"Piss Mohammed" to Appear at the Tate Modern Gallery
Edward Winkleman to be commended for daring to publish this extremely important opinion.
Predictable bordeline blame America first responses drift in from,
Sarah Hromack of Forward Retreat: "My point here is an obvious one, really. Regardless of what’s stated in their press release, I suspect that the Tate Britain’s decision to remove Latham’s piece was fueled more by institutional fear and top-down decision making than by any true belief in the ability of one art piece to launch a full-blown jihad. Sympathy is in order for Latham, while the Tate Britain's staff—curators, public relations folks, and peons answering the phones—deserve a bit of consideration, too. They'll be sweeping away the fallout, afterall. "
The poor pitiful emotionally tormented staff of the Tate. They had no choice but to do what they did, I guess. What bullshit!
But perhaps Ms. Hromack is partially right - maybe the Tate didn't fear so much for a "full-blown jihad" as they feared for a direct targeted assassination of Latham, as well as supportive staff members and board members of the Tate, if the piece had remained on exhibition and contributed to inflaming some self-righteous Islamofacist son-of-a-bitch piece shit to actually undertake such an action.
And, as usual, a typically passive response from Kriston Capps of Grammarpolice.net: "But the fact remains that as Westerners, and especially Westerners who are tied to the arts, we feel that arts institutions are in a real sense obligated to us in the way that imams are not. For certain, if I were given real opportunity to curb the proliferation of Muslim radicalism or curb the Tate's cowardly tendencies, I'd do the former."
This line cracks me up: "...if I were given the opportunity to curb the proliferation of Muslim radicalism...". Are you fucking serious, Mr. Capps? Who the hell do you think is going to give you that opportunity? Osama bin Laden's Minister of Culture? How about TAKING the opportunity, via the comfort and safety of your urban American blog if nothing else, to condemn those goddamn radical imams who are actively encouraging radical assholes to kill artists?
You are so wrong, Mr. Capps. Those imams you want to avoid in your dense apology for the Tate do owe you, me and everybody else in the world something - they owe us the basic right to be left the fuck alone and to not kill us the way they did Theo van Gogh because some of us artists dare not to carry sufficient respect in our brains for their stupid religious ideology.
What the lame apologists for the Tate refuse to admit is the history of what has already happened to artists who have dared to insult, mock, spit on, piss on, shit on, challenge or simply question, the tenets of radical Islam, or any other superstitious religion for that matter.
This is what happened in the real world just last year...
What Dutch filmmaker and columnist Theo Van Gogh saw as the shabby treatment of females throughout the Muslim community led him to produce documentaries that portrayed Muslim men as tormentors of women, especially their wives. One recent scathingly critical Van Gogh film carried the message that Islam promotes violence against women. Van Gogh, a grandnephew of the painter, was shot as he cycled to work. He managed to get up and stagger across the street to his building where he collapsed. The assailant followed him and slit his throat before pinning to his chest with a knife a five-page manifesto that called on Muslims to rise against the "infidel enemies" in the West.
When Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered, the collective response from the so-called liberal art world was one of a deafening silence.
The day after the assassination of Theo van Gogh I wrote a letter to the editor that was distributed to the art press condemning this crime. The letter was first published by Mr. F. Lennox Campello on his art blog, DC Art News, and is published below:
Another Saint in the art world has given his life in the pure pursuit of his art.
Yesterday's savage and brutal murder in Amsterdam of filmmaker Theo van Gogh represents another direct assault by extremists on the universal concept of freedom of artistic expression.
The first line of protection that an artist, photographer, curator, musician, singer, dancer, choreographer or any other person involved in the arts enjoys in support of their art, is acceptance within the art world of the basic principles of freedom of artistic expression.
It is absolutely critical that every person in the arts, and more importantly, that every arts organization on the planet, subscribe to and advocate for a consistent definition of freedom of artistic expression that applies equally to every single artist.
Every voice in the art world needs to speak out condemning the slaughter of Theo van Gogh.
Every voice in the art world also needs to speak with clarity, firmness and resolve in support of a universally accepted definition of freedom of artist expression for every artist in this world.
Sincerely,
James W. Bailey
Experimental Photographer
I never expected the art world elite to stand up and condemn Theo van Gogh’s murder. I believe that the art world elite has almost completely abandoned the concept of Freedom of Artistic Expression in favor of a politically correct art philosophy that compels them to measure the costs/benefits of condemning such crimes committed against unpopular or controversial creative people.
