NationStates Jolt Archive

On Friday four National Socialists acted out against an exhibition in the Swedish city of Lund by half Honduran, half Afro-Cuban Andres Serrano. Several objects at the exhibition were destroyed by the quartet, enraged by the degenerate content of this so-called art.

The exhibition called "A History of sex" was made up of explicit photos of deviant sexual acts, among others of a white woman masturbating a horse, a woman peeing in the face of a white man, a woman putting her whole fist up a white man's anal, and of a white man kneeling and performing oral sex on a black man. What is worse, parents were encouraged to take their children to the exhibition to make them less prejudice and to learn about "alternative manifestations of love".

It can be seriously questioned whether parents who willingly expose their children to bestiality, pee sex, and fist fucking, should be allowed to have guardianship, no matter whether they show such photos to their children in private at home or in public under the pretext that the sexually depraved images are some kind of art. It is even harder to use polite language when commenting the fact that the exhibition was partly financed by the taxpayers' money.

While the attack on the Serrano exhibition has gained a lot of media attention in Sweden, few news items have mentioned the real content of the photos. Instead, the occurrence is generally described as an unprovoked attack on democracy and freedom of expression in the media. However, by way of forums on Internet a lot of ordinary people have been made aware of the true background and a strong support for the act has been voiced.

Source (with video) (http://www.den-svenske.com/nationalists_act_out_against_degenerate_art_in_sweden.shtml).

Thoughts on the art in question? Is this really the type of art kids and families ought to be seeing? Also, which idiot had the idea to publicly fund this endeavour? Typical of modern liberal decadence. Makes me sick.

PS: Whoever said contradictions don't exist! Look at my poll!

It's not my cup of tea, and I personally would not bring children to see it, but what's truly disgusting is the destruction of the art.

If you don't approve, don't go to see it. But to decide that 1) what the artist has to say is worthy of violence and 2) that one has the right to prevent others from viewing and making their own minds up about it is barbaric.

Sounds like pornography really. Not that there's anything wrong with pornography, but it ain't art, and it ain't for kids.

Of course, I haven't seen it, so it might have actually had real artistic value. Either way, to destroy it proves nothing. Only thugs think violence will ever achieve anything.

Just goes to show how twisted people are. If no one shows up to view it then is it really there?

Don't like it? Don't go see it.

You have to be pretty friggin' stupid to take your kids to an art exhibit entitled "A History of Sex" and expect something that isn't going to be blatantly sexual and likely controversial in one form or another. Unless the exhibit is being floated around on a blimp or is stopping in public places to be demonstrated, the only way kids would be exposed to it is by willingly going to see it, and if you do that, you deserve to be offended.

I mean, as much as I would prefer to avoid seeing "art" of Mr. Hands in action, I'm not going to vandalize it or commit other crimes against the person who makes it.

Why shouldn't children see a woman, who's masturbating a horse, anally penetrate a man who is fellating another man? :D

Why shouldn't children see a woman, who's masturbating a horse, anally penetrate a man who is fellating another man? :D
So they don't grow up to be liberals.

Why shouldn't children see a woman, who's masturbating a horse, anally penetrate a man who is fellating another man? :D

I've seen all of those at some point or another, but not all at once. That would be like the four horsemen of LOL WUT.

Hold on...these aren't "nationalists", they're "National Socialists".

So they were a bunch of scumbag Nazis and nothing more...quite frankly, I'm certain the Holocaust that their predecessors committed (and which they either praise or deny) was far more disgusting and perverted than anything any artist could ever conceive with brush or camera.
They were atheists, so what do you expect?

It's not my cup of tea, and I personally would not bring children to see it, but what's truly disgusting is the destruction of the art.

If you don't approve, don't go to see it. But to decide that 1) what the artist has to say is worthy of violence and 2) that one has the right to prevent others from viewing and making their own minds up about it is barbaric.

Agreed.

I'll say yes. Anything National Socialists destroy, I'm probably for.

Hold on...these aren't "nationalists", they're "National Socialists".

So they were a bunch of scumbag Nazis and nothing more...quite frankly, I'm certain the Holocaust that their predecessors committed (and which they either praise or deny) was far more disgusting and perverted than anything any artist could ever conceive with brush or camera.

I said it before when it was an Israeli ambassador vandalizing museum exhibits, and I'll say it for whoever did this. Immature, intolerant children.

Source (with video) (http://www.den-svenske.com/nationalists_act_out_against_degenerate_art_in_sweden.shtml).

Thoughts on the art in question? Is this really the type of art kids and families ought to be seeing? Also, which idiot had the idea to publicly fund this endeavour? Typical of modern liberal decadence. Makes me sick.

PS: Whoever said contradictions don't exist! Look at my poll!

Hey liberals support Gay Marriage, obviously they can't be complaining about this. A few pictures in an exhibition is sudden a problem? You pay and walk into a gallery call "history of sex" what exactly do you expect to get out of it? I mean real porn is even worst it involve real people acting it out but I don't see nobody go there and attack that.

In regard to shielding your children from the topic of sex. Why would you bring your kids to watch this? You really don't think internet porn is bad enough or something? I am certain there are much better ways to talk to your kids about sex than this

Not saying I support this in any way. But to ban this becomes a form of censorship. If we begin to ban the press because of a few angry people we won't have much freedoms left very soon.

From the OP quote...

..The exhibition called "A History of sex" was made up of explicit photos of deviant sexual acts, among others of a white woman masturbating a horse, a woman peeing in the face of a white man, a woman putting her whole fist up a white man's anal, and of a white man kneeling and performing oral sex on a black man...

Seems like they're concerned more about the color of their skin than the actual sex acts...

Not saying I support this in any way. But to ban this becomes a form of censorship. If we begin to ban the press because of a few angry people we won't have much freedoms left very soon.
The exhibition is publicly subsidized.. if we're going to put up with the sham known as "democracy", might as well put vile projects such as these to a popular vote.

The exhibition is publicly subsidized.. if we're going to put up with the sham known as "democracy", might as well put vile projects such as these to a popular vote.

We have elected representatives in place to do that for us. If every single piece grant to anyone for any purpose had to be put to a public vote then there'd be very little time for anyone to get anything else done.

We have elected representatives in place to do that for us. If every single piece grant to anyone for any purpose had to be put to a public vote then there'd be very little time for anyone to get anything else done.
Hence my use of the word "sham".

Seems like they're concerned more about the color of their skin than the actual sex acts...
And what should be their legitimate sphere of concern? The length of his "tool"? They aren't liberals - they aren't masturbating to the content of the article.

And what should be their legitimate sphere of concern? The length of his "tool"?

I would think the sex acts alone should be their concern. The fact that they went out of their way to describe the skin color of each individual participant shows exactly where their "real" concerns lie.

I would think the sex acts alone should be their concern. The fact that they went out of their way to describe the skin color of each individual participant shows exactly where their "real" concerns lie.
The children. :)

It's not my cup of tea, and I personally would not bring children to see it, but what's truly disgusting is the destruction of the art.

If you don't approve, don't go to see it. But to decide that 1) what the artist has to say is worthy of violence and 2) that one has the right to prevent others from viewing and making their own minds up about it is barbaric.

QFT

The exhibition is publicly subsidized.. if we're going to put up with the sham known as "democracy", might as well put vile projects such as these to a popular vote.

A public poll will give us a more realistic view on how many people support this, how many people are against, and how many people simply don't care.

