Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Local6)   Art using box cutter removed from display at Denver Airport   ( divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

6235 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jul 2004 at 9:40 PM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

73 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-07-30 07:58:32 PM  
How's a guy with no arms and no legs that's hanging on a wall gonna steal a box cutter??
2004-07-30 08:30:16 PM  
Art. In Denver. Wait, that's not art.

/submitted this suitcase earlier with a better bumper sticker
2004-07-30 09:18:32 PM  

"Blood for oil. Billionaires for Bush"

A Truism.

No wonder it was censored as "inappropriate."
2004-07-30 09:40:37 PM  
Yes, agreywolf42, I agree.

Certainly, the removal of a piece of art after employees complained is "censorship."

After all, Madeleine Hatz was born with the right to have her work displayed at the Denver airport, and the White House has now stripped her of her God-given rights.

Bush has killed freedom of speach.

2004-07-30 09:43:04 PM  
Choo-Choo Bear

Thank you.
2004-07-30 09:44:58 PM  
in Atlanta we have art in the airport, there is a display of almost all of the things you can't bring on a plane. hmmm......aahhh shiat! i guess i can't bring my chainsaw on board.

there's also giant ants on the ceiling
2004-07-30 09:47:01 PM  
With that line of reasoning, they should also demand the removal of all aircraft from the airport.
2004-07-30 09:48:04 PM  
this gut of this country is so farked up. so paranoid and scared with its mouth planted firmly on the cock of christ. we are in deep shiat.
2004-07-30 09:50:57 PM  
Erm, what does Bush have to do with the removal of this "art"?

I don't recall reading about Bush calling for its removal.
2004-07-30 09:54:45 PM  
better start crying about how this is trampling one of your rights or something.
2004-07-30 09:55:24 PM  
No opportunity for sarcasm here, so let me just say it: the terrorists have won. I used to think, based on all those John Wayne movies and stuff, that Americans were tough, fearless types who could face down any challenge and laugh even as they died. Now I see that this represents only a tiny fraction of us, like those people on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. The rest of us tend to spend most of our lives hiding under our beds from imagined boogey-men -- sorry, boogey-persons. All I can observe is that "1984" is here, twenty years late.

/Whatta bunch of pansies.
2004-07-30 09:57:57 PM  
hmmmm...Saddamm wa/is rich.....don't think he is for Bush!!!

UN Oil for Food, or Oil for Corruption?
Al-Jazeera - 4/27/2004 1:40:00 AM GMT

Oil for food, or oil for corruption
By Michael Reagan

If anybody wondered why the sainted United Nations, France, Russia and Syria joined forces in trying to block the United States from ousting Saddam Husseins brutal regime in Iraq, the answer is now becoming clear; they feared exposure of the corruption into which they had dragged the now-infamous Oil for Food program.

That program was meant to allow Hussein to sell a certain amount of oil outside of the bounds of the U.N. sanctions. The proceeds, handled by the United Nations, were to be used to buy food and medicine and other basic necessities for the Iraqi people, thus keeping the sanctions from punishing innocent Iraqis who were, in effect, prisoners of their despotic government.

It didnt quite work out that way. As Gen. Tommy Franks said, the Oil for Food programs should have been called the oil for palaces scam.

The way it did work out built scores of posh palaces for Hussein and lined the pockets of France, Russia, Syria, China and the United Nations, which alone raked in more than $1 billion from its 2.2 percent commission on the more than $50 billion worth of oil Iraq exported under the program, allegedly to pay the costs of running the program. According to a New York Times expose, written by Claudia Rossett, U.N. staff members say the programs bank accounts over the past year had more than $12 billion in the kitty, none of which will the United Nations account for the books are closed to outsiders.

The $50 billion paid for a featherbedded pre-war staff of 1,000 international employees and some 3,000 Iraqis all helpfully supplied by Husseins socialist Baath Party. More paid for a whole range of things that had nothing to do with feeding the Iraqi people or paying for medicine for sick children, stuff like TV broadcasting equipment, boats and boat accessories from France and sport supplies from Lebanon, all approved by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

It was a scam, and the truth is now coming out as documents uncovered in Iraq are showing. Documents such as those unearthed by Britains Telegraph newspaper show that George Galloway, a top Labour Party Parliament member who bitterly opposed Tony Blairs part in the war, was allegedly on Husseins payroll. The paper reports that Galloway received an annual cut from Iraqs exports under the oil-for-food program worth approximately $585,500.