My hope at the time, however, was that an idealist art blogging community would rally to a strong defense of Freedom of Artistic Expression, condemn the horrific crime of the murder of Theo van Gogh and inspire a regenerated commitment among a younger group of artists to a higher ideal – universal freedom of artistic expression for all artists.
I was naive – it never happened. The vast majority of the art blogging community to this day has remained virtually silent on this matter.
My concern over the murder of Theo van Gogh by Islamic extremists, combined with the refusal of the art world to openly and loudly condemn that horrible act, led me to undertake an experimental art blog project that intersected with the Chris Burden/art student gun incident at UCLA. You can read about this experiment on the project blog, “I Shot Chris Burden”.
I’ve also written extensively on the subject of the fear and hypocrisy of the art world with respect to condemning radical anti-artist agendas that are organized by religious extremists.
Once such Op-Ed is published below:
The con of the Quran hypocrisy
Posted: May 27, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern© 2005
WorldNetDaily.com
Not that the retraction of Newsweek's story about the Quran supposedly being mistreated down in Cuba by the American military started out being about modern art, but ...
How interesting that the Washington Post (owned by the Washington Post Corporation, the same entity that owns Newsweek) is now reporting in "U.S. Long Had Memo on Handling of Quran" that the Pentagon issued more than two years ago detailed rules for the handling of the Quran by U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay.
According to this article, the memo states that the Quran should be treated like a "fragile piece of delicate art." Apparently, there's no mention in the memo about how the King James Version of the Bible is to be treated, so I guess we're left to assume that it's OK for the CIA to flush that book down any toilet they wish for any reason they believe is justified in support of advancing national security.
So what happens when the holy scriptures of some, posing as delicate works of fragile art, mix with paranoid Pentagon memos and false reports based on anonymous sources that don't pan out that are subsequently retracted by irresponsible news magazines?
Well, false reports that the U.S. military was flushing the Quran down toilets as part of a humiliation stunt to intimidate Muslim captives at Guantanamo Bay lead to Islamic radicals killing people and the liberal anti-American art world establishment demanding Bush's head a platter again before the facts are even known.
But, on the other hand, true reports that prints of a photograph taken of a crucifix dipped in urine (Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ") are celebrated as high art and are now regularly sold at Christie's and Sotheby's auction houses lead to artists who mock, insult and denigrate Christianity and Christian symbols being elevated and celebrated among the art elite in Manhattan.
The lesson: Desecration of religious symbols is considered high-brow social commentary in America – especially when government funded by taxpayer money – but only if it concerns desecrating Christian symbols.
One can't help but wonder about how many people will be killed by Islamic radicals once the trendy nature of modern art eventually moves in a new direction of encouraging, supporting and funding the flushing of the Quran down toilets and having that act blessed as high art by ivory-tower art philosophers in New York City.
One also has to wonder if Newsweek will feature that controversial high-art story on its front cover after its most recent Quran reporting debacle. Of course, if they do, and if even more people are killed as result, no doubt the Washington Post will pen a sanctimonious explanation giving cover to Newsweek and bury it deep on the inside of the Style section in the hopes that the problem will just go away.
But the real problem that's not going away (and that's also not being reported by Newsweek and the Washington Post) is that there are some very violent religious radical idiots in this world who thrive on using lies to justify killing innocent people.
When the world of high art tires of bashing Christianity as being the sole source of all evil, maybe it will get around to supporting artists who take a closer look at what other religions are doing to motivate people in the evil department.
James W. Bailey
Although she doesn't have an inside clue as to what really happened, Ms. Hromack wants to politely, and forgivingly, theorize about why the Tate really removed Latham's work. For all we know, the Tate may have received death threats against its staff and the artist in question and have not reported them to the authorities. Or maybe they have reported them and the authorities are simply reluctant to report that fact to the British public out of a politically correct fear of engendering more suspicion among certain communities.
What we do know is that the Tate, for whatever reason, and acting in a very cowardly fashion, pulled the “potentially offensive” work from the exhibition. That’s not a victory for freedom of artistic expression, that’s a victory for radical Islamic extremists. It’s a victory for people who have consistently demonstrated that they are more than willing to kill (and have already killed) "offensive" artists to make their insane, backward, disgusting, vile and insipid radical Islamic point.