I don't think a vote is an good idea here. Freedom of press is not something you can publicly vote yes or no for. Think about every civil rights movement, people start off as a small group who bring out new ideas. If the public is allow to vote and ban them from speaking all together we will never break those barriers.

When your friends are disgusted because you're having sex with your dog, they're not being judgemental. They're just sane.

If the children were their concern, why did they list the skin color of each participant?
They don't want their kids growing up to be black, now do they?

The children. :)

If the children were their concern, why did they list the skin color of each participant?

I have not seen this particular Serrano exhibit, but I have seen other photographs by Serrano, and, quite simply, he is a gifted photographer, if not to everyone's taste. What he does is indeed art, whether one happens to like it or not. Further, destroying another's property because you disagree with its content is revolting and criminal, and I hope the idiots who did this get a nice long prison sentence.

Now, would I take small children to see an exhibit called "A History of Sex"? Of course not. Would I take my theoretical teenage children to see it? Very possibly.

Now, would I take small children to see an exhibit called "A History of Sex"? Of course not. Would I take my theoretical teenage children to see it? Very possibly.
Should they have the option of suing you for exposing them to indecent filth? Very possibly.

Serrano is, by the way, so incredibly mild mannered and introverted that most people wouldn't notice him in a room filled with two people. He spoke at an event I stage managed about the First Amendment, and he was a very lovely, if soft spoken man. He talked about Piss Christ, which is an absolutely beautiful photograph, a picture of a crucifix bathed in what appears to be a very soft, golden light, but is actually urine. If you didn't know that, you would think it just a gorgeously lit picture of a Christ image. It sounds, from the description, like some of those images were ones he also showed and discussed at this event, and they all were as beautiful in their own way.

While I think that I would probably not take a small child to see this particular exhibit, it wouldn't be because I was disgusted by it, but that the subject matter was too mature for them.

Should they have the option of suing you for exposing them to indecent filth? Very possibly.

Would they lose any such ridiculous case, seeing as I would hardly be holding guns to their head and forcing them to attend, and because pictures of people engaged in sexual behavior are not intrinsically "indecent filth" in sane people's heads? Unquestionably.

Are we talking like Donald Rumsfeld for a reason? I don't know!

Imperial, have you even see the photographs, or are you just basing your opinion on them on the piece of what appears to be neo-Nazi propaganda you posted?

While I think that I would probably not take a small child to see this particular exhibit, it wouldn't be because I was disgusted by it, but that the subject matter was too mature for them.

Precisely.

Ahh Serrano! :)

Looks like he outdid the Piss Christ controversy.

One of the things about art is shock; he has succeeded.

The fact it's wrong for children or it's public money is irrelevant.

Children shouldn't see this exhibit. I would be more pissed at a parent that would take one to see it.

Public money allocated for art should not have requirements as "morality" would come into play and we would quickly return to art should only glorify God.

The effort to prevent it's display will not stop the fact people do that kind of stuff.

I am ok with it being on display. It's not my thing so I would not go see it.

Source (with video) (http://www.den-svenske.com/nationalists_act_out_against_degenerate_art_in_sweden.shtml).

Thoughts on the art in question? Is this really the type of art kids and families ought to be seeing? Also, which idiot had the idea to publicly fund this endeavour? Typical of modern liberal decadence. Makes me sick.

PS: Whoever said contradictions don't exist! Look at my poll!

Instead of destroying the art, they should have:

1) Notify the authorities so children wouldnt be allowed to the exhibit.

2) Inform police and children welfare services about the parents who took their children to the exhibit.

3) Make fun of the exhibit, the "artist" and the people who went to see the "art", by sending comments to news papers, online forums, making youtube videos (imagine lots of people watching a women jerk off a horse), etc...

On Friday four National Socialists acted out against an exhibition in the Swedish city of Lund by half Honduran, half Afro-Cuban Andres Serrano. Several objects at the exhibition were destroyed by the quartet, enraged by the degenerate content of this so-called art.
I'm sorry, this thread Godwin's itself. The people destroying the art were literally Nazis.

You also gotta love the very deliberate mentioning of who was white and who was black. Tells you a lot about what's important to the article writer.

Thoughts (..meh....)poll!

Nazis, whining about degeneracy...Thats a good one. Usually an indicator they need to get out of the closet.

National Socialists destroying art...


...once again, the Nazis show their respect for their fellow man and his ideas, and show that tolerance is a key pillar of the National Socialist agenda!

...once again, the Nazis show their respect for their fellow man and his ideas, and show that tolerance is a key pillar of the National Socialist agenda!

Again showing that the Nazis still manage to be more vile, disgusting, and repulsive than even the most controversial art or blasphemous image.

Am I the only one who thinks that the only proper response would be to destroy the Nazis in response? It isn't like it would be a loss for society or anything.

*sigh* The only good solution to a Nazi is the application of a fist to their forehead, but that only gets you in more trouble... And advocating for legalizing Nazi hunting is more than a little hypocritical. Can we just call National Socialism a mental disorder and get them all taken away to the looney bin?

They aren't liberals -

You're right, they're Nazis. Not exactly the paragon of moral virtue.

Should they have the option of suing you for exposing them to indecent filth? Very possibly.

Suing is more of an American than a Swedish thing. I wouldn't honestly be worried for any Swedish parents.

Yeah, that sounds like Sweden. The fucked up world isn't the problem, it's the Swedish people who are the problem. Change to accommodate the rest of the fucked up planet already, Swedish people!

Sounds to me like they don't get enough vitamin-d up there in Sweden, or something. :p

Oh noes, the ebul librelz r makin pornz and callin it art! TEH WORLD IS DOOOOOOMD!!!!1!!!1!1!!11!!11!!11!

:rolleyes:


I've seen all of those at some point or another, but not all at once. That would be like the four horsemen of LOL WUT.

I'll just say this:
34

The artistic value and if you should bring your kids to see this can of course be debated. I, for one, don't enjoy filth for the sake of filth itself and as suck, I don't like my tax money being spent on this.

However, that does not excuse racist fuckheads violating democratic rights.

Was this the guy who did the Ecce Homo-exhibition too? I liked that one...

I've seen it, saved it, fapped to it and use it as my desktop.This is a big fat lie.

And now to become a true legend, you must get party vanned for all of the above.

Oh noes, the ebul librelz r makin pornz and callin it art! TEH WORLD IS DOOOOOOMD!!!!1!!!1!1!!11!!11!!11!

:rolleyes:




I'll just say this:
34

I've seen it, saved it, fapped to it and use it as my desktop.This is a big fat lie.

It's not my cup of tea, and I personally would not bring children to see it, but what's truly disgusting is the destruction of the art.

If you don't approve, don't go to see it. But to decide that 1) what the artist has to say is worthy of violence and 2) that one has the right to prevent others from viewing and making their own minds up about it is barbaric.

That sums up my own views quite nicely.

They were atheists, so what do you expect?
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

Sure: first define the difference between 'normal art' and 'entartete kunst', then start burning books?

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

...

...what the hells that supposed to mean?

...

...what the hells that supposed to mean?

It's a quote from Hitler.

Am I the only one who thinks that the only proper response would be to destroy the Nazis in response?

O no, not at all, at all.

They were atheists, so what do you expect?

So they don't grow up to be liberals.

The exhibition is publicly subsidized.. if we're going to put up with the sham known as "democracy", might as well put vile projects such as these to a popular vote.

Hence my use of the word "sham".


And what should be their legitimate sphere of concern? The length of his "tool"? They aren't liberals - they aren't masturbating to the content of the article.

