The Kathy Griffin picture as art...

[neci]

with no intention to hang it above my mantle.

the crying and the sobbing post coitus is simply rapable.

he likes the tiny adornments.

 

[InternationalFunboy]

What I was trying to say : that I partially agree with your post.

To the more discerning observer, this was clearly symbolical or a metaphor, even a piece of art, as you mentioned. And I took it in a similar way.

But let's not forget about a small % among the impressionable, low IQ or mentally ill, who might possibly read other messages into it..
I wouldn't push it too far, saying that they would engage in certain acts because of the picture. But it primes the brain, and better avoid things that hint to violence, even if controversial.

10-4 hashy, I think I got it the first time around. I appreciate you contributing.

 

[InternationalFunboy]

Apparently in John Waters house there's a framed Swastika made out of Chuck Manson's hair.

He didn't ask for it, and he has the decorum not to ever display it.

When John Waters is the sign of restraint & decorum, maybe it is time for a bit of fucking self reflection.

I love John Waters But he is no common indicator of taste. Still I take your point of not displaying something like that piece, or the one this thread is about, and I really like the directions that could go. Hypothetically, if I were hosting a hangout for friends and acquaintances and someone at the party indicated that the picture was really inhibiting their good time, my inclination would probably be to take it down. Or it might be to tell them to deal with it, politely or less so. But I would never not put it up in the first place.

Thanks Pork

 

[InternationalFunboy]

Best thread in The Lounge.

Thanks Ann, and also Hashy, for the compliments on this thread. I'm thrilled with the responses so far.

 

[spacekowboy]

She shouldn't have apologized. Would George Carlin have apologized? Fuck no.

She showed weakness, and the fuckhead in chief smelled blood in the water and he and every one of his lemmings piled on.

Honestly i should be pissed off that I find myself defending Kathy Griffin. I can't stand her comedy. Never have. I respect her 1st amended right no matter how distasteful it might be to some, however.

That's the thing about free speech. Its free for everyone.

 

[Emerson40]

Off the top, I have no political affiliation. I'm looking to hear thoughts on this piece of work, not in denial of the mediapolitical, but external to it. At the same time acknowledging our current social climate, stereotypes, feelings, and opinions should be fair game for any conversation about art.
Mods, do as you will.

I enjoy the image greatly. It feels much like a political cartoon come to life, huge and vibrant. For me it evokes American Gothic which itself is a stark portrayal of small town folk. The piece forms a bridge to President Trump and includes the use of violence and gore to great effect...overall it portrays depth and blank emotion alongside its unavoidable political commentary. Brilliant.

The circus around the whole affair contributes to the greater work, each reflecting on the other - the art and the society - like one of those endless mirror rooms. I'd love to hear your opinion about the work. I find it to be a real lightening rod!

Art is subjective. If it resonates with you, and you want to print, frame, and hang it, I say go for it.

Some of the best art, whether visual art, printed word, or music, can be controversial, or was when it was created.
It can make us uneasy, generate discussion and debate, and often force us to address hot issues of the day, be they political, religious, or sexual. It can cross borders, generations, and language.

And, as it is subjective, if you don't like it, don't look, read, watch, or listen.

She shouldn't have apologized. Would George Carlin have apologized? Fuck no.

She showed weakness, and the fuckhead in chief smelled blood in the water and he and every one of his lemmings piled on.

Honestly i should be pissed off that I find myself defending Kathy Griffin. I can't stand her comedy. Never have. I respect her 1st amended right no matter how distasteful it might be to some, however.

That's the thing about free speech. Its free for everyone.

Yeah, I agree. Remember that lawsuit in the late 80's between Jerry Falwell and Hustler, about the parody booze advert that said Jerry lost his virginity with his mother?
First and fourteenth amendments protected Flynt and his magazine, and the case for Falwell fell flat.

 

[InternationalFunboy]

She shouldn't have apologized. Would George Carlin have apologized? Fuck no.

She showed weakness, and the fuckhead in chief smelled blood in the water and he and every one of his lemmings piled on.

Honestly i should be pissed off that I find myself defending Kathy Griffin. I can't stand her comedy. Never have. I respect her 1st amended right no matter how distasteful it might be to some, however.

That's the thing about free speech. Its free for everyone.

Tyler Shields has not said anything publicly that I know of on the topic, but he was paraphrased ... he would not apologize, and an artist should stand by their creation even amidst a torrent of criticism, or similar.
There was some footage of the photo shoot in which Kathy jokes about what the repercussions of releasing the image could be. Perhaps she had a change of heart. It's possible that she intially just thought it was funny.....or that it really was a riff on the Megyn Kelly remark made by Trump, but I think it's transcended those ideas.

