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.

(Telegraph)   Statue of Adolf Hitler praying on his knees goes on display in the former Warsaw Ghetto. Not surprisingly, some do Nazi any artistic value in the work   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 56
    More: Interesting, Hitler, Warsaw, Warsaw Ghetto, amen, retrospectives, moral questions  
•       •       •

3248 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 28 Dec 2012 at 7:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-28 04:42:41 PM  
I did "not see" what the artwork looked like in the article
towleroad.typepad.com
Praying? God wins.
 
2012-12-28 04:45:10 PM  
That just might be the most epic troll in history. i51.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-28 05:07:57 PM  
Thought-provoking? Certainly. An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.
 
2012-12-28 05:20:42 PM  
I can see where that might cause a small fuhrer
 
2012-12-28 05:26:50 PM  

Apos: An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.


The only thing that could go farther would be a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum.
 
2012-12-28 05:29:45 PM  
It would make a great firing range target.
 
2012-12-28 05:31:16 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: The only thing that could go farther would be a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum.


A. Why is it insulting to the memory of Holocaust victims? Can you explain your offense without relying on truthiness?

B. If "a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum" is the most offensive thing you can think of in that context, then you have no imagination.
 
2012-12-28 05:35:02 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Apos: An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.

The only thing that could go farther would be a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum.



Don't get me wrong: I'm not condoning what the Third Reich did by any stretch of the imagination. It just seems that the outrage over this depiction(which, by the way, doesn't explicitly show any association to Hitler other than its title) seems a tad disproportionate to the alleged blasphemy. *shrugs*

/prepared for the vitriol that may be coming my way.
 
2012-12-28 05:35:47 PM  

Sid_6.7: Why is it insulting to the memory of Holocaust victims? Can you explain your offense without relying on truthiness?


I'd like to know the artist's intentions and what the artist thinks it means first.
 
2012-12-28 05:45:11 PM  

Apos: Popcorn Johnny: Apos: An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.

The only thing that could go farther would be a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum.


Don't get me wrong: I'm not condoning what the Third Reich did by any stretch of the imagination. It just seems that the outrage over this depiction(which, by the way, doesn't explicitly show any association to Hitler other than its title) seems is a tad disproportionate to the alleged blasphemy. *shrugs*

/prepared for the vitriol that may be coming my way.


FTFM.
 
2012-12-28 05:46:26 PM  

downstairs: I'd like to know the artist's intentions and what the artist thinks it means first.


RTFA perhaps?
 
2012-12-28 05:48:34 PM  
Entertainment Tab? Really? Is that for all the trolls this is going to summon?
 
2012-12-28 05:49:42 PM  

Sid_6.7: downstairs: I'd like to know the artist's intentions and what the artist thinks it means first.

RTFA perhaps?


Pffffft, I didn't join Fark so I could read the articles.

Ok, kidding.  I just did.  Indeed, I don't think its offensive.
 
2012-12-28 06:14:39 PM  
It certainly did get a lot of people arguing and talking about it. I think the artist did his job.
 
2012-12-28 06:33:43 PM  
I have no strong feelings one way or the other.
 
2012-12-28 07:29:32 PM  
Stolen/broken/shot up in 3...2....1...
 
2012-12-28 07:35:05 PM  
Put a prayer rug under his knees .

Then stand back .
 
2012-12-28 07:41:16 PM  
Youtube will show Hitler's outrage in Downfall parody in 3...2....1
 
2012-12-28 07:42:43 PM  
FTA:

The Hitler representation is visible from a hole in a wooden gate across town on Prozna Street. Viewers only see the back of the small figure praying in a courtyard. Because of its small size, it appears to be a harmless schoolboy.

"Every criminal was once a tender, innocent and defenceless child," the centre said in a commentary on the work.

Poland's chief rabbi, Michael Schudrich, said he was consulted on the installation's placement ahead of time and did not oppose it because he saw value in the artist's attempt to try to raise moral questions by provoking viewers.

He said he was reassured by curators who told him there was no intention of rehabilitating Hitler but rather of showing that evil can present itself in the guise of a "sweet praying child."


I think that actually makes sense, but without any context it does come off as trolling.
 
2012-12-28 07:48:17 PM  

Sid_6.7: Popcorn Johnny: The only thing that could go farther would be a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum.