Well, at least you're not trying to hide how incredibly tilted you are. Your predictability, while your only redeeming quality, is at least redeeming.

Yeah, that sounds like Sweden. The fucked up world isn't the problem, it's the Swedish people who are the problem. Change to accommodate the rest of the fucked up planet already, Swedish people!

You realize that your post implies that Sweden is less fucked up than the rest of the world, don't you?

Okay, ladles and gentlespoons, I have to ask: why is it only art if the subject of the depiction is nice, white (in the case of this obviously racist reporter, this is ESPECIALLY important), clean and neat? Light, shadow, perspective, line and form are aspects of art that apply to -- wait for it -- EVERYthing that's possible to depict. They even apply to things that aren't available to model (hence, abstract/impressionist/expressionist/etc.).

Friends, the subject's connotation is part of the art. If art socks you, it's probably supposed to. So much of societal life is bowdlerized, sanitized and otherwise made palatable to the masses. Can we not have one ridiculously small sliver that is completely free to express itself? Trust me, no gallery will support an artist who does not make use of the visual artists' palette, because nobody will come to see it. Controversy draws a crowd even for a short time (look at talk radio if you don't believe this premise), so the solution is to avoid the exhibition if you don't like it or agree with it, and let it run its course. There is enough pabulum and entertaining bromide in the world to satisfy those who don't wish to be shocked.

Well obviously the artist has hit the proverbial bulls-eye with his exhibition, seeing as he made a few racists smash up his art about racial awareness.

It obvious which party is the one being baited and looking stupid here.

Well obviously the artist has hit the proverbial bulls-eye with his exhibition, seeing as he made a few racists smash up his art about racial awareness.

It obvious which party is the one being baited and looking stupid here.

His exhibition was about the history of sex......

Mapplethorpe has made some pictures of a person being fisted which are definitely art. Another work of "pornography" generally considered art would be the 'made in heaven' series of Koons having sex with his life. So explicit sex can definitely be art. Of course it isn't really appropriate to bring children to see it but destroying the art is really stupid and even worse. It more about the (endless stupidity of the) nationalists than about the art.

Should they have the option of suing you for exposing them to indecent filth? Very possibly.

Your intolerance is indecent filth.

And you have a problem with one little exhibit? What about these Notable Sex Museums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_museum#Notable_sex_museums)? Ah, sexual freedom; the choice to not conform to the fully clothed in the dark missionary fornication.

There is nothing wrong with an exhibit devoted to the sexual side of humanity. We're a sexual species and if some people can't deal with it, well, just bury your head in the sand and let the mature people study and enjoy the human form in a sexual context.

There is no point in censoring this. This is no more obscene than what we can find on the internet.

Too bad you haven't learned that life isn't rated G.

"Decency" is overrated anyway.

They were atheists, so what do you expect?

Good taste; they value freedom of expression.

I wish people would get back to doing real art.

I wish people would get back to doing real art.

It would help if we defined "art"; there seems to be a liberal interpretation of the word.

Hey, don't scare him off. This guy could be the next Jesussaves.
Sowwy. :) I forgot how to play nice.

Your intolerance is indecent filth.

And you have a problem with one little exhibit? What about these Notable Sex Museums (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_museum#Notable_sex_museums)? Ah, sexual freedom; the choice to not conform to the fully clothed in the dark missionary fornication.

There is nothing wrong with an exhibit devoted to the sexual side of humanity. We're a sexual species and if some people can't deal with it, well, just bury your head in the sand and let the mature people study and enjoy the human form in a sexual context.

There is no point in censoring this. This is no more obscene than what we can find on the internet.

Too bad you haven't learned that life isn't rated G.

"Decency" is overrated anyway.



Good taste; they value freedom of expression.
Hey, don't scare him off. This guy could be the next Jesussaves.
I wish people would get back to doing real art.

So this guy made art about sex and managed to make it outside the realm of reality? That is impressive and confusing.

Who said this is art?

Who said this is art?

The artist? ;)

Yeah, that sounds like Sweden. The fucked up world isn't the problem, it's the Swedish people who are the problem. Change to accommodate the rest of the fucked up planet already, Swedish people!

So very nice of you. I´m Swedish by the way. :D

Nazi-wannabes destroying art, destroying anything in fact, is of course never acceptable. But neither is wasting the tax payers' money on art.

Is it worse than wasting our money on something else?

Nazi-wannabes destroying art, destroying anything in fact, is of course never acceptable. But neither is wasting the tax payers' money on art.

Thus, I check every box in this dumb poll.

They were atheists, so what do you expect?
IMO we should lock the thread-starter in a room and force him to watch... The South Park Movie... :p
('Bigger, Longer, and Uncut')
I bet he would love that... *Evil*

I am reminded of an Abney Park song I've been listening to recently.

They say an artist from block 616
Revived some old art just for his own kicks
They say his pictures were lewd
They say his women were nude
So we throw them inside

Now that artist can run, he can hide
But sooner or later we'll throw him inside
I don't think the people should see
Well that's not art to me
So we'll throw them inside

Damn good band, and a fairly accurate song for the occasion. (for the worried, they're fairly punk, but that's a song about a dystopia)

As for the OP. I don't like this art, I wouldn't choose to go see it, but destroying it like that should not happen.

I would also like to publicly distance myself from bigoted people such as the OP himself, and make it clear that his claims of Christianity are not at all what I mean. Please don't judge all of us because of a few stupid bigots. (This is kind of due to all of his posts I've seen)

I wouldn't call it art, nor is it appropriate for children (or even for many adults). But, the appropriate response would be a boycott or picketing or some sort of public protest.

why does it keep talking about "white" people :confused:

also, I would rather live in a world where people are free to make such "art" than in one where they were not.

I would probably never ever go see anything like this, nor would I take my children, but everything doesn't need to be Smunkee approved (tm), it would be a pretty bland world if that were the rule anyway.

Public money allocated for art should not have requirements as "morality" would come into play and we would quickly return to art should only glorify God.
Public money is at the disposition of the taxpayers. If they do not like how it is used, they have every right to protest such uses. But then again, many of you liberals like, but also hate, democracy. Tragic...


However, that does not excuse racist fuckheads violating democratic rights.

Democratic "rights" to what? To have one's nude art put on display with taxpayer money? Oh yes...

It's not my cup of tea, and I personally would not bring children to see it, but what's truly disgusting is the destruction of the art.

If you don't approve, don't go to see it. But to decide that 1) what the artist has to say is worthy of violence and 2) that one has the right to prevent others from viewing and making their own minds up about it is barbaric.

I agree completely. Besides, destroying an art exhibit in Europe* is a waste of time and energy. It is so much easier to claim that the art insults Islam, then watch the exhibit directors run to shut it down themselves.

*with the Danish exception, of course.

Well, at least you're not trying to hide how incredibly tilted you are. Your predictability, while your only redeeming quality, is at least redeeming.
Do they not teach you liberals how to avoid tautologies anymore?

Your intolerance is indecent filth.
No, it's a healthy reaction to Sin.

There is nothing wrong with an exhibit devoted to the sexual side of humanity. We're a sexual species and if some people can't deal with it, well, just bury your head in the sand and let the mature people study and enjoy the human form in a sexual context.
So giving in to one's animal side is... mature? Gee, I'll let rapists know that.

There is no point in censoring this. This is no more obscene than what we can find on the internet.
Indeed - your posts come a close second.

why does it keep talking about "white" people :confused:

also, I would rather live in a world where people are free to make such "art" than in one where they were not.

