal through out life, thats socialism. we are not socialist we are capitalist, and not even much of that due to liberals.

Unless someone can correct me, I'm of the belief that he's always Commander in Chief, regardless if the country is in a state of declared war or not. And yes, his rank applies only to the military, but to make a threat or advocate inflicting harm upon a certified officer, whether you're a citizen or not, is still against the law.

yes you are correct, he is the commander in cheif of the armed forces and president of civilians, he still has authority to civilians, although if he ever uses authority on civilians the aclu will be all over his a**

but to make a threat or advocate inflicting harm upon a certified officer, whether you're a citizen or not, is still against the law.


Why? What makes one particular person so special?
a president is not god.

why not it be illegal to make a threat or advocate inflicting harm upon any
person. not just a president.


what's this "certified officer" all of a sudden.
you mean there is a whole class of people who are "first among equals"?

we start equal, we all have a choice of what we do in life. we are not equal forever, the president is not the same as some wlefare recepient sitting on his couch watching jerry springer. the difference is what the president did in his life that the welfare recepient didnt. what you are thinking of, of us being equal through out life, thats socialism. we are not socialist we are capitalist, and not even much of that due to liberals.



no. they are worth MORE
by about 10,000 times


i don't see how a "socialist" or "capitalist" applies to the argument.
I agree the liberals suck.

yes you are correct, he is the commander in cheif of the armed forces and president of civilians, he still has authority to civilians, although if he ever uses authority on civilians the aclu will be all over his a**



Thank God and Jesus Christ for the ACLU

[QUOTE=Shingogogol]Why? What makes one particular person so special?
a president is not god.

why not it be illegal to make a threat or advocate inflicting harm upon any
person. not just a president.

[QUOTE]

it is against the law to threaten people, although you have a freedom of speach, it is against the law to threaten anyone, if they feel their life is indangered by your threats they can get restraining orders, have you arrested, etc.. depending on level

no. they are worth MORE
by about 10,000 times


i don't see how a "socialist" or "capitalist" applies to the argument.
I agree the liberals suck.

socialism says everyone is equal, capitalism says you earn what you get, your not just automaticly equal, you have to earn it

This is an exhibit that UWGB sponsors, and it’s done with taxpayers’ money. When we do this, we get to decide what we show and what types of messages we want to send out,

Ok, now I've always bought the argument "this is a private art gallery that is privatly owned, we own it, so we get to decide what's going in and what's getting left out, it's not cencorship, it's private property."

So now we're expected to believe "the government gets to censor any art that benifits from public funds."? So does that mean that the government can censor art in galleries that are in neighborhoods patrolled by police paid with government money? Has its garbage collected by government sanitation workers?

Not to mention, I'm skeptical of the characterization of the work in question. It reminds me of that story about Guliani trying to cut the funding of the Brooklyn Art Museum a few years ago because of a piece he said was "Catholic Bashing." I went to see the exhibit, and it was NOT what the local news portrayed it to be. And the piece that was debated was about the least disgusting piece in the exhibit.

I think the issue has gotten completely out of hand. Political cartoons (as I here this one is) are generally characterizations. A gun to someone's head generally means they are being "threatened" or "forced" to do something. If someone lacks the intelligence to tell the two apart...
Needless to say, if it's their artshow, they can choose what not to show, that's not censorship.

Why? What makes one particular person so special?
a president is not god.

why not it be illegal to make a threat or advocate inflicting harm upon any
person. not just a president.


what's this "certified officer" all of a sudden.
you mean there is a whole class of people who are "first among equals"?

Forgive me. Perhaps I should rephrase: Threatening or advocating harm against any person(s) is illegal and is liable to prosecution. Threatening or advocating harm against a certified officer is in lieu of assassination laws. These are punishable just as well, and as it is within the realms of assassination, punishments are more harsh.

Ok, now I've always bought the argument "this is a private art gallery that is privatly owned, we own it, so we get to decide what's going in and what's getting left out, it's not cencorship, it's private property."

So now we're expected to believe "the government gets to censor any art that benifits from public funds."? So does that mean that the government can censor art in galleries that are in neighborhoods patrolled by police paid with government money? Has its garbage collected by government sanitation workers?

Not to mention, I'm skeptical of the characterization of the work in question. It reminds me of that story about Guliani trying to cut the funding of the Brooklyn Art Museum a few years ago because of a piece he said was "Catholic Bashing." I went to see the exhibit, and it was NOT what the local news portrayed it to be. And the piece that was debated was about the least disgusting piece in the exhibit.

