If that is being disrespectful.
One of the stories that is going around is this one. It seems that the group that contracted the picture decided that it should be removed. Many people at a loss as why, can you guess why?
But it is clear that this is just a obvious case of censorship.
Several art bloggers denounced the museum’s act as censorship, comparing it to the recent removal of David Wojnarowicz’s “A Fire in My Belly” video from the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C.
Daniel Lahoda, founder of LA Freewalls Project downtown and one of the few people to photograph the work as it was being removed, said that the street art community is “really upset by this — everyone is talking about it.”
“If you’re planning on mounting the largest graffiti show in a major institution, you’ve got to give the artists the freedom to do the movement justice — so there’s a big failure in what just happened,” he says. “The last thing we want is an art institution, someone supposed to support creativity, to destroy it.”
Except that the museum paid for it and guess what, the people paying your commission have a big say into what they want painted. So do not act shocked that they painted over a painting that they paid for on their property. But it gets better because “L.A. Museum’s Destruction of Anti-War Art Disrespects Veterans”
Much of the anti-war movement is led by veterans, who’ve seen firsthand that these wars aren’t making us safer and aren’t worth the cost. If Deitch talked to more veterans rather than making blanket assumptions about their viewpoints, he might be surprised to find that many, many veterans stridently oppose the wars being fought by the U.S. at present. For example, the video Rethink Afghanistan published on Veterans Day featured veterans denouncing the war in Afghanistan as an unjust war.
Except considering the past “veterans” that have been coming from the anti-war camp and considering how stories in how returning vets, are used as prompts, one has to wonder what their idea of respect is.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment: imagine if Blu had painted a mural celebrating, rather than dissenting from, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the mural had depicted the war in Afghanistan as a conflict that served American interests, where our team, including our allies in Kabul, were the Good Guys and our adversaries the Bad Guys. In other words, if Blu had lied through his art, rather than using it to tell the truth, would Deitch have painted over it? Maybe, but I doubt it.
Except that they still do no get it, it does not matter what the subject is. If the person that is paying you to paint says that they do not like it, they have a right to reject it. Regardless of what the theme or subject matter is.
But do not try to use our name when you are upset about it when the owners paint over you picture that they paid for on their own building.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Liberals suck
The fact that there is even such a thing as a “street art community”…we used to refer to them as vandals, or if caught, the defendant.
“…where our team, including our allies in Kabul, were the Good Guys and our adversaries the Bad Guys. In other words, if Blu had lied…”
And THAT is where the problem is. The douchetards don’t see us as the “good guys”. They think that calling us “the good guys” is a lie. The Taliban? Oh, they’re not bad guys according to the bleeding hearts and artists. They are just defending their homes: of course, they’re doing so in order to oppress the native populace, torture and murder women for having the gall to want to learn to read or not get raped or not live like dogs. Oh, and they’re fighting for their right to execute anyone who doesn’t blindly bow to down to Islam and Sharia. But don’t tell the artists that; it might interfere with their creative flow.
Assholes.
“Here’s an interesting thought experiment: imagine if Blu had painted a mural celebrating, rather than dissenting from, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What if the mural had depicted the war in Afghanistan as a conflict that served American interests, where our team, including our allies in Kabul, were the Good Guys and our adversaries the Bad Guys.”
Yeah, as if artist make stuff like that. If it isn’t anti-American, blasphemous, or homerotic, it isn’t art.
Another thing–most of the “anti-war” types I know don’t speak so candidly. They always make sure to emphasise that the US military is very, very good (in fact, they once had a cousin the natiobnal guard) and that the Taliban is very, very bad, but…you know, let’s just give up.
In other words, they pay lip service to the idea that we’re the good guys and they’re the bad guys. It’s all very deceptive, of course. They get very touchy when you tell them that you think that they’re full of shit. They go to great lengths to lie their asses off.
And now this. Honesty. America sucks, etc.
Here’s another thought experiment.
What if it was a pro-life/anti-abortion mural showing mashed up babies in jars streaming off of an assembly line?
And if it was disrespectful to Martin Luther King?
If it was “homophobic”?
In the end, it would still be up to the art musuem that a) paid for it, and b) owns the property. However, these assmunches wouldn’t raise a stink about how freedom is under attack. They’d have no problem at all with it.
Here’s the thing, though.
When you commission artists, one of the “intangibles” that goes into whether or not they will work on creating the piece is the exposure. Why? Because exposure means more commissions, and thus more money later. So often the exposure will be very clearly negotiated out in advance. Artists will often take a slightly lower commission for broader exposure.
The museum commissioned the piece. At any time during the creation of the piece, or before, they could have inquired as to what the artist would be doing, and express their concerns, /before/ he spent a lot of valuable time creating something that would be erased within days.
I’m still trying to figure out what the artist was trying to get at with the painting.
Was he refering to the belief that we’re only there for the money (oil) or that we’ve spent a lot of money on this war? I’m willing to bet it’s about the oil. You know, the oil that he probably used to drive his car there to paint, or the high lift which runs off diesel he probably used to paint unless he used scaffolding which had to be hauled there by truck (diesel again). Lastly, how much do you want to bet those aren’t water based paints on that wall? Hell if I’m wrong about the whole thing that’s okay because making unimformed assumptions is all the rage these days.
If the Artist is so pissed off over the whole thing he can just go ahead and buy a building then paint whatever he wants on his own property.
I know people have very short attention spans these days, but to add to Sniper’s comment, have people completely forgotten that the Taliban aided and continues to aid those that perpetrated 9/11, USS Cole, embassy bombing, etc. One can legitimately question the battle plan, tactics and high level commitment, but to just plain forget or ignore the reason for being in Afghanistan? These people are either “troofers” or willfully blind.
At any time during the creation of the piece, or before, they could have inquired as to what the artist would be doing, and express their concerns, /before/ he spent a lot of valuable time creating something that would be erased within days.
Did he get a paycheck for his art? If so, then he was compensated, regardless of this “exposure” bullshit…which was his risk, btw.
Did you not read the part, Army Sergeant, where the owner stated that they’d had an agreed upon time for him to do the mural, but the artist pushed it back and began while he was out of town?
Of course not.
I’m getting real sick of the “art for the sake of art” argument.
I wouldn’t mind art for the sake of art…if it was really art. I like beauty in art. I can get all the visual political statements I need on the nightly news.
I remember when I was in college there was a piece of “art” displayed in the library. It was in a location that was barely noticable and other than it being poorly done and not very thought provoking I never really thought too much of it. After it had been out for over a month someone noticed it and complained which sparked counter complaints then this big discussion on campus as to the nature of art. Unfortunately lost in all of the mess was that the art itself was shitty and uninspiring.
This work of art probably wouldn’t have made any splash at all just because it is lame. Wow it isn’t the first time I have seen some “artist” trying to make the exact same statement. The only way this guy would really benefit (other than pay) is if it was removed. It doesn’t really invoke any emotion in me other than wow what a dumbass. Now I have spent way more time thinking about this than it deserves.
Now if there were only a way to paint over the WBC fags…
Seriously, “valuable time creating something”? I agree, it might have been “something”, but I doubt, from what I saw, that any “valuable time” was spent on this. I’ve seen better in kindergarten rooms, hanging on walls.
I daresay the artist will get plenty of exposure and notice over this, probably far more than deserved by the artistic merits of the work, whatever they may be.