I would probably never ever go see anything like this, nor would I take my children, but everything doesn't need to be Smunkee approved (tm), it would be a pretty bland world if that were the rule anyway.

Maybe the source is a little bit biased, like the OP. (It's national socialistic)

I agree with the rest of your post.

No, it's a healthy reaction to Sin.

No its simply your reaction to what you percieve as Sin. Others define Sin and define healthy reactions far differently. Its not an absolute nor is it justification to force your version of Sin and your version of a healthy reaction on others viewpoints.

So giving in to one's animal side is... mature? Gee, I'll let rapists know that.

So what your saying is going into a museum to look at some pictures is the equivelent of rape? ::eyeroll::

No, it's a healthy reaction to Sin.

Blah, blah blah... sin... blah blah blah...

You sound like a scratched CD.

So giving in to one's animal side is... mature? Gee, I'll let rapists know that.

Suppressing sexuality isn't healthy.

Embracing one's sexuality is not giving in to one's supposed animal side.

Indeed - your posts come a close second.

:rolleyes: OK, dude, level with me, what are you smoking and where can I get some? Because honestly... if you think my post comes close to being obscene, I'll have to admit, you're sheltered, which is extremely... pathetic.

From the OP quote...



Seems like they're concerned more about the color of their skin than the actual sex acts...

I noticed that too. One would think the color of skin would be irrelevant to the sex act.

His exhibition was about the history of sex......

Im not sure how this relates to my post...

So giving in to one's animal side is... mature? Gee, I'll let rapists know that.

Enjoying sex the way you want with mutual consent is. You kind of remind me of that preacher dude that was found recently with two diving suits on, hogtied, a dildo in his anus and other stuff. He was famous for preaching against "deviant sexual acts" but asphyxiated himself during auto-erotic play. Kind of sad that he wasn't mature enough to do what felt good to him with people who enjoyed the same thing, he might be alive today if he had someone assisting him, and his dead wouldn't have been so ironic (and very much tragic for his family and friends). So yeah, I would say that "giving in to one's animal side" is more mature than preaching hate your whole life against people who are just enjoying themselves and not being ashamed/afraid of hell/or of what others might think.

gay sex is not depraved. bestiality and whatever you call fisting and piss is on an entirely different level. I'm kind of pissed off that they lumped those together.

why does it keep talking about "white" people :confused:

That's because "Den Svenske" ("the Swedish") is a Nazi "publication", thus literally a bona fide mouth piece for a Nazi party - it's not a real paper. Don't waste your time reading it, unless of course you do it just to laugh at the crazy. Sort of like the OP...

That's because "Den Svenske" ("the Swedish") is a Nazi "publication", thus literally a bona fide mouth piece for a Nazi party - it's not a real paper. Don't waste your time reading it, unless of course you do it just to laugh at the crazy. Sort of like the OP...

Yeah. Have you got that "National-socialistisk Front" leaflet in your mailbox? I laughted for about a hour. They are just so ridiculous.

Yeah. Have you got that "National-socialistisk Front" leaflet in your mailbox? I laughted for about a hour. They are just so ridiculous.

Fortunately I live in a somewhat exclusive part of town and all the buildings have electronic locks, so solicitors, peddlers, proselytes, Nazi scum and so forth cannot gain access to my mailbox or my door, so I have been spared. I did have one handed me, though, when they were protesting on a square not far from where I live - I made a gesture of wiping my ass with it to show the little lowlife just what I thought of it.

Fortunately I live in a somewhat exclusive part of town and all the buildings have electronic locks, so solicitors, peddlers, proselytes, Nazi scum and so forth cannot gain access to my mailbox or my door, so I have been spared. I did have one handed me, though, when they were protesting on a square not far from where I live - I made a gesture of wiping my ass with it to show the little lowlife just what I thought of it.

Too bad I wasn´t there to see his expression. :D

Yeah. Have you got that "National-socialistisk Front" leaflet in your mailbox? I laughted for about a hour. They are just so ridiculous.

Wow, thank goodness all i get at my door are Mormons.

Too bad I wasn´t there to see his expression. :D

Hers. She was an ugly bitch, too. Seriously, if that's all the aryans could muster when it comes to physique, they really should think about setting up ovens for some of their own minions. *shudders at the recollection of the greasy, fake-blonde hair and horrible outfit*

Sounds like pornography really. Not that there's anything wrong with pornography,
No, nothing wrong at all (as long as it depicts consenting adults etc...)

but it ain't art,
Meh, sometimes there is art depicting sex so vividly that it can be called pornography...


and it ain't for kids.

I agree wholeheartedly.

OP:
The exhibition called "A History of sex" was made up of explicit photos of deviant sexual acts, among others of a white woman masturbating a horse, a woman peeing in the face of a whiteman, a woman putting her whole fist up a white man's anal, and of a white man kneeling and performing oral sex on a black man. What is worse, parents were encouraged to take their children to the exhibition to make them less prejudice and to learn about "alternative manifestations of love".

"White woman" masturbates horse, "white man" gets pissed on... Wasn't enough to say "woman masturbates horse", "man gets pissed on"?
I tought the point was the pornographical quality of the images, not the racial factor...

Wow, thank goodness all i get at my door are Mormons.

There's a difference?

...

Okay, that's not fair. If you had said "Wow, thank goodness all I get at my door are Jehovas Witnesses." maybe, but the morons are mostly harmless.

"White woman" masturbates horse, "white man" gets pissed on... Wasn't enough to say "woman masturbates horse", "man gets pissed on"?
I tought the point was the pornographical quality of the images, not the racial factor...

Which part of "Nazi scum" did you miss? They don't give a shit about the sex, they just have an irrational hate of brown people.

Which part of "Nazi scum" did you miss? They don't give a shit about the sex, they just have an irrational hate of brown people.

I think it's hilarious that people are taking the Nazis' version of this as somehow truthful, especially the part about children being urged to visit the exhibit. Hilarious.

There's a difference?

...

Okay, that's not fair. If you had said "Wow, thank goodness all I get at my door are Jehovas Witnesses." maybe, but the morons are mostly harmless.

considering the JW's were the only ethnic german group that resisted Hitler and voluntarily went to concentration camps in large numbers without recanting (something no other religious group in germany or occupied territories did), I think we owe them a bit more respect. they believe plenty of stupid shit, but they've shown amazing integrity as a group, and their commitment to stand against nationalism is unshakable.

I think it's hilarious that people are taking the Nazis' version of this as somehow truthful, especially the part about children being urged to visit the exhibit. Hilarious.
It's on the internet so it must be true.

considering the JW's were the only ethnic german group that resisted Hitler and voluntarily went to concentration camps in large numbers without recanting (something no other religious group in germany or occupied territories did), I think we owe them a bit more respect. they believe plenty of stupid shit, but they've shown amazing integrity as a group, and their commitment to stand against nationalism is unshakable.

Absolutely. They'd rather replace the state with an authoritarian body which supresses freedom and seeks to harm sexual deviants. National Socialists, no. Pigish Authoritarians? Shit yes!

that's what you get when you try to make a "master-race" by inbreeding, someone should give *ethnicity*-supremacists a crash course in genetics and tell them why the human race would benefit from more mixed (ethnicity-wise) couples instead of limiting themselves to only aryans.

Not to mention that the stereotyped "aryan" appearance isn't very attractive at all. It's just so plain.

