PDA

View Full Version : Woman attacks disputed artwork



Gingersnap
10-07-2010, 11:24 AM
Woman attacks disputed artwork

By Monte Whaley
The Denver Post

Posted: 10/06/2010 05:28:28 PM MDT
Updated: 10/07/2010 07:57:39 AM MDT


http://i56.tinypic.com/s5bexc.jpg
Kathleen Folden of Kalispell, Mont., was heard shouting "How can you desecrate my Lord?"

A woman armed with a crowbar entered the Loveland Museum/Gallery on Wednesday afternoon and destroyed a controversial exhibit that some said shows Jesus Christ engaged in a sex act.

"The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals," by Stanford University's Enrique Chagoya, has been the subject of a week's worth of protests by those who claim it is blasphemy.

"It's sad and upsetting," Chagoya said Wednesday night by phone from California. "I've never had this kind of violent reaction to my art. Violence doesn't resolve anything."

The suspect was identified by police as 56-year-old Kathleen Folden of Kalispell, Mont. She is in custody on a charge of criminal mischief, a Class 4 felony with a fine of up to $2,000.

Police said the woman entered the museum about 4 p.m. and stood in front of the exhibit. Using a crowbar or similar tool, she broke the plexiglass protecting the image and tore up the artwork. She also cut herself in the process.

Chagoya said the lithograph was one of 30 prints in a limited-edition run.

Police said there were reports of gunfire at the museum, but it turned out the noise was due to the banging of the crowbar against the plexiglass.

(snip)

Loveland City Councilman Daryle Klassen has called the artwork "smut" and initially wanted it removed. But on Wednesday, before the attack at the museum, he said the piece should stay but with a warning of its explicit nature.

"If you go to a XXX-rated movie, at least they have the decency to put a sign out of the theater, letting you know this is what you will see," Klassen said Wednesday. "I'd like to see something like that, a warning, placed at the museum in this case. But so far, that has not happened."

"The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals" is a 7 1/2-inch-high, 90-inch-wide color lithograph print with a series of folded panels similar to an Aztec codex. The final panel shows what some say appears to be Jesus receiving oral sex.

Chagoya indicated he produced the lithograph as a commentary on revelations of child abuse committed by priests in the Catholic Church.

"My work is about critiquing institutions and politics," he said. "I wasn't trying to portray Christ; it's a collage of cutouts from different books."

Read more: Woman attacks disputed artwork - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16270946#ixzz11gcqvOf8

This is big news out here. She did manage to destroy the offending panel. Oddly enough, the artist identified the work as "Mexican pornography" and as something unsuitable for minors but he apparently did this in Spanish. Kind of unhelpful in Loveland, CO.

NJCardFan
10-07-2010, 11:39 AM
She will be portrayed as a kook by the left, however, these same lefties don't have a problem when Muslims have fatwas against anyone mocking Mohammad. And I don't know this woman but it's obvious she's a devoted Christian. I also don't condone what she did but I can understand it. Sometimes people get to their limit. You know, the "that's all I can stands, I can stands no more". Christianity is being destroyed by the left so it's understandable that someone might get upset as a picture of the Virgin Mary made up of vaginas or elephant dung or in this case, Jesus being fellated.

On a side note, where are the "let's show tolerance" people at?

JB
10-07-2010, 11:43 AM
Not cool.

This is muzzie behavior. Unacceptable in our society. Fortunately this is an isolated incident as acts like this are rarely committed by Christians.

noonwitch
10-07-2010, 11:55 AM
She will be portrayed as a kook by the left, however, these same lefties don't have a problem when Muslims have fatwas against anyone mocking Mohammad. And I don't know this woman but it's obvious she's a devoted Christian. I also don't condone what she did but I can understand it. Sometimes people get to their limit. You know, the "that's all I can stands, I can stands no more". Christianity is being destroyed by the left so it's understandable that someone might get upset as a picture of the Virgin Mary made up of vaginas or elephant dung or in this case, Jesus being fellated.