A. Why is it insulting to the memory of Holocaust victims? Can you explain your offense without relying on truthiness?

B. If "a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum" is the most offensive thing you can think of in that context, then you have no imagination.


Well, you could go with the quote from the article:
"As far as the Jews were concerned, Hitler's only 'prayer' was that they be wiped off the face of the earth,"
 
2012-12-28 07:57:43 PM  
If they hung a sign around his neck saying "please don't stick a pineapple up my ass" it would be an improvement.
 
2012-12-28 08:12:43 PM  

Apos: Thought-provoking? Certainly. An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.


Honestly, my socks are an insult to the memory of Holocaust victims and their extended families. It's become a competition for "Worst Genocide EVAR!!!"
 
2012-12-28 08:18:56 PM  

mmagdalene: Apos: Thought-provoking? Certainly. An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.

Honestly, my socks are an insult to the memory of Holocaust victims and their extended families. It's become a competition for "Worst Genocide EVAR!!!"


Seriously. All this excessive pearl-clutching and mortified gasping should be saved for stuff that's truly offensive-like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, birtherism and Uwe Boll flicks.
 
2012-12-28 08:34:11 PM  

Torqueknot: Well, you could go with the quote from the article:
"As far as the Jews were concerned, Hitler's only 'prayer' was that they be wiped off the face of the earth,"


The fact is that people pray for some very farking evil things, as well as very good things. That both types of prayers receive equal responses is very telling to me.
 
2012-12-28 08:42:41 PM  
People should pee on it.
 
2012-12-28 09:56:00 PM  
Perhaps, since he's on his knees, they could have him blowing Himmler.
 
2012-12-28 10:07:41 PM  
All the pigeon breeders are now moving cages into the neighborhood.
 
2012-12-28 10:29:56 PM  
Eh, let me know when the statue's prayer comes true.
 
2012-12-28 10:48:52 PM  

Apos: mmagdalene: Apos: Thought-provoking? Certainly. An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.

Honestly, my socks are an insult to the memory of Holocaust victims and their extended families. It's become a competition for "Worst Genocide EVAR!!!"

Seriously. All this excessive pearl-clutching and mortified gasping should be saved for stuff that's truly offensive-like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, birtherism and Uwe Boll flicks.


Had to look up Uwe Boll, but now I heartily agree. And you're a funny guy.
 
2012-12-28 11:04:02 PM  

mmagdalene: Apos: mmagdalene: Apos: Thought-provoking? Certainly. An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.

Honestly, my socks are an insult to the memory of Holocaust victims and their extended families. It's become a competition for "Worst Genocide EVAR!!!"

Seriously. All this excessive pearl-clutching and mortified gasping should be saved for stuff that's truly offensive-like Here Comes Honey Boo Boo, birtherism and Uwe Boll flicks.

Had to look up Uwe Boll, but now I heartily agree. And you're a funny guy.



Thank you.
 
2012-12-28 11:07:20 PM  
 I think the beef with this is that it's senselessly provocative. Sure, art is supposed to do that, but did you really have to troll the sh*t out of everyone in the process? There are plenty of other ways to irritate people. But this one is pretty damn sacred. It seems to be trolling for trolling's (not art's) sake.

 At least it's only visible through a hole in the door.
 
2012-12-29 12:14:29 AM  

dickfreckle: it's senselessly provocative. Sure, art is supposed to do that


Art is not supposed to do that. It can do that, but that is not the only purpose of art.
 
2012-12-29 12:48:06 AM  
To me, it seems to be a this ...

i1222.photobucket.com

... in statue form.
 
2012-12-29 01:16:08 AM  

dickfreckle: I think the beef with this is that it's senselessly provocative.


It's not though. It brings to mind many valid points / questions about the value of prayer, size, aspect, conflict, religion, and suffering just to name a few. Just because it's OMGHITLER, even in a concentration camp, doesn't make it senselessly anything.
 
2012-12-29 01:33:11 AM  
Here's how you can tell if an art piece is "senselessly provocative"--would it be offensive if the title were removed? If yes, then it's offensive on its face and shouldn't be displayed, or at least not in the location where it is being shown. If no, then it is the NAME of the work that is offensive, and the work should be left as--in this case--its intent is to create discussion.