Hers. She was an ugly bitch, too. Seriously, if that's all the aryans could muster when it comes to physique, they really should think about setting up ovens for some of their own minions. *shudders at the recollection of the greasy, fake-blonde hair and horrible outfit*

that's what you get when you try to make a "master-race" by inbreeding, someone should give *ethnicity*-supremacists a crash course in genetics and tell them why the human race would benefit from more mixed (ethnicity-wise) couples instead of limiting themselves to only aryans.

considering the JW's were the only ethnic german group that resisted Hitler and voluntarily went to concentration camps in large numbers without recanting (something no other religious group in germany or occupied territories did), I think we owe them a bit more respect. they believe plenty of stupid shit, but they've shown amazing integrity as a group, and their commitment to stand against nationalism is unshakable.

Yea well the Nike shoe/spaceship cult who mass suicided didnt recant either. Doesnt mean they qualify for any more respect for believing stupid things.

Hers. She was an ugly bitch, too. Seriously, if that's all the aryans could muster when it comes to physique, they really should think about setting up ovens for some of their own minions. *shudders at the recollection of the greasy, fake-blonde hair and horrible outfit*

It´s often people who lacks self-confidence who join such groups. It´s easy to convince them that it´s the Jews/black people/people with green shirts who is responsible for their problems.

Not to mention that the stereotyped "aryan" appearance isn't very attractive at all. It's just so plain.

It's also sooo ironic that they worship a "small brown haired old man" but find "young tall muscled blond guys" the perfect look. Do they have a somewhat satisfying explanation for that?

It's also sooo ironic that they worship a "small brown haired old man" but find "young tall muscled blond guys" the perfect look. Do they have a somewhat satisfying explanation for that?

Are we talking about Nazis, or Edguy fans?

On Friday four National Socialists acted out against an exhibition in the Swedish city of Lund by <b>half Honduran, half Afro-Cuban Andres Serrano.</b> Several objects at the exhibition were destroyed by the quartet, enraged by the degenerate content of this so-called art.

The exhibition called "A History of sex" was made up of explicit photos of deviant sexual acts, among others of a <b>white woman masturbating a horse, a woman peeing in the face of a white man, a woman putting her whole fist up a white man's anal, and of a white man kneeling and performing oral sex on a black man.<b> What is <b>worse,<b> parents were encouraged to take their children to the exhibition to make them less prejudice and to learn about "alternative manifestations of love".


Oh heaven forbid a man be submissive to a woman! Or another man! A man of colour at that! *gasps*
And of course these are all the product of a Honduran Afro-Cuban... those sick, sick people.
/sarcasm

Seriously, how many times was race and gender mentioned in that article?

I don't personally agree with many (if any) of the displayed acts, but I certainly don't disagree with the artist and models' rights to depict them.
If you don't like the art don't look at it, and if you think it's inappropriate speak or write to the museum and request them to put restrictions on it and don't take your kids. How hard is that?

Btw, did anyone else notice which pieces they destroyed?

Source (with video) (http://www.den-svenske.com/nationalists_act_out_against_degenerate_art_in_sweden.shtml).

Thoughts on the art in question? Is this really the type of art kids and families ought to be seeing? Also, which idiot had the idea to publicly fund this endeavour? Typical of modern liberal decadence. Makes me sick.

PS: Whoever said contradictions don't exist! Look at my poll!
Since others have already covered this, I won't bother repeating the fact that your OP and all your posts throughout the thread comprise nothing but a bigoted, over-the-top, nut-job rant in which you support Nazi propaganda and Nazi violence, racism and criminal acts, while viciously demonizing liberals, democracy, atheism, and sexuality without the slightest attempt to make an actual argument out of it.

Oh, oops. I guess I just did repeat it, but oh well, it needs saying.

I have zero interest in Serrano's artwork. I get the message he is trying to send, I don't need to have him beat me over the head with it, so I don't go to look at his deliberately disturbing and offensive exhibitions. But this time, I do have give Mr. Serrano his props. He won. You lost. He made you blink. :cool:

See, Serrano, for all his mild-mannered personality, is an attack artist. The exhibition is called "A History of Sex" but it really isn't about sex at all. The point of the exhibition is to shock, offend, frighten, undermine the complacently accepted "mores" of society, shatter the safe little boundaries that people surround themselves with, pretending those boundaries are the shape of reality. The "History of Sex" exhibition is a catalogue of all the dark, twisted thoughts that people have but only a few ever act on. This includes everything about it from the first fist photo to that ridiculous nonsense about encouraging people to bring their children (that was the conceptual/interactive/performance part of the show). It's a dark mirror held up to the minds of those who call themselves "moral." It's a harsh reality check for those who like to pretend the world is the way they say it is, the way that puts them on top and makes the world their private Gymboree. It reminds me of lyrics from a Devo song (taken out of order):

"Peek-a-boo! I see you
And I know what you do
'Cause I do it too"

"Laugh if you want to and say you don't care
If you cannot see it, you think it's not there.
It doesn't work that way."

People who are aware of reality don't need Serrano's art. People like you are his audience. People whose tiny, stunted, limited little minds need to be cracked wide open, whether you like it or not.

Action: Serrano makes his exhibition.

Reaction: Nazis appear like extras ordered up from Central Casting and, right on cue, destroy Serrano's art. (Shit, if it had been me, I'd have paid them to make sure they got the job done.)

Result: Serrano makes his point.

Conclusion: Being an artist is the most satisfying job in the world. Hehehe.

His exhibition was about the history of sex......

No, it wasn't. It was about forcing emotional responses to extreme stimuli, which just happened also to be beautifully made because that's Serrano's technical style.

And it was a total success.

It was not about sex, the title notwithstanding.

Btw, did anyone else notice which pieces they destroyed?

no, the vid doesn't work, please tell.

Can't disagree with their actions, it was pretty sick stuff. I don't see how it's even art. If you put it on the internet it's porn, and sick porn at that, particularly with the horse. Put it in a gallery and it's suddenly art. The destruction of this 'art' is certainly no loss to the world. Society's going downhill fast if these exhibits are commonplace. I don't see why something should suddenly get so much more protection and respect because someone labels it art.

Was this done when the museum was closed at least? Or did these maniacs weilding crowbars run into a filled museum and scare the crap out of the children they are so concerned about protecting?

I wish people would get back to doing real art.
People who say this, generally have no idea what real art is.

It would help if we defined "art"; there seems to be a liberal interpretation of the word.

Actually, "art" is a technical word, describing a very narrow kind of decorative work the primary purpose of which is to communicate ideas.

In the past, art communicated ideas that supported and reinforced common cultural/social notions and identities (public art commissioned by churches and governments), or it communicated ideas about the social status of individuals commissioning the art (portraits and murals in private homes and art in public churches, commissioned by rich patrons), or it communicated philosophical or theological ideas (as in the coded imagery of landscapes and still life paintings).

Another kind of art, highly technical, is communication between artists. This kind first appeared in the Renaissance, with artworks that were exercises in experimental optics and new media, and became very prominent in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries, as artists began to use their work to explore art theory -- the Impressionists and Luminists, for instance.

Finally, in the 20th century, during and after WW1, you started to get artists taking over the role that had been dominated by writers and poets -- artist as satirist or commentator. Rather than make images/objects that complimented society, artists began to make images/objects that attacked what they saw as a murderously blind social order. DaDa was the first of the shock-art movements, arising immediately out of the chaos and destruction, as well as social injustice, of WW1. It was followed almost immediately by Surrealism and Expressionisn. There were also proto-expressionist precursors such as the brutal artist George Grosz (one of my favorites), who presented harsh, cynical, gut-punching images of German fat-cat war profiteers living the high life of indulgence and perversion while surrounded by the broken bodies of amputee soldiers, like half-human machines (that's how they were treated by their governments), left to beg on the streets.