On a side note, where are the "let's show tolerance" people at?



She is a kook, because she took a crowbar, smashed a plexiglass barrier, then ripped up someone else's property that she found offensive .

That doesn't mean the person who created such a work, or those people who go to see it are any less kooky, though.

Gingersnap
10-07-2010, 12:23 PM
She is a kook, because she took a crowbar, smashed a plexiglass barrier, then ripped up someone else's property that she found offensive .


No kidding. Now, I'm all for the people of Loveland booting out a council that thinks public money should support political porn in a free museum that is a popular field trip destination for the 10 year old crowd.

DU+NU_Reject
10-07-2010, 02:28 PM
Violence doesn't resolve anything.
:rolleyes: Nothing she did was violent. Destructive, yes. Violent, no.


If I may quote Mao: "Political power rolls out of the barrel of a gun"

Odysseus
10-07-2010, 04:54 PM
It's a property crime, and she will have to face the consequences, which includes a felony conviction and jail time.

However, let's watch how this is reported. A few indicators of what I like to call the Dhimmi standard:


Will the media show the offending work? Remember that almost every American media outlet refrained from publishing the Mohammed cartoons.
Will MSM outlets cite her religion as the cause of her attack? It is, but let's remember that in the case of every act of domestic terrorism by a Muslim, the media has bent over backwards to disassociate the actions of the terrorists from their religious convictions.
Will MSM commentators make the case that this is the same as the controversy over the Mohammed cartoons? Will they note that in this case, no one was killed, no riot occurred and the sole act of destruction was against the offending artwork, rather than violence or threats of violence against the artist, or deaths of unrelated third parties? The left loves moral equivalence.
According to the article, the artwork showed Jesus receiving oral sex and was a commentary on the Catholic Church's tolerance of pedophiles. Will the media talking heads who compare this to the cartoon controversy point out that explicit Islamic doctrine not only encourages pedophilia, but considers those who marry children to be following the example of the prophet? That what is a scandal and aberation in Christianity is a standard and ideal in Islam?


Can't wait to see Wei, Wilbur and Arroyo make all of these points...

Arroyo_Doble
10-07-2010, 05:06 PM
However, let's watch how this is reported. A few indicators of what I like to call the Dhimmi standard:


Will the media show the offending work? Remember that almost every American media outlet refrained from publishing the Mohammed cartoons.

I have seen them many times. I even posted on another political board the dot-to-dot on Draw Mohammed Day.


Will MSM outlets cite her religion as the cause of her attack? It is, but let's remember that in the case of every act of domestic terrorism by a Muslim, the media has bent over backwards to disassociate the actions of the terrorists from their religious convictions.

Kind of hard not to mention it when they report what she said. So unless she attacked a velvet Elvis, her "Lord" would be the diety being represented in a way she does not like.

As far as the second bit, you are seeing a different media than I. I am well aware of the religion of any terrorist. There are even the obligatory interviews of Muslims to get their required condemnation of the latest douchebag. I wonder if Christians will be interviewed to get a required condemnation (that did happen when the terrorist offed the abortion doctor in his church).


Will MSM commentators make the case that this is the same as the controversy over the Mohammed cartoons?

Probably but that will be reaching if they do. She didn't threaten death or force anyone into hiding.


Will they note that in this case, no one was killed, no riot occurred and the sole act of destruction was against the offending artwork, rather than violence or threats of violence against the artist, or deaths of unrelated third parties?

Yea .... I guess you and I are on the same wavelength here.


The left loves moral equivalence.

But we are talking about the Media and they love a factish infotainment story.


According to the article, the artwork showed Jesus receiving oral sex and was a commentary on the Catholic Church's tolerance of pedophiles. Will the media talking heads who compare this to the cartoon controversy point out that explicit Islamic doctrine not only encourages pedophilia, but considers those who marry children to be following the example of the prophet? That what is a scandal and aberation in Christianity is a standard and ideal in Islam?



You are raving again.


Can't wait to see Wei, Wilbur and Arroyo make all of these points...