I'm pretty sure that I can agree with you about this. If the news article or any other reports are wrong in their description of these pieces, and they're not as prone to violence and advocating harm against the president, then they should be allowed. However, if it is as they claim it to be, then by all means take it down.

socialism says everyone is equal, capitalism says you earn what you get, your not just automaticly equal, you have to earn it


I'm not sure how things are done from where you're from,
but here in the United States it says in the declaration of independence,
which the supreme court has ruled to be a semi-legal document (or something like that), it states that "all men(sic) are created equal"

Maybe if these 'artists' would make real art instead of anti-bush shit, they might get noticed.

Let me just sketch out a giant penis and label it on the ground "The size of Shrug's dick". Apparently you morons would still call this art.

Then again, when I see some abstract shit crafted by a 3 year old with ADD, people buy them for six digits.

I'm glad the CIA came by, not because of 'threatening' the life of world's most powerful nation, but because these college kids need to think of something a little more then "Let's draw bush as a chimp ROFLCOPTER."

Canada City']Maybe if these 'artists' would make real art instead of anti-bush shit, they might get noticed.

Let me just sketch out a giant penis and label it on the ground "The size of Shrug's dick". Apparently you morons would still call this art.

Then again, when I see some abstract shit crafted by a 3 year old with ADD, people buy them for six digits.

I'm glad the CIA came by, not because of 'threatening' the life of world's most powerful nation, but because these college kids need to think of something a little more then "Let's draw bush as a chimp ROFLCOPTER."

This would be so much funnier if it weren't so true. Contemporary artists contribute nothing to society except for hate and promiscuity. I could personally care less about the so-called right to "artistic license".

Canada City']Maybe if these 'artists' would make real art instead of anti-bush shit, they might get noticed.

Let me just sketch out a giant penis and label it on the ground "The size of Shrug's dick". Apparently you morons would still call this art.

Then again, when I see some abstract shit crafted by a 3 year old with ADD, people buy them for six digits.

I'm glad the CIA came by, not because of 'threatening' the life of world's most powerful nation, but because these college kids need to think of something a little more then "Let's draw bush as a chimp ROFLCOPTER."Banning it because of those motives would be considered "censorship".

Canada City']Maybe if these 'artists' would make real art instead of anti-bush shit, they might get noticed.

Let me just sketch out a giant penis and label it on the ground "The size of Shrug's dick". Apparently you morons would still call this art.

Then again, when I see some abstract shit crafted by a 3 year old with ADD, people buy them for six digits.

I'm glad the CIA came by, not because of 'threatening' the life of world's most powerful nation, but because these college kids need to think of something a little more then "Let's draw bush as a chimp ROFLCOPTER."
Ohh...would you prefer it if all artists just painted lovely pictures of puppies running through fields of flowers? Nothing too taxing on your brain, nothing that might make you think a bit, question things and evaluate society just a little?
You know, painting like a child is a damn sight harder than you think. Pablo Picasso spent his entire life trying to, and never felt he had achieved it.

A little off topic: what would the Secret Service do if Dubya had a loaded gun to his own head with had his hand on the trigger?

When you have an image depicting a threatening portrayal of a man of rank, with a quotation that insinuates that said image may actually be a good thing, that can be interpreted as a threat to his/her life. If you want to plaster horns on Bush with a "F--- you, Mr. Bush" caption, then fine. Do it for all I care. But do not depict a potentially violent act and insinuate that you support said violent act. That should be censored.

Hang on.... does that than mean that any action movie depicting a scenario which threatens the life of the president should be banned as well????

This picture is not advocating anything, it's a political caricature. It is a half-verbal pun, criticising the patriot act as political suicide.

I'm not sure how things are done from where you're from,
but here in the United States it says in the declaration of independence,
which the supreme court has ruled to be a semi-legal document (or something like that), it states that "all men(sic) are created equal"

if you read some of my earlier post you will know what i was talking about, i said that we start equally in america, but we are not always equal. this post was just clearing up the difference between socialism and capitalism, the usa is not fully capitalist, due to liberals

This picture is not advocating anything, it's a political caricature. It is a half-verbal pun, criticising the patriot act as political suicide.

THANKS for that one! *kisses carbra's feet*

and i f a gov't makes anybody not show/remove such a picture form any galley, that is censorship.
but if, of course, it was a private art show and the folks hosting it decided not to show it that's their right. eben though i consider the abovementioned artwork to be really funny.

plus, i don't get all the fuss. in this country (germany) we had a postcard distributed by one political party that depicted bush riding in a car, visible through the hair cross of an imaginary gun in the hands of the onlooker. the caption beneath it read " saved the world today already"?

