Outrageous blasphemy taxpayer funded "art" in Colorado
#11
Sadly, nowadays, the only way that an artist gets treated seriously by his or her peers is by treating organized religion with disdain.  I didn't see the piece myself, but then again, I don't think most of what modern artists create qualifies as art.

I'm not sure that the woman who destroyed the print should be lauded in an unqualified manner (after all, she has brought more attention to the piece and given the secular media more ammunition to throw at us).  However, I would certainly support giving her money so she can pay her fine.

Reply
#12
I believe that she did well by destroying that thing. May God bless her for her efforts.
Reply
#13
(10-07-2010, 01:45 PM)Pilgrim Wrote: Sadly, nowadays, the only way that an artist gets treated seriously by his or her peers is by treating organized religion with disdain.  I didn't see the piece myself, but then again, I don't think most of what modern artists create qualifies as art.

I'm not sure that the woman who destroyed the print should be lauded in an unqualified manner (after all, she has brought more attention to the piece and given the secular media more ammunition to throw at us).  However, I would certainly support giving her money so she can pay her fine.

I love you!  Spousal telepathy strikes again: your comments are just what I was about to type!  :)  I read somewhere that the city's attorney approved the art as "not pornography."  I can't believe anyone would consider something like this acceptable and that the only problem they envisioned was that the image might be pornographic!  Frankly, I think  the mayor needs to hear from us and every outraged Catholic who is willing to write a letter.  This is a city sponsored exhibit and our taxes helped pay for it.
Reply
#14
THIS IS THE FINAL STRAW! Crusade anyone ? :duel:
Reply
#15
Disgusting. Absolutely vulgar. I signed the petition at America Needs Fatima. I'm very happy to hear that the piece was destroyed.
Reply
#16
(10-07-2010, 10:48 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: wtf!!! rexit!! have u know balls? ye syes call the vile moham cuz sure as shite catholics wont do squat!! a catholic wishing to call on mohams to defend CHRIST??
sad but true the sign o the times.
if only catholics would defend CHRIST? i now i know i know silly utopian thoughts and fantasies. after all the bishops are to busy defending pedo priests.
silly me

my point was that if muslims complained about the 'artwork,' the museum would remove it.

their feelings are always taken into consideration, ours aren't.  a Catholic priest and others protested against the 'artwork' last night at a city council meeting, to no avail.  people have been picketing the museum, to no avail.  

"This image is symbolic, it is a metaphor and as our city attorney determined it is not pornographic," said Loveland artist Sharon Anhorn.  (from the story on last night's council meeting)


as you know, today a woman named Kathleen Folden managed to get into the gallery with a crowbar, broke the plexiglass, and tore up the offending print, or 'metaphor.'   :laughing:   she was wearing a tee shirt with the words "My Savior Is Tougher Than Nails."

Reply
#17
(10-07-2010, 07:34 PM)Revixit Wrote: their feelings are always taken into consideration, ours aren't.  

Our Lord told us that the world would despise us. We can only pray that more and more will leave the world's influence and, if they aren't Catholic already, enter the Church.
Reply
#18
(10-07-2010, 07:25 PM)Pax et Bonum Wrote: Disgusting. Absolutely vulgar. I signed the petition at America Needs Fatima. I'm very happy to hear that the piece was destroyed.

I think what was on display was a print.  - Or at least that's what Pilgrim told me.  If that's the case, then it is a real shame that the original wasn't destroyed.  Does anyone know?
Reply
#19
(10-08-2010, 10:04 AM)Fontevrault Wrote:
(10-07-2010, 07:25 PM)Pax et Bonum Wrote: Disgusting. Absolutely vulgar. I signed the petition at America Needs Fatima. I'm very happy to hear that the piece was destroyed.

I think what was on display was a print.  - Or at least that's what Pilgrim told me.  If that's the case, then it is a real shame that the original wasn't destroyed.  Does anyone know?

Yes, it was a print.  The newspaper article said:

""Romantic Cannibals" was a 12-panel lithograph that depicted Jesus involved involved a sex act and it also included comic book characters, Mexican pornography, Mayan symbols and ethnic stereotypes. It ws part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists that opened in mid-September and was scheduled to run through late last month."

Lithograph stones are limited in size so the 12 prints were probably attached together at the sides, so as to make a "12-panel lithograph."  Otherwise, it would have been described as "a series of 12 lithograph prints.  Enrique Chagoya, the creep who made the print can make more prints from the stone, and from the other 11 stones, too. 

I don't know whether he can repair the panel on display by replacing the damaged print or prints.  If the plexiglas was attached to a frame around his panel, which I would think would be the case, having the plexiglas smashed may have done more damage.  She only tore out the offensive panel but the report doesn't mention if other panels were damaged. 

It's possible the museum put plexiglas in front of the panel but I've never seen that done unless a museum owns a piece and then I think it's always bullet-proof glass.  But that's only done for masterpieces, which this is not, so I think it's probably part of the blasphemer's frame of his work.

I feel sorry for the other 9 artists whose work is on display because this dipshit is getting all this attention and the museum is being picketed so who knows whether their work will even be viewed. 
Whether the city attorney thinks this guy's panel is pornographic or not, the museum knew what they were showing with this piece and that it included Mexican pornography and ethnic stereotypes as well. 

More from the article:

"Chagoya told CBS4 by phone he was upset to learn the news that his art had been attacked. He says his work is a critique of corruption in religious institutions, not people's beliefs."

(And a guy performing oral sex on Jesus critiques corruption in religious institutions exactly how?)

"I don't expect people to agree with me but let's have a civil discussion, you know. I've been getting a lot of hate mail that doesn't have any logical discussion behind it," Chagoya said.


Gallery director Susan Ison has been dealing with many upset people in the past week who don't agree with displaying the image and had been protesting the piece. Police said Folden is a long-haul truck driver who came to Loveland to join the protests. Ison said Wednesday's incident was a senseless act of violence.

"There's been a lot of emotion in the last couple of weeks and I wish that people would think about the consequences of what they do," gallery director Susan Ison said.

On Thursday at the gallery there was a note in the spot where the artwork had hung saying "This piece was destroyed by an act of violence and is no longer on exhibit."

http://cbs4denver.com/news/crowbar.kathl...51165.html








Reply
#20
Thanks for the info Revixit!  I don't get how this "art" (and I use the term loosly) is intended to do anything but offend.  How can that SOB suggest that he intended any kind of "a civil discussion"??? 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)