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.

(SFGate)   Farm town orders farm sculpture, gets porn instead   (sfgate.com) divider line 30
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

6960 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Oct 2001 at 4:27 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2001-10-10 04:34:03 PM
Boobies?
 
2001-10-10 04:35:43 PM
Hey thats what i was going to say =P
 
2001-10-10 04:36:06 PM
Now that is art!
 
2001-10-10 04:40:33 PM
Actually her name is Trudy.
 
2001-10-10 04:42:15 PM
Since when are bare butts pornography?
 
2001-10-10 04:51:33 PM
Heeheeehee..."teeny, tiny butt cracks" What commentary!
Almost as astute as mine
 
2001-10-10 04:54:50 PM
dumb - why is this 'art' protected 'freedom of speech' but diplaying religious text is considered taboo. The 'separation of church and state' does not exist in constitution or any of the amendments. It does say the state can "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Why isn't diplaying religious text considered protected free speech?
 
2001-10-10 04:57:21 PM
Oriana: Sorry!
 
2001-10-10 05:13:46 PM
Man, can't locate a single picture of that damn thing. The other art I found from this chick kinda sucks though.
 
2001-10-10 05:15:21 PM
Caoilin: wow, get WAY off topic, there. go on with your bad self. seriously, Foundationalism is wack. it's all about interpretation of a living document, yo. word.

everyone: please, can we stop it with these misleading headlines? a "nude" is not "porn." not even 13-year-olds whip it out at the sight of a Reubens. although Paul Reubens might. so, bad example.

seriously, it might get attention, but this misleading headline stuff just ends up annoying us. so quit it!

Drew: i thought you edited the headlines...??
 
2001-10-10 05:15:36 PM
Caoilin - if the religious text is presented as art, or as a historical display, and not as "truth," then it would be completely non-problematic.
 
2001-10-10 05:22:36 PM
ummmm Carwin I'm guessing you're disagreeing with what I wrote, but I'm not real sure what all the colorful language (no that was not a racial slur) meant. However, the constitution and amendments are not as you put it 'living documents' open to new interpretation whenever the questionable situation demands. The article was about 'free speech' so no I don't think I was way off topic.

BTW - got a good chuckle out of the Reubens comment ;-)
 
2001-10-10 05:27:05 PM
Mole what if I present it as my 'belief'? Is that not protected 'free speech'? How is a belief different from a historical display?

really not trying to start a battle - just wish that people in general (no you in particular) would read and learn and think for themselves.
 
2001-10-10 05:27:24 PM
arrrgh no = not
 
2001-10-10 05:33:30 PM
"When someone enters City Hall to pay a water bill, or secure a building permit, or the like, he or she is not interested in discourse," Schultz told the Supreme Court.

...they're apparently only interested in intercourse...
 
2001-10-10 05:42:35 PM
Caoilin: I thought it sounded like an Onion headline. I think the headlines in general are hilarious. SOME people just don't have a sense of humor.
 
2001-10-10 05:51:35 PM
How do you hide money from a hippie?

Put it under the soap.


It stinks in here.
 
2001-10-10 05:59:06 PM
i think if there wasnt some regulation of posting religious text then everyone would be putting up billboards with jesus or buddah or zeus or jerry garcia all over the place and itd turn into some kind of gangland with everyone fighting when people post leaflets over theirs on telephone poles and everyone would just get pissed off and it wouldnt be very fun.

but uh, if you want to go printing up the ten commandments or the equivalent of whatever religion you support and hand them out on the street, be my guest. just dont expect people to be like 'holy crap ive never heard of this religion, this great i feel better already! im a new man!'.

yea and i think people are just sick of other people trying to convince them that what they think is the right thing is actually the right thing and it just makes you sick because it never ends and theres no resolution to it.

do what you want.
 
2001-10-10 06:01:01 PM
One of the issues in the case is whether City Hall is a public forum.

I thought thar's what a City Hall was for.

Caoilin: Religous texts can be art. I've seen the Book of Tells in Dublin, parts of the Quran on display in a museum in Washington D.C., and even a Gutenberg Bible on display here in Austin (UT campus). As long as you don't expect everyone to follow your beliefs and you don't deny any one else the ability to post their religious beliefs next to yours, go for it.
 
2001-10-10 06:01:56 PM
oh yea. the majority of art isnt as fantastic as people make it out to be. the majority of artists and art patrons are in the same boat as the religious freaks when it comes to likeability.
 
2001-10-10 06:02:11 PM
How do you know a hippie has been staying at your apartment?

He's still there.
 
2001-10-10 06:16:06 PM
damn, if they dont want the thing I will take it.
 
2001-10-10 06:35:52 PM
There's a simple solution. Put up the art.

Along with a sign saying "There are no security cameras or guards in this corridor."
 
2001-10-10 07:46:36 PM
as much as i support offensive/controversial art, it only takes a certain amount of common sense to realize that a city hall is not the place for it. put it in your studio or in a gallery, where people will come to see it and know what they are getting, but just because you made something that you think is clever doesn't entitle you to put it anywhere you want. the issue shouldn't be that the sculpture contains nudity - it's just not the type of art that should be in a city hall.

it doesn't even sound like that interesting a piece anyway. honestly, it sounds like a shock piece with a "message" loosely attached. the artist argues that the message is what's important, but "a statement about struggle and being trapped by bureaucracy" can be made more effectively without a naked woman with her butt in the air, which is obviously going to stir up some controversy.
 
2001-10-10 08:38:59 PM
Now for my art project:
Two cinder blocks,some glue,a Corgi puppy,and a yarn tassel.Glued together,all these items will create a wonderful modern art piece I will call:

"Office Ground Meat".Expect an early plan of it soon.
 
2001-10-10 08:50:48 PM
 
2001-10-10 08:51:09 PM
Test
 
2001-10-10 11:39:22 PM
I think we need an amendment to the constitution that insures the seperation of *ART* and state.

I don't want my tax dollars going to display the works of any artist.

Artists are like religious folks.
 
2001-10-11 04:02:23 AM
SnipDaddyDad: "Artists are like religious folks."

Whattya mean? I don't see artists going door-to-door trying to convert you to Post-Modern Impressionism. I don't see artists shooting to kill abortion clinic doctors and employees. I don't see artists arguing for worldwide hate for the United States.

Sometimes I see these dirty people wrapped in blankets laying in dark alleys in the city, picking through garbage cans for anything of value. They don't like to be called "bums"....they prefer to be called "artists".

Milk: (peering at a painting) "I don't understand it."

Cheese: "You don't understand it? It must be art."

(above text is c/o Evan Dorkin, "Milk & Cheese" comics)
 
2001-10-11 04:03:31 AM
(Well, not ALL above text....just the Milk & Cheese lines. The rest is mine.)
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report