Mickey Mouse With Swastika, Nude Woman Ignites Polish Anger

[Gerald]

Story,
WARSAW, Poland -- A huge outdoor art poster that blends Mickey Mouse's image with that of a swastika and a nude woman's body is causing a stir in Poland, where memories of the suffering inflicted by Nazi Germany remain strong.,"This art provocation is a form of violence against the sensitivity of many people," said Norbert Napieraj,a city council member who asked prosecutors to ban the poster.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/14/mickey-mouse-swastika-nude-woman-ignites-polish-anger

[Betonov]

Interesting what's called art these days
I miss Van Gogh, Da Vinci and all those guys that painted battles and ships sailing into the sunset

[thorn69]

Interesting what's called art these days
I miss Van Gogh, Da Vinci and all those guys that painted battles and ships sailing into the sunset

There has ALWAYS been provocative art throughout the centuries. This is just the modern version of it. People in 1000 years will look back and say, "Wow, that's incredible" when they look at it because they will know that it was done by an artist who simply desired to express his freedom of opinion during a politically correct period of time where nobody, other than protected groups of people, should be able to do.

[Betonov]

There has ALWAYS been provocative art throughout the centuries. This is just the modern version of it. People in 1000 years will look back and say, "Wow, that's incredible" when they look at it because they will know that it was done by an artist who simply desired to express his freedom of opinion during a politically correct period of time where nobody, other than protected groups of people, should be able to do.
true true, but I have a feeling that provocative art of the past was meant to provocate by making a point, today is just to get attention. Plus, its all so cheap these days, some cut and paste and voila

[Skybird]

I take more offence from how easily the easiest, the simpliest, the most amateurish, naive "acchievements" in doing some graphics, today is called "art" immediately.

Not the only, but one criterion for "art" to me is right this - that just not everybody has the skill to do it. ther art of craftsmanship and mastering artistic skills that are hard to obtain, has omething to do with it. Throwing bin of red fluid onto a wall, is not an art neither in execution, nor in result. It's as worthy as what the dog leaves behind when visiting it's most favourite tree.

Three years ago, the arts course of our local university here had declared a "summer of arts". At several locations they unloaded for the most some items they had just collected somewhere, even unloaded a truckload of garbage, and that was it. I also remember a line of ten opened, broken umbrellas (that was all it was). The results of their efforts in original waste disposal they called "works of art".

I say: shove it, you great artists, you.

Until here it just is idiocy. But it really makes me angry when I see even public taxes being wasted for teaching or financing such BS. If "provoking new thoughts" is what characterises arts sufficiently, then any baby throwing it's filled, smelly diaper into somebody's face would already qualify as a great artist. Splash-arts, so to speak.

[thorn69]

true true, but I have a feeling that provocative art of the past was meant to provocate by making a point, today is just to get attention. Plus, its all so cheap these days, some cut and paste and voila

A lot of the art from the past was to stir up emotions. Today's art is being used to make a point but it still stirs up emotions.

[Snestorm]

Today it's easier to find "art" than it is to find art.

However there is no shortage of true talent.
Most good artists are employed, or work, commercialy.

[The Third Man]

I guess it is art if you consider Mickey Mouse, naked women, and a swastika art. But as a rather powerfull lady once said.....

"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."

So I'm looking forward to being more of an art critic in the coming years.

[thorn69]

I guess it is art if you consider Mickey Mouse, naked women, and a swastika art. But as a rather powerfull lady once said.....

"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."

So I'm looking forward to being more of an art critic in the coming years.

Art is in the eye of the beholder. Remember this...

http://errordactyl.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/adultjpg2-737095.jpg

It's art that makes a point and stirs up emotions.

[The Third Man]

Art is in the eye of the beholder. Remember this...


Vaguely. As I recall the National Organization for Women was rather upset and didn't consider it art. But like you said beauty (art) is in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes the artists just wants to shock.

[Betonov]

art is in the eye of the beholder and beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder

thorn69 is fond of modern art, which is good, I am fond of realism, renaisansse and romanticism which is also good, skybird has a good point at how it's too easy to call anything today ''art'', and before you ask what am I (being heavily influenced by the chemicals I use at work) writing the hell about or completely ignore me I will say this: yes I hate it, but I'm glad it's here. this is freedom of expression, no state directive, no ban of non-traditional works, no persecution of free thinkers and (bad) artists and as long as they are free to make ''art'', I am free to say and do what I want. and so are you. as long as nobody gets hurt

(aceton is more powerfull than caffeine and you proabibly guesed it by now, I'm a liberal)

[Moeceefus]

Looks like some failed "artist" trying to make a name for himself with shock value. Nothing new.

[The Third Man]

It's art that makes a point and stirs up emotions.


Then I could stir emotions every day. I don't think that is art. If governments stopped giving money to so-called artists we may actually gain something. Remember no artist in modern times, has ever made a living from their efforts. The artists are slaves to their benifactors.

[thorn69]

art is in the eye of the beholder and beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder

thorn69 is fond of modern art, which is good, I am fond of realism, renaisansse and romanticism which is also good, skybird has a good point at how it's too easy to call anything today ''art'', and before you ask what am I (being heavily influenced by the chemicals I use at work) writing the hell about or completely ignore me I will say this: yes I hate it, but I'm glad it's here. this is freedom of expression, no state directive, no ban of non-traditional works, no persecution of free thinkers and (bad) artists and as long as they are free to make ''art'', I am free to say and do what I want. and so are you. as long as nobody gets hurt

(aceton is more powerfull than caffeine and you proabibly guesed it by now, I'm a liberal)

I'm not exactly fond of the 'image" of it but I don't exactly have a problem with it either. With most art, especially modern art such as this, you really have to look at more than just the image that's being displayed. There's often a story behind it or some hidden context that has to be considered BEFORE you judge the image.

Here I see "freedom" being displayed and "freedom" is always a beautiful thing. There's a story behind it as well that's not so beautiful until it gets to the end. It's a story of horror, composed of human sacrifice and suffering, but eventually it ends with "freedom".