"Real" art tells society about itself. If you don't like what art says, fix yourself, and it will have different things to say about you.

EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, I've been a (struggling) professional artist for over 20 years. I'm a DaDa-Surrealist collagist and sculptor, so Serrano's work is old hat to me. I'm not a big fan of his. It is well made, certainly, but I find his methods inelegant and ham-fisted (if you'll pardon the expression). But I totally get the point of what he does. It's not about sex (there I said it again).

Was this done when the museum was closed at least? Or did these maniacs weilding crowbars run into a filled museum and scare the crap out of the children they are so concerned about protecting?

You actually believe the Nazis when they say children were urged to go there? Why?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13126122']Can't disagree with their actions, it was pretty sick stuff. I don't see how it's even art. If you put it on the internet it's porn, and sick porn at that, particularly with the horse. Put it in a gallery and it's suddenly art. The destruction of this 'art' is certainly no loss to the world. Society's going downhill fast if these exhibits are commonplace. I don't see why something should suddenly get so much more protection and respect because someone labels it art.

So you think, if someone displays something you don't like, you should be allowed to destroy someone else's property? Isn't that a crime? Are you promoting criminal actions?

I really wish people would think. Just once in a while.

You actually believe the Nazis when they say children were urged to go there? Why?
Thank you for reminding us of that.

It is slightly, maybe, a little tiny bit possible that Serrano might say something like that, but not really mean it. He likes to attach shocking text to the promotions of his shows sometimes.

But it is just as likely that it is a bald-faced lie made up by the Nazis, just like the OP continually accuses liberals of being perverts of some kind or another.

I'm actually O.K with it. But that's bad for people as young as 6 going along. There should be a 18+ Rule there.

no, the vid doesn't work, please tell.

Mostly the ones that could be interpreted as "degrading" to white men by those with a conservative view point.

I'm actually O.K with it. But that's bad for people as young as 6 going along. There should be a 18+ Rule there.
I didn't bother looking at the vid link because I have dial up and life is short, and, you know, they're Nazis.

Can anyone tell me if there is a photo or vid clip of a child standing or sitting in the same room as any of these Serrano works? Anywhere on the whole internet?

Actually, "art" is a technical word, describing a very narrow kind of decorative work the primary purpose of which is to communicate ideas.

Very indepth explanation and does establish the concept well, thus giving us a base on which to begin the debate from. Yes art can be shocking if that is the intent.

PS: Whoever said contradictions don't exist! Look at my poll!

Nah, I just abused the multi choice option.

I didn't bother looking at the vid link because I have dial up and life is short, and, you know, they're Nazis.

Can anyone tell me if there is a photo or vid clip of a child standing or sitting in the same room as any of these Serrano works? Anywhere on the whole internet?

No children were visible.

Very indepth explanation and does establish the concept well, thus giving us a base on which to begin the debate from. Yes art can be shocking if that is the intent.
Thank you. It was my pleasure.

No children were visible.
Thanks. I really had a feeling that was the case.

I think it should be censored. Society needs to be kept decent and things like that should be kept in people's homes, not in public and not in an art display.

Thanks. I really had a feeling that was the case.

Also, none of the real Swedish papers I read that have written about this incident have mentioned anything about children.

I think it should be censored. Society needs to be kept decent and things like that should be kept in people's homes, not in public and not in an art display.

Thankfully Sweden is a free country with freedom of expression, so we won't be heading your nonsense.

I think it should be censored. Society needs to be kept decent and things like that should be kept in people's homes, not in public and not in an art display.

Would you put underpants on Michaelangelo's "David"? His penis may be small compared to the rest of him, but it's bigger than your head and hanging right above you, like the Sword of Damocles.

By the way, there are prudes in this world who do think the David should be clothed, and they are dismissed as being just as silly as your post. At least, I'll give you credit for being honest enough to call your position censorship. However, I decline to support the censoring of ideas.

Don't like it? Don't look at it. "Decency" is not only in the eye of the beholder, it's in your own hands too. You have 100% power to make your own life as "decent" as you want it to be. Mine is already as "decent" as I want it to be, even with Serrano shows at museums. I don't need your interference, thank you. (Note: I'm using the rhetorical "you.")

Also, none of the real Swedish papers I read that have written about this incident have mentioned anything about children.

<snip>

In that case, then, it's nothing but a Nazi lie (forgive the redundancy).

Can kids walk into the exhibition on their own without adults if they wanted to?

I think it should be censored. Society needs to be kept decent and things like that should be kept in people's homes, not in public and not in an art display.

Why does society need to be kept decent? Maybe part of societys problem is that its too uptight and needs to be constantly subjected to new ideas to keep it viable and fresh, not encased in glass like Lenins Tomb.

New ideas still must be kept within the realm of decency. Part of the problem is that some people want everything to be so permissive that there is no rule structure and others want rules so expansive that everyone is guilty and there is no freedom inside one's own home. Freedom versus Irresponsibility, Morals versus Tyranny, these things are in a constant dialectic struggle, the middle course is always best.

Can kids walk into the exhibition on their own without adults if they wanted to?

I don't know about Sweden, but in the US, they wouldn't be able to. There are usually age restrictions on exhibitions that are so overtly sexual or violent in content, as well as advisories for parents and schools. Yet that does not stop censors, prudes, and bigots from claiming that Our Children (tm) are having Filth (tm) forcibly shoved down their throats just because the works exist at all. It happens every time Serrano (as well as some other artists) have a big exhibition.

I don't know about Sweden, but in the US, they wouldn't be able to. There are usually age restrictions on exhibitions that are so overtly sexual or violent in content, as well as advisories for parents and schools. Yet that does not stop censors, prudes, and bigots from claiming that Our Children (tm) are having Filth (tm) forcibly shoved down their throats just because the works exist at all. It happens every time Serrano (as well as some other artists) have a big exhibition.

Ok. But I wouldn't find it implausible if kids could in Sweden.

Maybe the source is a little bit biased, like the OP. (It's national socialistic)

It took until fucking POST #73 for someone to note that?!?

His "source" is the Swedish National Socialists' website.

Like, seriously? What happened to people actually clicking links?? Gah!

I don't think it should be censored... I don't think children should go see it, but art shouldn't be all land scapes and still life either.

I wonder if it would be such a huge deal if they were paintings, and not photographs.

Can kids walk into the exhibition on their own without adults if they wanted to?

No proof has been submitted that children were admitted. Swedish papers mention nothing about children. And why are you lot so concerned with Swedish children? They can, and do, handle a lot more than this puritanical "PG 13" nonsense you Anglos have, and they're none the worse for it. Nevertheless, I have taken the time to go to the website of the museum and it clearly states:

"A History of Sex innehåller starka bilder. Vi rekommenderar inte att barn under 6 år ser den. Unga under 15* år bör se den i föräldrars eller andra vuxnas sällskap."

"'A history of Sex' contains strong imagery. We recommend that children under the age of 6 not view it. Adolescents below the age of 15* should not view it without the accompaniment of parents or other adults".

So, no - children are not urged to view it. Parents are dissuaded from showing it to them. Adolescents must have an adult with them to view it. Tada.

*15 is the age of consent in Sweden. If they can fuck, they can view fucking.