 

[Conager]

She shouldn't have apologized. Would George Carlin have apologized? Fuck no.

She showed weakness, and the fuckhead in chief smelled blood in the water and he and every one of his lemmings piled on.

Honestly i should be pissed off that I find myself defending Kathy Griffin. I can't stand her comedy. Never have. I respect her 1st amended right no matter how distasteful it might be to some, however.

That's the thing about free speech. Its free for everyone.

Not sure if "first amended right" was a typo, but it is a fun turn of phrase.

 

[Radiohead]

Shit.

I dont think it was art, and I dont think it was defamatory.

Given an artist and a president however, or even one of the two.

Donald Trump tells me one is a president, but surely Kathy Griffen didnt get voted president of the USA?????

 

[Radiohead]

My real answer is treat an A grade comedian the same as a D grade or vica versa.

Its bad form, a desperate plea for attention, and there was nothing legally wrong. She got fired for stupidity, not for views. And no contract for a comedian will ever be ironclad. See Chappelle.

 

[hashtag34]

Someone mentioned this in the other thread, and I thought it was well said:

"One need only look at the current state of comedy to realize that a lot of comedians have made their career out of shaming their audience for laughs."

In Katie Griffin's case, she seemed to look for notoriety through the shock value and controversy.

 

[Radiohead]

Someone mentioned this in the other thread, and I thought it was well said:

"One need only look at the current state of comedy to realize that a lot of comedians have made their career out of shaming their audience for laughs."

In Katie Griffin's case, she seemed to look for notoriety through the shock value and controversy.

If you're Rebel Wilson, you're not a comedian.

I mean um Katie Griffen

 

[HisArpy]

I acknowledge that dichotomy, and I agree with you, but I can't get with Ann's correlation at all. I won't agree that real people losing real heads isn't, in fact, art to someone. Besides that though...dark as that concept may be, it's still a concept....no one involved in creating this piece of art is chopping off anyone's heads. The correlation is farther fetched than what hash was saying.

This picture would take up a small place on my wall with other weird or iconic images that I steal from the internet. File it between Kim Kardashian bowling in high heels and a photo-collage of various barrel-type inventions that people used to go over Niagra Falls in the early 20th century.

I think you're confusing historical record keeping with art. Pictures of mass graves aren't art. Pictures of executions on the gallows or guillotine aren't art. Pictures of exotic butterflies pinned to exhibit cards, no matter how prettily arranged, are not art.

Yes, they can be displayed but that doesn't make them art.

Art can be as simple as a scratch on a cave wall. Or as complex as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. And every aspect in between.

Art is aspiration. A reflection of the human spirit. It can be beautiful or grotesque, complex or simple, but it is a reflection of us and our dreams and goals and existence. When one confuses art with political commentary in a way which glorifies the political content, it is no longer art. Regardless of the medium, it remains a political statement and no more worthy of attention than a banner or sign. As such it can be displayed and admired/disapproved and commented upon, but it is not ART.

Griffen's image is nothing more than a veiled threat disguised as political rhetoric attempting to hide behind the 1st amendment and "artistic expression". It is not art and should not be envisioned as such.

Please note that I DID NOT say it was trash. It just isn't art.

 

[Conager]

I don't agree. Wordsmithing is not incompatible with political commentary. Nor a poem.

Political cartoons are both commentary and art.

What motivates and inspires the artist to create is entirely dependant on the artist.

 

[spacekowboy]

Yes it was an autocorrect mistake. I know the difference between amended and amendment. I just didnt catch it on the proofread.

 

[phantom4533]

I think it would have worked better with a shrunken head likeness.

 

[cleaver]

Griffen's image is nothing more than a veiled threat disguised as political rhetoric attempting to hide behind the 1st amendment and "artistic expression". It is not art and should not be envisioned as such.

Please note that I DID NOT say it was trash. It just isn't art.

again,
i can appreciate your subjective view in this,
but i absolutely disagree...

i subjectively see no threat, veiled or otherwise...
and
i can clearly appreciate the artistic attempt to convey discussion...
in fact, the very discussion happening here...
and in countless other heres

i see no threat in the images, veiled or otherwise....
and i am quite sure that the allusions conjured by them in me
are nothing like those you rendered.

but by no means were the artists publishing an anarchist's cookbook
or instructions to violence...
much to the contrary, the images are horrific specifically to shock at what such a violent act at such a specific symbol evokes...

interpretations...
have at yours and feel free to click on through such...

but don't - on your way through - allow yourself the conceit
to believe you've any right or business to preclude the next subjective eyes
from discerning something more artistic or informative than you.

you can be absolute in these things...
but only with yourself.