You need more fantasy liberals in your head.

Arroyo_Doble
10-07-2010, 05:25 PM
This looks like religious or politically driven vandalism to me.

Several years ago, there was a guy in Dallas that would white wash liquor billboards in a black neighborhood. He felt booze was being peddled through that type of advertising disproportionately to blacks (you would not see it as much in Plano or something).

Same type of thing as far as I'm concerned just for a different reason. Comparing it to the Mohammed cartoon fiasco is asinine.

MrsSmith
10-07-2010, 06:29 PM
No bombs??

No blood??

No body count??

FlaGator
10-07-2010, 06:30 PM
No bombs??

No blood??

No body count??

No Muslims...

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 06:57 PM
I haven't seen the offensive piece of art but some of his other pieces are really quite good.


Also TOUGHER THAN NAILS.

lmao

MrsSmith
10-07-2010, 07:40 PM
No Muslims...

But...but...but...I thought our homegrown fundies were the really scary ones!! :eek::eek:

:D

Gingersnap
10-07-2010, 09:41 PM
I haven't seen the offensive piece of art but some of his other pieces are really quite good.


Also TOUGHER THAN NAILS.

lmao

Not tough enough this time, apparently.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 09:56 PM
TOUGHER THAN NAILS (yet sensitive)

Calypso Jones
10-07-2010, 10:09 PM
Museum/'artist'(i use the term loosely) say that the (f)artwork won't go back on display. And they wring their hands and wipe away a tear lamenting that free expression (THEIRS, NOT YOURS) has been dealt a serious blow.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLORADO_ART_FLAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-10-07-19-25-52

these cretins are the most despicable and hypocritical two faced lying spawns of vileness.

Gingersnap
10-07-2010, 10:18 PM
Museum/'artist'(i use the term loosely) say that the (f)artwork won't go back on display. And they wring their hands and wipe away a tear lamenting that free expression (THEIRS, NOT YOURS) has been dealt a serious blow.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COLORADO_ART_FLAP?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-10-07-19-25-52

these cretins are the most despicable and hypocritical two faced lying spawns of vileness.

That might be overstating it somewhat. Loveland is trying to reinvent itself as a cultural center. They just haven't settled on which culture yet.

The more "real" reason the museum is backing out might have to do with the foundries in the area. Loveland is a real little hotbed of custom metal-casting and metal sculpture. Artistic vision doesn't really pay the bills for those metal-working operations but church commissions for bells, statues, tabernacles, fonts, stations of the cross, and other religious items do.

They've been getting some backlash from local artists who don't depend on academic or government grants. ;)

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 10:24 PM
So here's some more information about the exhibit, including a photo of the piece in question:

http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2010/10/jesus_receiving_oral_sex_woman_attacks_romantic_ca nnibals_amid_art_vs_porn_debate.php

heads up before you click the link: it is pretty much what they've been saying it is.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 10:26 PM
lol i like some of the comments on there.

no where on the piece does it say that man is jesus, it's just some italian looking dude with long hair. is that what jesus looked like?

lol

Calypso Jones
10-08-2010, 12:43 AM
come on. Let's stop playing the games. We all know what the pix are representative of. The artist knows this full well. I hardly think this will stop the 'museum' or future 'art' exhibits of this kind. Colorado is...well. they really are getting so leftis. I hate that. You expect better of the western United States.

CueSi
10-08-2010, 11:11 AM
lol i like some of the comments on there.

no where on the piece does it say that man is jesus, it's just some italian looking dude with long hair. is that what jesus looked like?

lol

It is the generally understood depiction of Jesus in the US and throughout Europe. It may not even look like the real thing, but most people in the US and Europe would know what they were looking at. It's called cultural literacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_literacy). You're not stupid and I'm not stupid. Please don't play that way because it makes me want to shove a cactus up your ass .