I'll say yes. Anything National Socialists destroy, I'm probably for.


Themselves?

Why does society need to be kept decent? Maybe part of societys problem is that its too uptight and needs to be constantly subjected to new ideas to keep it viable and fresh, not encased in glass like Lenins Tomb.

Hmm. What if I showed pictures of Mohamed being defecated on? Why do I sense you'd label that a "no-no?"

New ideas still must be kept within the realm of decency. Part of the problem is that some people want everything to be so permissive that there is no rule structure and others want rules so expansive that everyone is guilty and there is no freedom inside one's own home. Freedom versus Irresponsibility, Morals versus Tyranny, these things are in a constant dialectic struggle, the middle course is always best.

I'm going to indecently call BULLSHIT on this argument. I challenge you to define the "realm of decency." I challenge you to show me where its limits are, where it begins and ends. Lay out its figurative geography for us. And once you've done that, I will offer up the Whole Earth Catalogue of art/letters/ideas that you think fall within this mythical realm that others have tried to have censored, and challenge you to account for that and for how your so-called realm can exist when so few seem to be able to find it.

That nonsense about how we have to walk a fine line between too permissive and too restrictive (the "Snoop Too Much" argument, I call it), is malarkey. I'll challenge it before you even try to explain it -- Define for me, if you can, just who you think should be granting permission for other people to express ideas, and then justify to me, if you can, why I should sit and wait for such "permission" before expressing myself as I see fit?

In other words, give me one good reason why I should even give a rusty rat's ass whether you think my ideas are decent or not, let alone go to the effort of conforming to your rules?

And once you've accounted for all that, explain to me why it's not enough for you to filter your own life through your own little decency sieve and leave the rest of us alone. Why you think others have to be made to fit in with your life, rather than you just minding your own business and simply not patronizing art you don't like.

Hm. So you think it should be legal to show it in public?

It is.

Ok. But I wouldn't find it implausible if kids could in Sweden.
That sounds like a kind of prudish, xenophobic prejudice against Sweden.

Hmm. What if I showed pictures of Mohamed being defecated on? Why do I sense you'd label that a "no-no?"

Why would that bother me in the slightest? Im not even remotely religious and applauded South Parks effort to do just that.

Why would that bother me in the slightest? Im not even remotely religious and applauded South Parks effort to do just that.

Hm. So you think it should be legal to show it in public?

No proof has been submitted that children were admitted. Swedish papers mention nothing about children. And why are you lot so concerned with Swedish children? They can, and do, handle a lot more than this puritanical "PG 13" nonsense you Anglos have, and they're none the worse for it. Nevertheless, I have taken the time to go to the website of the museum and it clearly states:

"A History of Sex innehåller starka bilder. Vi rekommenderar inte att barn under 6 år ser den. Unga under 15* år bör se den i föräldrars eller andra vuxnas sällskap."

"'A history of Sex' contains strong imagery. We recommend that children under the age of 6 not view it. Adolescents below the age of 15* should not view it without the accompaniment of parents or other adults".

So, no - children are not urged to view it. Parents are dissuaded from showing it to them. Adolescents must have an adult with them to view it. Tada.

*15 is the age of consent in Sweden. If they can fuck, they can view fucking.
Pretty much the same age advisories/restrictions that are used in US museums. I expected as much.

New ideas still must be kept within the realm of decency. Part of the problem is that some people want everything to be so permissive that there is no rule structure and others want rules so expansive that everyone is guilty and there is no freedom inside one's own home. Freedom versus Irresponsibility, Morals versus Tyranny, these things are in a constant dialectic struggle, the middle course is always best.

So consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to make the choice to look at this exhibit? It's clearly marked to it's content.

Hm. So you think it should be legal to show it in public?
South Park aired on US television. Totally public and totally legal. In the US, we call it the First Amendment. Live with it. It is your friend, even if it happens to be South Park's friend, too.

Oh, and for the record, that particular episode did not show Mohammed being defecated on. It showed Jesus and all his friends playing with poop and throwing it at each other. It was hilarious.

That sounds like a kind of prudish, xenophobic prejudice against Sweden.

And I read it as a celebration of the fact that Sweden is, perhaps, considerably less uptight than the USA.

And I read it as a celebration of the fact that Sweden is, perhaps, considerably less uptight than the USA.

Possibly, but in the context of the thread and the general sense of agreement that children would not be best served by looking at these works, I read it as a "those people are relatively loose in their parental standards, compared to us" type assumption.

Possibly, but in the context of the thread and the general sense of agreement that children would not be best served by looking at these works, I read it as a "those people are relatively loose in their parental standards, compared to us" type assumption.

I should certainly hope so and be proud thereof.

I should certainly hope so and be proud thereof.
Oh, I'm sure you would. ;) Actually, I wish US parents would stop coddling and stifling their little no-neck monsters as well, give them a chance of becoming human some day.

That sounds like a kind of prudish, xenophobic prejudice against Sweden.

People are prejudiced against countries all the time, if my instinctive inclinations towards Sweden are xenophobic, then Fass and the rest of the ebil usians crowd must be fucking Nazis.

I should certainly hope so and be proud thereof.

I agree with you.

It took until fucking POST #73 for someone to note that?!?

His "source" is the Swedish National Socialists' website.

Like, seriously? What happened to people actually clicking links?? Gah!

Well now... I dismissed the idea that it might be news and not propaganda after reading the first paragraph. After that, it seemed to me there was no need to comment on the source, which was obviously the National Socialists themselves.

On Friday four National Socialists acted out against an exhibition in the Swedish city of Lund by half Honduran, half Afro-Cuban Andres Serrano. Several objects at the exhibition were destroyed by the quartet, enraged by the degenerate content of this so-called art.

Even if an attempt was made to present this as a news story, once you label art as so-called, you give your game away.

Nevermind the detailed description of Serrano's ethnicity, which has absolutely nothing to do with his art.

Oh, I'm sure you would. ;) Actually, I wish US parents would stop coddling and stifling their little no-neck monsters as well, give them a chance of becoming human some day.

The irony I enjoy the most from all this is that despite our claimed debauchery, Sweden still has much, much lower STI and teen pregnancy and abortion rates than places like the USA. Whod've thunk it, that education and understanding in lieu of ignorance and shame would have that effect? :eek:

Possibly, but in the context of the thread and the general sense of agreement that children would not be best served by looking at these works, I read it as a "those people are relatively loose in their parental standards, compared to us" type assumption.

I see what you are saying, and you may be right, and it may be that I am just being very generous about my reading of the comment... but I don't assume Sweden's parental standards are reflected by Sweden's policies about admittance to controversial art exhibits, either. I read it that Sweden would allow children in if their parents felt it appropriate for them. I don't assume all Swedes are dragging their kindergarten classes to see this particular show.

If the exhibit came here and I felt that my hypothetical 15 year old was mature enough and she/he wanted to see it, I could NOT take them even if I wanted to. That is the difference.

Errr... what?

Also, Fass is not an ebil usian (well, none of us are), but he is Swedish, if I am not mistaken.

I know, I meant the usian bashers, not the usians themselevs.

People are prejudiced against countries all the time, if my instinctive inclinations towards Sweden are xenophobic, then Fass and the rest of the ebil usians crowd must be fucking Nazis.

Errr... what?

Also, Fass is not an ebil usian (well, none of us are), but he is Swedish, if I am not mistaken.

