Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Freakin' Amazing



Published on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 by Reuters
New York Art Shuttered After Bush Monkey Portrait
by Larry Fine

NEW YORK - A portrait of President Bush using monkeys to form his image led to the closure of a New York art exhibition over the weekend and anguished protests on Monday over freedom of expression.

(snip)

"We had tons of people, like more than 2,000 people show up for the opening on Thursday night," said show organizer Bucky Turco. "Then this manager saw the piece and the guy just kind of flipped out. 'The show is over. Get this work down or I'm gonna arrest you,' he said. It's been kind of wild."

(snip)

"This is much deeper than art. This is fundamental American rights, freedom of speech," Savido said. "To see that something like this can happen, especially in a place like New York City is mind boggling and scary."


So, what's the big deal? I think the picture is brilliant. The human creative spirit never ceases to amaze me.

Art is entirely subjective. If art is offensive, it's because the offended have interpreted art in an offensive manner. The choice that defines meaning is up to you.

To be offended, or not to be offended. That is the question.

2 Comments:

Blogger redhairblueface said...

It is lame.

If it were a picture of John Kerry made up of dollar bills, it would still be lame.

8:58 PM  
Blogger sourmonkey said...

Wassup RHBF

Perhaps you're just interpreting the monkey art in a "lame" manner.

So, would a portrait of Ralph Nader composed of disenfranchised Americans be lame? How about a portrait of Usama Bin Ladin composed of adrenaline molecules?

I know, maybe a portrait of Donald Rumsfeld composed of images of "the fallen" soldiers, or, even a portrait of Ronald McDonald composed of images of overweight Americans.

Ain't "art" fun? Yes.

"Lame"... only if you want it to be.

11:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home