In this case, if the statue wasn't called "Hitler Praying", nobody would know at first glance it was Hitler. It could be a child, or just a person reflecting on the horrors that went on in Warsaw. That it is specified as Hitler means it's intended to make people think. Why is Hitler praying? Why is he looking out that barred gate? Is he in Hell now, praying for forgiveness? Wishing he'd done things differently?

Now, if it had been Hitler standing in triumph, say, or obviously Hitler in some kind of victory pose, then it would be inappropriate; or if it was near the train platforms where Jews were shipped to their deaths, that would be more overtly offensive. But I don't think this location or pose is overtly provocative as it is.
 
2012-12-29 01:36:56 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Here's how you can tell if an art piece is "senselessly provocative"--would it be offensive if the title were removed? If yes, then it's offensive on its face and shouldn't be displayed, or at least not in the location where it is being shown. If no, then it is the NAME of the work that is offensive, and the work should be left as--in this case--its intent is to create discussion.

In this case, if the statue wasn't called "Hitler Praying", nobody would know at first glance it was Hitler. It could be a child, or just a person reflecting on the horrors that went on in Warsaw. That it is specified as Hitler means it's intended to make people think. Why is Hitler praying? Why is he looking out that barred gate? Is he in Hell now, praying for forgiveness? Wishing he'd done things differently?

Now, if it had been Hitler standing in triumph, say, or obviously Hitler in some kind of victory pose, then it would be inappropriate; or if it was near the train platforms where Jews were shipped to their deaths, that would be more overtly offensive. But I don't think this location or pose is overtly provocative as it is.


Well said.
 
2012-12-29 01:50:31 AM  

Apos: Thought-provoking? Certainly. An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.


They should know about insults to history! Have they ever publicly admitted once that they did in fact killed Jesus!
 
2012-12-29 01:58:47 AM  

sleeper2995: Apos: Thought-provoking? Certainly. An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.

They should know about insults to history! Have they ever publicly admitted once that they did in fact killed Jesus!



Stellar snark peddler, you are.
 
2012-12-29 02:08:02 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Here's how you can tell if an art piece is "senselessly provocative"--would it be offensive if the title were removed? If yes, then it's offensive on its face and shouldn't be displayed, or at least not in the location where it is being shown. If no, then it is the NAME of the work that is offensive, and the work should be left as--in this case--its intent is to create discussion.

In this case, if the statue wasn't called "Hitler Praying", nobody would know at first glance it was Hitler. It could be a child, or just a person reflecting on the horrors that went on in Warsaw. That it is specified as Hitler means it's intended to make people think. Why is Hitler praying? Why is he looking out that barred gate? Is he in Hell now, praying for forgiveness? Wishing he'd done things differently?

Now, if it had been Hitler standing in triumph, say, or obviously Hitler in some kind of victory pose, then it would be inappropriate; or if it was near the train platforms where Jews were shipped to their deaths, that would be more overtly offensive. But I don't think this location or pose is overtly provocative as it is.


This is a fair point, and one I will consider. For the near future though, I find it needlessly inflammatory.
 
2012-12-29 02:30:59 AM  

Apos: Thought-provoking? Certainly. An insult to the memory of Holocaust victims? I don't think it goes that far, if at all.


It's not thought provoking at all
 
2012-12-29 06:14:55 AM  

Sid_6.7: Popcorn Johnny: The only thing that could go farther would be a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum.

A. Why is it insulting to the memory of Holocaust victims? Can you explain your offense without relying on truthiness?

B. If "a statue of Hitler pissing on the Holocaust Museum" is the most offensive thing you can think of in that context, then you have no imagination.


What if the statue is made of bacon?

I'm not helping, am I?
 
2012-12-29 06:37:43 AM  
I saw it when it was on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago a few years ago. If I can remember correctly, it was the only piece in the room far away from the door that had one of the museum staff standing by to keep an eye on the piece and "HIM" facing away from the door... so you had to walk in to the room and circle around it to see that it was hitler. From the picture in the article, it would appear that the piece is facing an open grate and people seeing it from the other side of the grate aren't getting the piece in the proper context.

I thought it was an interesting piece because it appeared to be an innocent young child praying, then you rotate enough around the piece to see it'shiatler and are instantly repulsed
 
2012-12-29 08:44:31 AM  
"Every criminal was once a tender, innocent and defenceless child," the centre said in a commentary on the work.

If that's really the inspirational thought-provoking message in this artwork, it sucks.
 