Galloway denies the accusation, but the corruption that centered on the Oil for Food program is hard to ignore.

Rossett wrote that Annan handed out contracts to Husseins favored trading partners France, Russia and Syria, the latter two of which mysteriously won contracts to supply Japanese vehicles to Iraq. France and Russia were among the top five contractors in the oil-for-food program.

Back in 1997, Hussein found what he thought was a way to block U.S. efforts to stop him from dominating the region. He would get U.N. approval to lift sanctions and allow unrestricted oil sales, by bribing France, Russia and China with juicy contracts giving them a right to develop Iraqs major oil fields contingent on the lifting of sanctions.

In short, France and Russia strove mightily to keep their good buddy Hussein in power to keep the gravy train running in their direction. Its time to kiss them off, nullify those contracts and get out of the corruption-ridden United Nations once and for all.
2004-07-30 09:59:29 PM  
So I guess that nixes plans to display my 1:1 bas relief sculpture of Michael Moore cast from 35 tons of C-4 at their Red Carpet Club.
2004-07-30 10:00:09 PM  
robotblood, oldebayer

Because finding something in your workplace to be "inappropriate" makes you paranoid, scared, and imagining boogey-men?
2004-07-30 10:02:55 PM  
anyone have a pic from mr show of david cross and bob odenkirk as siamese twins with david wearing a shirt that says "bush is a pussy"?
2004-07-30 10:05:02 PM  
amy sly... uh yes, when you pull the strings to get it removed from the premises.
2004-07-30 10:05:16 PM  

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

Whoops. Should I have had a NSFW on those? I wouldn't want any terrified "patriots" to go pissing themselves while in the office, and all...

"The Terrorists Won!" And they stole our balls! America's nut-sack is hanging from a rear-view mirror in Saudi Arabian right now...!
2004-07-30 10:08:46 PM  
as long as bushie and company keeps the fat god fearing middle americans nice and scared, they will do anything to keep the scary muslims from coming to their town.
2004-07-30 10:08:59 PM  
"oil for palaces scam"

Funny, during the liberation of Kuwait war, we didn't target the palaces for bombing because of the people living there.

And during this latest war, we only bombed a few buildings of these same palaces because we wanted to "liberate" them for the Iraqi people. But we moved military units into all of them and still occupy them.

But now someone wants us to believe that the oil for food program paid for these palaces.

Good thing that "someone" can count on the generally poor memory of the American public.

The palaces were there before the oil for food program existed.

2004-07-30 10:10:46 PM  

when you pull the strings

??? What strings ???

You make it sound insidious. Employees found it to be "inappropriate" and complained to their co-manager.

It's barely news, and doesn't mean that these people live in fear. They might be brave, they might be cowards, but you can't tell from the article.
2004-07-30 10:11:30 PM  
palaces? scraping, youre worse than me at jumping off the topic!
2004-07-30 10:14:23 PM  
Shall we Godwin this thread now robotblood?

That will complete the trifecta.
2004-07-30 10:15:35 PM  
amy... in a typical office, it takes weeks for people to remove spoiling food from the communal fridge. in a typical airport, motivated employees are a rare find. yet these dopes (probabaly a small minority of those working there) are able to get artwork removed because it offends them without question? you're telling me this isn't a problem?
2004-07-30 10:16:26 PM  
This is just like the Nazis burning books.

Except it's boxcutter art in an Airport
2004-07-30 10:17:09 PM  
Yeah, I mean you wouldn't want anything contraversial at the Denver International Airport.
2004-07-30 10:17:44 PM  
So Americans have free speech?

2004-07-30 10:17:57 PM  
Thank you for indulging me, oh wise and powerful moderators.

Your loyal derailer and servant,

2004-07-30 10:18:36 PM  
what about the boxcutters?????

[image from too old to be available]
2004-07-30 10:21:32 PM  
While I'll be very glad to vote against Bush (okay, Kerry's a good guy, but does anybody think this is more than a referendum on Bush?), I gotta agree with Choo on this.

DIA isn't going to committ commercial suicide by sponsoring a blantantly partisan message like that. If the artist was smart, she might have tried to sneak something more subtle in... but even then, I'm gonna defend DIA's right to take it down if they decide.
2004-07-30 10:21:59 PM  
Meh, if they didn't want controversy they shouldn't have asked artists to produce art.