Ok, now I've always bought the argument "this is a private art gallery that is privately owned, we own it, so we get to decide what's going in and what's getting left out, it's not censorship, it's private property."

So now we're expected to believe "the government gets to censor any art that benefits from public funds."? Patriot Act: "You get Free-speech on Tuesdays and Fridays...except weekdays" :D

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/AssasianateBush.jpg
teeheehee

Disclaimer:The above image is a work of comedy,it in no way portrays my feelings towards George W. Bush.I do not wish any harm upon,nor am I planning to harm George W. Bush

Hang on.... does that than mean that any action movie depicting a scenario which threatens the life of the president should be banned as well????

This picture is not advocating anything, it's a political caricature. It is a half-verbal pun, criticising the patriot act as political suicide.

I'm sure if they used real life characters in the times that they are in office and the theme of the movie advocated such a threat to life, they should consider changing such a theme before producing the movie.

And again, you may view the picture as nothing more than a pun, but the mere fact that it seems to be more than such, it is subject to scrutinization and possible banning.

,it in no way portrays my feelings towards George W. Bush.I do not wish any harm upon,nor am I planning to harm George W. Bush

it does not? you do not? i'm deeply disturbed and disappointed!

*disclaimer - above post is a work of comedy, or at least a very poor attempt at such

it does not? you do not? i'm deeply disturbed and disappointed!

*disclaimer - above post is a work of comedy, or at least a very poor attempt at such

just in case the cia are watching <.< >.>

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/AssasianateBush.jpg
teeheehee

Disclaimer:The above image is a work of comedy,it in no way portrays my feelings towards George W. Bush.I do not wish any harm upon,nor am I planning to harm George W. Bush
I wonder if you be as amused if that were a picture of your favorite political leader.

I am amused - actually, no, I wish I could be amused, but too many people take these things seriously - that people actually use the term "political art". As if anything that reflects the accepted politics of the intelligentsia must be good art. And anything that doesn't is doggerel.

For example, the "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano. It got far more attention for the controversy it created, but is really a mediocre piece of art.

Of course the article doesnt show the actual stamp, so it's impossible to say WHO is holding the gun to Bush's head.

If it's himself, then i see no problem for advocating suicide. "go jump off a bridge" is a fair statement to make about someone you don't like. It doesn't mean you intend harm, but that you would be just as happy or happier if harm did come to them.

I dont think it should be illegal to want someone dead. I think the line is crossed when there is an overt message (as opposed to subtle interpretations) encouraging others to act on the idea.

Does a movie depicting policemen getting shot advocate that WE go out and shoot policemen? Of course not. You can't outlaw opinions. Ideas don't kill people. People kill people.

That postage stamp was of very little threat to Bush, unless he got a paper cut licking it.

I wonder if you be as amused if that were a picture of your favorite political leader.

lets see,shall we?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/assasinateberite.jpg
teeheehee

no, i wouldn't be as amused.
but i would think all the same that it were a totally okay way to express criticism/ make art/ whatever.

is there any way to see that piece of art? tried to enlarge the pic with the t-shirts but no good..cuz i hate talking about somthing i have not seen so far.?

Okay guys, I'm going to draw a nice picture of three black monkeys with faces of historic black people (Malcom X for example) hanging on a tree.

Sure, it's racist, prejudice, and it's sole propose to give a hate message, but I'm saved because its art...

right?

depending on the context and/or how you caption it..yes.

(e.g., if it was in a generally very racist context and you'd caption it "alll blacks oughtta hang - better today than tomorrow" i guess the art argument wouldn't save you..)

I don't see how this stamp in any way threatens George Bush or advocates assassination. Well, I didn't until someone mentioned that maybe somebody would connect the words Patriot Act and the picture to mean that putting a gun to Bush' head would be a patriot act.

However, considering the Patriot Act was/is in a fact a law that was created partly because of Bush, I think the stamp reflects something like a slap on the forehead. Like I would slap my own forehead when I did something stupid. However, it is very hard to depict a slap on the forehead or rather, it is easier to put a gun to the head.

So I think it's just the sort of thing where someone else is telling him "Dumbass" and then making the finger motion of shooting himself in the head. Note the shooting Himself in the head. Not someone else. Hence, not assassination. Maybe suicide though.

So yeah, I think the stamp was meant to say that the Patriot Act should have been a political suicide.

It's a shame that it wasn't.

Edit - on another note, it's rather good that this piece got off the private property. They got a lot more attention now. Who knows, it could have been planned by the owners of the gallery and the students. Gallery doesn't pay to exhibit that piece and students get a lot more attention to their art.