2012-12-29 09:02:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: In this case, if the statue wasn't called "Hitler Praying", nobody would know at first glance it was Hitler.


According to TFA, it's not called that. It's called "HIM".

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Probably doesn't approve.
 
2012-12-29 09:26:18 AM  
I think that people are most offended by the depiction of Hitler as a pious man...and that's a GOOD thing. He did what he did in the name of God, just like many evil men and women have done before and since. History has created this evil caracature of Hitler, because if we stop and think of him as just a normal man, the evil things that he did are even more reprehensible. It's a lesson that humanity doesn't seem to learn...we disassociate the evil acts done in the name of religion with the religion, because obviously, it was the PERSON, not the religion that was wrong. And then we watch and wonder why these crimes against humanity happen over and over and over again.
 
2012-12-29 10:20:13 AM  

bborchar: I think that people are most offended by the depiction of Hitler as a pious man...and that's a GOOD thing. He did what he did in the name of God, just like many evil men and women have done before and since. History has created this evil caracature of Hitler, because if we stop and think of him as just a normal man, the evil things that he did are even more reprehensible. It's a lesson that humanity doesn't seem to learn...we disassociate the evil acts done in the name of religion with the religion, because obviously, it was the PERSON, not the religion that was wrong. And then we watch and wonder why these crimes against humanity happen over and over and over again.


I've said this so many times (it's the person using something to hide behind, any convenient organization and such will do, and if religion wouldn't be good enough, they'd be using political groups, scientific group, the local book club, etc.), but the intelligence to understand this is seriously lacking on Fark... If you don't get several flames over it, I'll be surprised, they see something something religion and they wharrrblegarble.
 
2012-12-29 10:25:57 AM  

bborchar: I think that people are most offended by the depiction of Hitler as a pious man...and that's a GOOD thing. He did what he did in the name of God, just like many evil men and women have done before and since. History has created this evil caracature of Hitler, because if we stop and think of him as just a normal man, the evil things that he did are even more reprehensible. It's a lesson that humanity doesn't seem to learn...we disassociate the evil acts done in the name of religion with the religion, because obviously, it was the PERSON, not the religion that was wrong. And then we watch and wonder why these crimes against humanity happen over and over and over again.


Religion is like a firearm or a wheel, it can be used for good or for ill. Hitler was a master statesmen and speaker, and used religion as one of his many tools. If you gather up all the evidence, it points to Hitler believing in God but hating religion in general and using it for his own ends. The guy was evil. I know people really loathe to use that word, but its true.
 
2012-12-29 10:33:24 AM  

imfallen_angel: bborchar: I think that people are most offended by the depiction of Hitler as a pious man...and that's a GOOD thing. He did what he did in the name of God, just like many evil men and women have done before and since. History has created this evil caracature of Hitler, because if we stop and think of him as just a normal man, the evil things that he did are even more reprehensible. It's a lesson that humanity doesn't seem to learn...we disassociate the evil acts done in the name of religion with the religion, because obviously, it was the PERSON, not the religion that was wrong. And then we watch and wonder why these crimes against humanity happen over and over and over again.

I've said this so many times (it's the person using something to hide behind, any convenient organization and such will do, and if religion wouldn't be good enough, they'd be using political groups, scientific group, the local book club, etc.), but the intelligence to understand this is seriously lacking on Fark... If you don't get several flames over it, I'll be surprised, they see something something religion and they wharrrblegarble.


Your dislike and wanting to blame religion for all of societies ills doesn't change what Hitler felt or did. The man used religion until a point that it benefited him and as soon as he didnt need it anymore, he was hell-bent on abolishing it all. The guy thought he was sent by God to destroy and conquer the world. He was an evil, manipulative being. To sit there and cry "religion is the evilz" to justify what Hitler did is just confirmation bias.
 
2012-12-29 11:46:21 AM  
I think my post was misunderstood. I never meant it as "religion is bad!!!" But Hitler's christianity is never discussed when we talk about the holicaust- would we do the same if he had had done these atrocities as a Muslim? It's not the religion that's the problem...it's our society's reluctance to see a
 
2012-12-29 11:50:48 AM  
It's humanity's reluctance to put the people using it as a tool for evil in their place until it's too late. I'm saying that we either take an all or nothing approach, instead of seeing the problems with both the person and beliefs.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  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.

Report