 

[Ms_Ann]

I think the Secret Service saw it as a threat.

 

[HisArpy]

again,
i can appreciate your subjective view in this,
but i absolutely disagree...

i subjectively see no threat, veiled or otherwise...
and
i can clearly appreciate the artistic attempt to convey discussion...
in fact, the very discussion happening here...
and in countless other heres

i see no threat in the images, veiled or otherwise....
and i am quite sure that the allusions conjured by them in me
are nothing like those you rendered.

but by no means were the artists publishing an anarchist's cookbook
or instructions to violence...
much to the contrary, the images are horrific specifically to shock at what such a violent act at such a specific symbol evokes...

interpretations...
have at yours and feel free to click on through such...

but don't - on your way through - allow yourself the conceit
to believe you've any right or business to preclude the next subjective eyes
from discerning something more artistic or informative than you.

you can be absolute in these things...
but only with yourself.

You ramble on about how in your subjective viewpoint it's art and somehow worthy because of that distinction, yet disparage my viewpoint as an attempt to push my opinion onto others?

Okey dokey pokey.

 

[jomar]

I am not aware that she has ever been known for art.

She's a comedian and thought this would be funny.

It wasn't. She's not an A-lister for a reason.

 

[cleaver]

You ramble on about how in your subjective viewpoint it's art and somehow worthy because of that distinction, yet disparage my viewpoint as an attempt to push my opinion onto others?

Okey dokey pokey.

thank you for that.

i do though think that the concept of "other thought"
has again in this incident
been subject to mob whiplash...

...with a very serious consequence in the longer term.

reason, amongst honorable and socially rational folks,
is under attack
fueled by pre-digested sound/eyebytes...

a topical example:

if you were to peruse the lightning sites (i.e. reddit/4chan/streams...even twitter) just now...

you can find feeds of a cnn producer assembling/casting
"islamic looking" folk and adjusting even the flowers
for the background of reporting from london today...
i believe the producer involved was a lady named anderson... rebecca, i think?

the mass gets choreography not fact;
and most act on what is namely little more than subjective show.

the news is skewed..
the stories are skewed...
the eyebytes are skewed...

and thus, the reactions are.... skewed.

certainly, the griffin photo shoot was subject to an instant tsunami...
when, in all estimation of both her b-list standing
and her true following,
she should have been far more lightly regarded...

in the old paradigm, you would never have been subject to any of it...



i do respect your opinion re griffin and her purported art...
what alarms me is not your reason,
but rather the demonstrated bigger picture of...
kill it
move on to the next carnivore attraction
without due regard to...

it is our president's millieu...
(as exercised throughout the election, transition and term infancy)
where fact is malleable
reaction is swift and choreographed
and...
"wrong" is castigated until righted
or ignored as if non-existenced...

it is not a simple matter of
right/left... red/blue... conservative/liberal...
the monster of misguided mob-speak is unleashed on a bigger and bigger all...

griffin is now some hinky cross on a dark curve of a busy hungry boulevard.
she and the severed dummy will be afterthought by cocktail hour.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Griffin is such a good riddance.

Was a bit itchy to watch her.

 

[cleaver]

I
But there's a segment of the popullation, albeit small, who doesn't have the capacity to diferentiate. And who's prone to take things literally.

Real people are losing real heads. Is that art?

If you hate The President of the United States...it's art.

But let's not forget about a small % among the impressionable, low IQ or mentally ill, who might possibly read other messages into it..
I wouldn't push it too far, saying that they would engage in certain acts because of the picture. But it primes the brain, and better avoid things that hint to violence, even if controversial.

hash...

you define first a small sick segment of society
and then purport to know what action is best for them...
precluding the many from being affected by the (let us call it...) art.

your right-reason justifies a road to censorship.

i am not ok with that - on this - or almost any subject...
i have greater faith in sunlight than in your subjective taste.

ann...

really?
are you really going to push such a literal view?

the griffin images evoke all kinds of things... as they were meant to do...
do you really believe they were only a recipe for violence?

please!

 

[Ms_Ann]

hash...

you define first a small sick segment of society
and then purport to know what action is best for them...
precluding the many from being affected by the (let us call it...) art.

your right-reason justifies a road to censorship.

i am not ok with that - on this - or almost any subject...
i have greater faith in sunlight than in your subjective taste.

ann...

really?
are you really going to push such a literal view?

the griffin images evoke all kinds of things... as they were meant to do...
do you really believe they were only a recipe for violence?

please!

Consider the source. Tis the summer of resistance.

 

[cleaver]

Consider the source. Tis the summer of resistance.

then what are you willing
to lose ?

i can be glib