The irony I enjoy the most from all this is that despite our claimed debauchery, Sweden still has much, much lower STI and teen pregnancy and abortion rates than places like the USA. Whod've thunk it, that education and understanding in lieu of ignorance and shame would have that effect? :eek:

Me! I would'a'thunk that! Er....






Oh, right. Rhetorical question... :p

I see what you are saying, and you may be right, and it may be that I am just being very generous about my reading of the comment... but I don't assume Sweden's parental standards are reflected by Sweden's policies about admittance to controversial art exhibits, either. I read it that Sweden would allow children in if their parents felt it appropriate for them. I don't assume all Swedes are dragging their kindergarten classes to see this particular show.

If the exhibit came here and I felt that my hypothetical 15 year old was mature enough and she/he wanted to see it, I could NOT take them even if I wanted to. That is the difference.
I'm not arguing the difference in cultural or legal standards. I'm merely commenting on just one of the many hints of prejudicial assumptions I've seen in this thread. Of course, compared to the Nazi propaganda used by the OP, I really shouldn't complain about any possible negative reading of Hydesland's tiny little remark.

As for the restrictions in the US, we should not assume that they are necessarily more hidebound than the restrictions in the Swedish museum. There is tremendous variation from state to state and museum to museum. I have seen museums so afraid of prudish lawsuits that they put nudity warning signs at the entrances of their Greek and Roman sculpture galleries. Meanwhile, the Body Worlds 2 exhibit at the Boston Science Museum, in which actual human bodies and body parts are displayed in rather amazing ways, some quite disturbing (those were the pathology specimens, mostly), had no advisories and no age restrictions at all. The only thing the Science Museum did in reaction to pressure by would-be censors was put the pieces exhibiting the body of a pregnant woman and fetuses at every stage of development into a separate room -- and they did that because (a) the fetuses had been attacked by anti-abortion nutjobs, and (b) the fetus in the pregnant woman had several times been stolen by frat boys in other cities (always retrieved, thankfully).

But I toured that show in the company of several small children (not mine, thank the gods). Hell, I remember one fond moment, in the museum's permanent human biology gallery, seeing a father and his little princess daughter (maybe age 7), playing with one of those anatomical models that have removable organs (it's an interactive gallery). It was rather amazing to me, as a surrealist, to see the dad encouraging his child as she played with the model intestines. :)

A lot of people find Body Worlds to be extremely controversial, and some even complain about the nudity of the bodies, as it there is any sexual content in it at all, and some complain that children shouldn't be allowed to see it. Boston Science Museum was one institution that did not rise to such bait.

People are prejudiced against countries all the time, if my instinctive inclinations towards Sweden are xenophobic, then Fass and the rest of the ebil usians crowd must be fucking Nazis.
I don't apply other people's standard to myself, because I usually find other people's standards are too low. Let Fass be as insulting as he likes and make as many unfounded insults against the US as pleases him. I do not think that makes it ok for the rest of us to indulge in xenophobia. And if the majority of human beings are more xenophobic than I would allow myself to be, then the majority of human beings should be ashamed of their intellectual laziness, imho. :)

Let Fass be as insulting as he likes

Thankee.

and make as many unfounded insults against the US as pleases him.

Sadly for them as they have to live there, they aren't unfounded.

I don't apply other people's standard to myself, because I usually find other people's standards are too low. Let Fass be as insulting as he likes and make as many unfounded insults against the US as pleases him. I do not think that makes it ok for the rest of us to indulge in xenophobia. And if the majority of human beings are more xenophobic than I would allow myself to be, then the majority of human beings should be ashamed of their intellectual laziness, imho. :)

I just think you are taking it to the extreme. Are you saying we should never have an opinion on what one nation might do, despite not stating it to be a fact?

I just think you are taking it to the extreme. Are you saying we should never have an opinion on what one nation might do, despite not stating it to be a fact?

Having an opinion =/= xenophobia, but an opinion may be xenophobic, and if so, I will question that aspect of it.

Thankee.
You're welcome. ;)


Sadly for them as they have to live there, they aren't unfounded.
Sure, whatever.

Themselves?

:eek:
I guess I'd support their self-destruction…

There is a problem with that poll. Appropriate for whom?

Anyway, I cannot understand encouraging bringing children to the exhibit, nor can I justify the destruction of the bunch of photographs.

Sweden is a truly wretched wasteland. This "art" should be burned.

Sweden is a truly wretched wasteland. This "art" should be burned.

I was going to use the little eye-rolling smiley, but it was just so damn far away that it wasn't worth it.

Sweden is a truly wretched wasteland. This "art" should be burned.

Sweden? (http://www.saharamet.com/desert/photos/Sahara01.jpg)

Sweden? (http://www.saharamet.com/desert/photos/Sahara01.jpg)

*squints and points* That might be Fass down by the square rock.

*squints and points* That might be Fass down by the square rock.

I do believe it is! *waves*

I do believe it is! *waves*

Dude... I think he's naked!!! :eek:

Dude... I think he's naked!!! :eek:

Is that the Swedish version of Mecca!?

Sweden? (http://www.saharamet.com/desert/photos/Sahara01.jpg)

That's not a wasteland... THIS is a wasteland

http://weaselhut.net/ep2_outland_060004 (Medium).jpg

That's not a wasteland... THIS is a wasteland

http://weaselhut.net/ep2_outland_060004 (Medium).jpg

Nah, that is just the amount of time it takes for 50% of a nuclear materiel to degrade into supposedly harmless amounts.

Nah, that is just the amount of time it takes for 50% of a nuclear materiel to degrade into supposedly harmless amounts.

Only harmless? Nothing more? ;)

That's not a wasteland... THIS is a wasteland

http://weaselhut.net/ep2_outland_060004 (Medium).jpg

I just got the Orange Box Wednesday… and I haven't even gotten the chance to open it yet.

I just got the Orange Box Wednesday… and I haven't even gotten the chance to open it yet.

You didn't pre-order using Steam?

You didn't pre-order using Steam?

Xbox, not PC.

Doesn't seem to have that "artsy" whatever, but I see nothing wrong with it. I do, however, see something wrong with ignorant people censoring other's work.

I found myself aroused and titillated....and confused by this countacultcha awt.

It's not my cup of tea, and I personally would not bring children to see it, but what's truly disgusting is the destruction of the art.

If you don't approve, don't go to see it. But to decide that 1) what the artist has to say is worthy of violence and 2) that one has the right to prevent others from viewing and making their own minds up about it is barbaric.


Here, here, very well said!! I completely agree!

When your friends are disgusted because you're having sex with your dog, they're not being judgemental. They're just sane.

The irony, it burns.

WHOSE signature contains, "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."?

Just curious -- is it there because it sounds good, or because you believe in it?

It's not my cup of tea, and I personally would not bring children to see it, but what's truly disgusting is the destruction of the art.

If you don't approve, don't go to see it. But to decide that 1) what the artist has to say is worthy of violence and 2) that one has the right to prevent others from viewing and making their own minds up about it is barbaric.

Exactly, if you don't like it don't go see it, don't whine about it (which too many people love to do). And definitely don't bring your kids to this, artists and other "elitists" generally have warped views on just about everything so they aren't always running on all 8 cylinders.

The artist? ;)

The exhibitor?

The exhibitor?

The exhibitionist! :p (sorry, I couldn't resist; context y'know).

The exhibitionist! :p (sorry, I couldn't resist; context y'know).

:D

Sweden is a truly wretched wasteland. This "art" should be burned.

With your attitude towards sex and what is appropriate you really belong in the 12th century.