Predictable bordeline blame America first responses drift in from,
Sarah Hromack of Forward Retreat: "My point here is an obvious one, really. Regardless of what’s stated in their press release, I suspect that the Tate Britain’s decision to remove Latham’s piece was fueled more by institutional fear and top-down decision making than by any true belief in the ability of one art piece to launch a full-blown jihad. Sympathy is in order for Latham, while the Tate Britain's staff—curators, public relations folks, and peons answering the phones—deserve a bit of consideration, too. They'll be sweeping away the fallout, afterall. "
The poor pitiful emotionally tormented staff of the Tate. They had no choice but to do what they did, I guess. What bullshit!
But perhaps Ms. Hromack is partially right - maybe the Tate didn't fear so much for a "full-blown jihad" as they feared for a direct targeted assassination of Latham, as well as supportive staff members and board members of the Tate, if the piece had remained on exhibition and contributed to inflaming some self-righteous Islamofacist son-of-a-bitch piece shit to actually undertake such an action.
And, as usual, a typically passive response from Kriston Capps of Grammarpolice.net: "But the fact remains that as Westerners, and especially Westerners who are tied to the arts, we feel that arts institutions are in a real sense obligated to us in the way that imams are not. For certain, if I were given real opportunity to curb the proliferation of Muslim radicalism or curb the Tate's cowardly tendencies, I'd do the former."
This line cracks me up: "...if I were given the opportunity to curb the proliferation of Muslim radicalism...". Are you fucking serious, Mr. Capps? Who the hell do you think is going to give you that opportunity? Osama bin Laden's Minister of Culture? How about TAKING the opportunity, via the comfort and safety of your urban American blog if nothing else, to condemn those goddamn radical imams who are actively encouraging radical assholes to kill artists?
You are so wrong, Mr. Capps. Those imams you want to avoid in your dense apology for the Tate do owe you, me and everybody else in the world something - they owe us the basic right to be left the fuck alone and to not kill us the way they did Theo van Gogh because some of us artists dare not to carry sufficient respect in our brains for their stupid religious ideology.
What the lame apologists for the Tate refuse to admit is the history of what has already happened to artists who have dared to insult, mock, spit on, piss on, shit on, challenge or simply question, the tenets of radical Islam, or any other superstitious religion for that matter.
This is what happened in the real world just last year...
What Dutch filmmaker and columnist Theo Van Gogh saw as the shabby treatment of females throughout the Muslim community led him to produce documentaries that portrayed Muslim men as tormentors of women, especially their wives. One recent scathingly critical Van Gogh film carried the message that Islam promotes violence against women. Van Gogh, a grandnephew of the painter, was shot as he cycled to work. He managed to get up and stagger across the street to his building where he collapsed. The assailant followed him and slit his throat before pinning to his chest with a knife a five-page manifesto that called on Muslims to rise against the "infidel enemies" in the West.
When Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered, the collective response from the so-called liberal art world was one of a deafening silence.
The day after the assassination of Theo van Gogh I wrote a letter to the editor that was distributed to the art press condemning this crime. The letter was first published by Mr. F. Lennox Campello on his art blog, DC Art News, and is published below:
Another Saint in the art world has given his life in the pure pursuit of his art.
Yesterday's savage and brutal murder in Amsterdam of filmmaker Theo van Gogh represents another direct assault by extremists on the universal concept of freedom of artistic expression.
The first line of protection that an artist, photographer, curator, musician, singer, dancer, choreographer or any other person involved in the arts enjoys in support of their art, is acceptance within the art world of the basic principles of freedom of artistic expression.
It is absolutely critical that every person in the arts, and more importantly, that every arts organization on the planet, subscribe to and advocate for a consistent definition of freedom of artistic expression that applies equally to every single artist.
Every voice in the art world needs to speak out condemning the slaughter of Theo van Gogh.
Every voice in the art world also needs to speak with clarity, firmness and resolve in support of a universally accepted definition of freedom of artist expression for every artist in this world.
Sincerely,
James W. Bailey
Experimental Photographer
I never expected the art world elite to stand up and condemn Theo van Gogh’s murder. I believe that the art world elite has almost completely abandoned the concept of Freedom of Artistic Expression in favor of a politically correct art philosophy that compels them to measure the costs/benefits of condemning such crimes committed against unpopular or controversial creative people.
