Witness: Woman screamed about God while destroying art

Look, I know it's art. But people just make shit like this just to get their name in the news. They know exactly that people are going to get angry.

Do I think it's silly that people overreact to it? Yes. But I think the people making it are wrong too.

 

...I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there. People should never rock the boat by making controversial art? So I guess they should just stick to pastel watercolours of puppies and flowers then?

Controversial art and literature is very often at the forefront of social rights movements. It is a very important and worthy part of our culture. And you have no idea what that particular artist's intent or motivation was. To assume it was just to "get his name in the news" is quite arrogant of you.

 

Nah, that's not really what I was saying. I don't think you're wrong at all either. I'm not saying I'm right, but I just think if you're going to create a piece of art that depicts the Son of God (for an extremely large group of people) in a sexual act (regardless of what gender the sexual act is with), it would be met with backlash. The artist surely would know that. Maybe I just don't understand what the point of it was. I understand that controversial artwork and literature is important, but why is this important? What is it's meaning?

If I knew that, then I'd perhaps understand.

EDIT: I'm an arrogant person. Who isn't.

 

What should art be then? The point of art is to stir emotions.
This is a very interesting collage; one I would have liked to see up close.

 

That bitch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

My personal opinions on the art piece aside, this woman had no right to destroy it. That type of behavior is unacceptable. I hope she gets convicted of criminal mischief.

 

I agree 1000-2000 dollars lol

 

I agree

 

This.

 

I'm not sure how I feel 'bout this...

 

It's called creativity and freedom. That's why it's important.

 

she needs to find jesus christ... not fundementalist jesus.

 

Creativity my ass. Drawing Jesus in a dress being fellated by a man has zero artistic merit. It's pretentious trash that masquerades itself as having some sort of deep meaning. It has none. It's embarassing that this travesty was ever even created, let alone accepted into any kind of gallery.

Of course the woman is in the wrong, but quite frankly I don't blame her. If you saw the highest ideal of your life being desecrated by some pompous fraud you'd be pretty pissed off too. The only reason I can't support her actions is because if everyone went around destroying what pissed them off nothing would ever get done.

For those of you that are interested, I found the picture with a quick Google. It also appears to show pornorific nuns and Mohammed watching pig-models strut down the catwalk in bikinis. Yep.

 

It is being creative. Its pushing the boundaries of art and such. If you want to see some proper crap art go to the Tate modern in London! If people are offended by art they need to get a life! IMO. No doubt she's offend someone more deeply that this has to her but you don't hear them going on about it! As soon as religion is included in something its OMG what are we going to do they are offending us and going against what is 'correct'! People do that to me all the time but I don't go about protesting and broadcasting that someone has... </rant>

 

This.

 

how many people own their own crowbars... and why would they have one close to their person?

did she drive away, and come back and do this?

 

wether you think it is wrong or right for someone to do something doesn't matter if they have the right to they have the right to. You don't have the right to destroy whatever that is they created or try and censor it because you don't like it. There are channels in which you can attempt to get something like that removed, or hell kept up if someone doesn't want to put it up. If you disagree with something debate it on it's merits. If you think something is wrong there are legal channels you can take to change it. We live in a civilized society where people have to obey those rules or else we fall into chaos.

On the matter of what is good or bad in art, is simply to subjective a topic for anyone to really waste time debating about it. I wouldn't care to look at this picture or call it good but someone would see it and laugh their asses off and someone else might see it and understand what the creator meant by it. Who am i to say what the artist meant to do when he created it, we could debate it till the end of time but there is no proving anything beyond what the author said they intended by it, that is as close as we will get to the truth without evidence to point to the contrary.

Art can mean many things for different people and that is the beauty of it all, it is 50% what the artist intended to mean and 50% what the audience interprets. What a lot of people consider to make a good artist is when those 2 things line up or when an overwhelming amount of people can grasp the same meaning from a piece of art.

 

the painting doesnt even look good .. and how dare the so called 'artist' do that to Mohammad ? (pbuh) or Jesus .. that isnt art that's just blaspemy and i strongly oppose to blasphemy in any form.

this artist was looking for attention and he/she got it .. i bet they're happy now .. i wouldnt be surprised if the woman was paid to do that lol

since when is anything anyone draws considered art ? and who said that was prophet Muhammad ? does the artist even know he looks ? she cant even touch the tip of his fingers nonetheless draw him .. especially in such a random ugly painting .. gosh this makes me mad

and btw , im sure she didnt destroy it because she's against homosexuals .. that thing has alot more than homosexuality in it x$

 

art is not simply slapping paint on a canvess, It is about expressing something, a idea, a theme, a emotion.

the line of art is drawn at the moment that something is not just a doodling on paper, or a few words scribbled in a notebook, but something that explores something of value, gets the viewer/reader/listener to think.

if something provokes a person to pause and think about it, its meaning, its intention, that is art.

that is why jk rowling's harry potter has artistic merit, even if it isnt world class literature, but stephenie meyer's twilight lacks artistic merit. harry potter gets you thinking about racisem, bigottry, sexisem, good and evil, and twilight doesnt express anything by its authors sexual fantasy.

that is why lady gaga's lyrics are artistic, because there is deeper levels of meaning to it, but justin beiber is just bubble gum pop that doesnt express anything that is anything more than just shallow pickup lines for the most part.

You dont have to like art, but that it gets you thinking deeply about something that isnt skin deep makes it art. that inward thought that can be invoked is the point of art.

if something is controversal, and provokes discusion, it has artistic merit.