If they just wanted some inoffensive pretty baubles to display so their airport looks more "intellectual," there are better places to get such things.
2004-07-30 10:22:04 PM  

First of all, it's not a problem that something is efficient. I realize that you are obviously a democrat and therefore don't understand things that aren't embroiled in bureaucracy. =)

However, none of us actually know how long it took because the poorly edited article reads, in pertinent part:

Aviation co-manager Vicki Braunagel said she removed the pieces July 9, the day from the 43-piece, glass-enclosed exhibit opened on a walkway that comes before the security screening area.

I don't know how rapid "the day from... the exhibit opened" actually is.
2004-07-30 10:24:30 PM  
The other piece removed from the airport was a suitcase with an attached bumper sticker reading "Blood for oil. Billionaires for Bush," a reference to a satirical group critical of President Bush.

That is soooooo surprising.

2004-07-30 10:25:02 PM  
Jesus Christ! It's not even "boxcutter art". By "boxcutter art" you'd expect a huge sculpture made entirely out of boxcutters or something. As part of the art, the handle of the suitcase was made from a piece of an appliance that happened to be used for cutting boxes.

For gods sakes, people. Grow a backbone.
2004-07-30 10:26:53 PM  
Madeleine Hatz, who created the second suitcase, said she was trying to link the spilling of blood and oil. She complained that she was being censored.

"Art is controversial, and we have a right to freedom of speech," she said.

And as soon as she owns that airport, she has the right to put whatever she wants on display.

2004-07-30 10:30:47 PM  
In NY I'm deprived of urinating into the rolling stones logo at my local airport thanx to this type of unwarranted commotion

/got nothing
2004-07-30 10:39:42 PM  
By boxcutter art, I'd expect 20 saudi princes holding puppet strings attached to Dubya, standing on a mountain of 3000 boxcutters. And blood would spurt out of the picture and hit you in the eye when you stopped and looked at it.

That would define boxcutter art to me.
2004-07-30 10:48:44 PM  
GIS for "boxcutter art":

[image from too old to be available]
2004-07-30 10:51:02 PM  
And as soon as she owns that airport, she has the right to put whatever she wants on display.

Well, best I can tell Denver Airport isn't a privately-owned facility, so she does infact own it.
2004-07-30 10:55:54 PM  
There's not enough information in the article to make a reasonable assertion or contridiction of censorship. Were these the only two political pieces? The only two removed political pieces? How were these artists approached about contributing pieces to the exhibit? Did someone say: "Anything's OK as long as it's suitable for public display?" Or were there prior guidelines that were ignored?
2004-07-30 10:56:29 PM  
If that were the case then everyone owns it, and you couldn't legally stop people from sitting in there and playing guitar for tips.
2004-07-30 10:59:22 PM  
RobDenBleyker -- yikes, furries!

/they give me the creeps
2004-07-30 11:00:20 PM  
They gave a reason for the box cutters, but no explanation for removing the bush stuff. Furthermore I demand the removal of all crosses from churches. It's insensitive!
2004-07-30 11:02:25 PM  

Now you see why the Denver Airport got rid of it.
2004-07-30 11:05:24 PM  
Sorry RDB, publicly owned doesn't mean up-for-grabs. If it did, I could bring my a megaphone on a bus and you'd have to respect my right to scream.

Though your argument is more solid than some guy putting down furries while using the name 'Clevershark.'
2004-07-30 11:09:12 PM  
2004-07-30 10:05:16 PM Lamune_Baba

Just about pissed myself laughing. and maybe you were thinking of...

2004-07-30 11:14:57 PM  
Torc -- wasn't aware I was making an argument, furries just give me the creeps.
2004-07-30 11:18:17 PM  
Another headline that gives me a headache.
2004-07-30 11:25:43 PM  
I find this much more offensive:

[image from too old to be available]
2004-07-30 11:27:15 PM  
Oh Geez, I hope this image source doesn't get farked.....

Sorry Brian
2004-07-30 11:29:33 PM  
oldebayer said, "Americans were tough, fearless types who could face down any challenge and laugh even as they died".

We are. Those pantified purist morons are not Americans. They are just guests of those of us with the balls to be patriotic.

Most of them would be the first to bow down, slap a burka on their wives, and drive a cab in New York for a living just to look MiddleEastern enough to not get their shiat owned by some wimp terrorist type waving a loaded banana in their general direction.

This country is overpopulated with wimps. Luckily, they are the minority.

/sarcasm off
//oh.. I hadn't turned it on, had I?
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.