My hope at the time, however, was that an idealist art blogging community would rally to a strong defense of Freedom of Artistic Expression, condemn the horrific crime of the murder of Theo van Gogh and inspire a regenerated commitment among a younger group of artists to a higher ideal – universal freedom of artistic expression for all artists.
I was naive – it never happened. The vast majority of the art blogging community to this day has remained virtually silent on this matter.
My concern over the murder of Theo van Gogh by Islamic extremists, combined with the refusal of the art world to openly and loudly condemn that horrible act, led me to undertake an experimental art blog project that intersected with the Chris Burden/art student gun incident at UCLA. You can read about this experiment on the project blog, “I Shot Chris Burden”.
I’ve also written extensively on the subject of the fear and hypocrisy of the art world with respect to condemning radical anti-artist agendas that are organized by religious extremists.
Once such Op-Ed is published below:
The con of the Quran hypocrisy
Posted: May 27, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern© 2005
WorldNetDaily.com
Not that the retraction of Newsweek's story about the Quran supposedly being mistreated down in Cuba by the American military started out being about modern art, but ...
How interesting that the Washington Post (owned by the Washington Post Corporation, the same entity that owns Newsweek) is now reporting in "U.S. Long Had Memo on Handling of Quran" that the Pentagon issued more than two years ago detailed rules for the handling of the Quran by U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay.
According to this article, the memo states that the Quran should be treated like a "fragile piece of delicate art." Apparently, there's no mention in the memo about how the King James Version of the Bible is to be treated, so I guess we're left to assume that it's OK for the CIA to flush that book down any toilet they wish for any reason they believe is justified in support of advancing national security.
So what happens when the holy scriptures of some, posing as delicate works of fragile art, mix with paranoid Pentagon memos and false reports based on anonymous sources that don't pan out that are subsequently retracted by irresponsible news magazines?
Well, false reports that the U.S. military was flushing the Quran down toilets as part of a humiliation stunt to intimidate Muslim captives at Guantanamo Bay lead to Islamic radicals killing people and the liberal anti-American art world establishment demanding Bush's head a platter again before the facts are even known.
But, on the other hand, true reports that prints of a photograph taken of a crucifix dipped in urine (Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ") are celebrated as high art and are now regularly sold at Christie's and Sotheby's auction houses lead to artists who mock, insult and denigrate Christianity and Christian symbols being elevated and celebrated among the art elite in Manhattan.
The lesson: Desecration of religious symbols is considered high-brow social commentary in America – especially when government funded by taxpayer money – but only if it concerns desecrating Christian symbols.
One can't help but wonder about how many people will be killed by Islamic radicals once the trendy nature of modern art eventually moves in a new direction of encouraging, supporting and funding the flushing of the Quran down toilets and having that act blessed as high art by ivory-tower art philosophers in New York City.
One also has to wonder if Newsweek will feature that controversial high-art story on its front cover after its most recent Quran reporting debacle. Of course, if they do, and if even more people are killed as result, no doubt the Washington Post will pen a sanctimonious explanation giving cover to Newsweek and bury it deep on the inside of the Style section in the hopes that the problem will just go away.
But the real problem that's not going away (and that's also not being reported by Newsweek and the Washington Post) is that there are some very violent religious radical idiots in this world who thrive on using lies to justify killing innocent people.
When the world of high art tires of bashing Christianity as being the sole source of all evil, maybe it will get around to supporting artists who take a closer look at what other religions are doing to motivate people in the evil department.
James W. Bailey
Although she doesn't have an inside clue as to what really happened, Ms. Hromack wants to politely, and forgivingly, theorize about why the Tate really removed Latham's work. For all we know, the Tate may have received death threats against its staff and the artist in question and have not reported them to the authorities. Or maybe they have reported them and the authorities are simply reluctant to report that fact to the British public out of a politically correct fear of engendering more suspicion among certain communities.
What we do know is that the Tate, for whatever reason, and acting in a very cowardly fashion, pulled the “potentially offensive” work from the exhibition. That’s not a victory for freedom of artistic expression, that’s a victory for radical Islamic extremists. It’s a victory for people who have consistently demonstrated that they are more than willing to kill (and have already killed) "offensive" artists to make their insane, backward, disgusting, vile and insipid radical Islamic point.
posted by The Right Reverend James W. Bailey at 12:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home