~QC

Gingersnap
10-08-2010, 03:08 PM
It is the generally understood depiction of Jesus in the US and throughout Europe. It may not even look like the real thing, but most people in the US and Europe would know what they were looking at. It's called cultural literacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_literacy). You're not stupid and I'm not stupid. Please don't play that way because it makes me want to shove a cactus up your ass .

~QC

Aside from the cactus part, this is correct. The image falls within the known iconic parameters for a depiction of Christ and the context makes the image plain.

CueSi is correct: don't play stupid.

Bailey
10-08-2010, 04:35 PM
Aside from the cactus part, this is correct. The image falls within the known iconic parameters for a depiction of Christ and the context makes the image plain.

CueSi is correct: don't play stupid.

He plays stupid? Thought it wasnt an act.:cool:

MrsSmith
10-08-2010, 08:08 PM
lol i like some of the comments on there.

no where on the piece does it say that man is jesus, it's just some italian looking dude with long hair. is that what jesus looked like?

lol

The artist evidently thought so, since he was "making a point about Catholic priests." :rolleyes:

Odysseus
10-08-2010, 09:45 PM
I have seen them many times. I even posted on another political board the dot-to-dot on Draw Mohammed Day.
That's a website. The MSM avoided reprinting the cartoons with all of the moral courage that we've come to expect from them. The NY Times even went so far as to run a pic of Chris Ofili's portrait of Mary festooned with porn and elephant dung to illustrate the article, establishing that they were perfectly willing to publish controversial religious imagery, as long as it didn't entail getting their heads lopped off.


Kind of hard not to mention it when they report what she said. So unless she attacked a velvet Elvis, her "Lord" would be the diety being represented in a way she does not like.

As far as the second bit, you are seeing a different media than I. I am well aware of the religion of any terrorist. There are even the obligatory interviews of Muslims to get their required condemnation of the latest douchebag. I wonder if Christians will be interviewed to get a required condemnation (that did happen when the terrorist offed the abortion doctor in his church).
It would be nice if they did, and some might, but many will simply run the story as a lesson on Christian intolerance.


Probably but that will be reaching if they do. She didn't threaten death or force anyone into hiding.
So? Our media loves to make moral equivalence lessons. That way, they can claim that Christians are just as intolerant and violent as Muslims. I'd be shocked if they didn't make the reach.


Yea .... I guess you and I are on the same wavelength here.
Had to happen sooner or later.


You are raving again.
Really? So, you deny that explicit Islamic doctrine not only encourages pedophilia, but considers those who marry children to be following the example of the prophet? That what is a scandal and aberation in Christianity is a standard and ideal in Islam? Here is my proof, first, from the Hadiths:

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Now, that's just scripture, and as you and others here point out, there are scriptures in the Christian and Jewish bibles that also entail antiquated commandments. So, what is the current practice? Again, the proof, first the modern scholars of Islam on the subject of child brides are occasionally asked to weigh in on the subject. These are not ancient texts, but modern advice. Here is the thought of present-day islamic scholars on marriage with young virgins:


From:
Ask the Imam
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/index.php
Islamic Q & A Online
with Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Camperdown, South Africa

Question 6737 from Germany - Jan 10 2002
http://islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=6737

[question]
i am 45 and married to already 15 years now after the sexual desire of my woman has nearly gone i am looking to marry again. And i would like to marry a woman who is 12 years old, her father and she has also agreed, my first wife told me that it could make problems if it will be a big different in age, and also some of my children are older than my second wife. What is your advise ? And is it allowed for me to have already sexual intercourse with these woman after we are married or to i have to wait till she reach at special age ?

[answer]
According to the Shari’ah, if a girl is a minor (did not attain puberty), she may be given in marriage by her father. When she attains puberty, she has the right to maintain the marriage or discontinue the marriage. There is no age limit to be intimate with one’s wife even if she is a minor.
It is important for you, in your situation, to consider the age difference reservation expressed by your wife.
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Q & A site of the Muslim Students Organization of the University of Houston:
http://www.uh.edu/campus/msa/articles/fatawawom/marriage.html#age
(scroll down to:)
Question:
Is it allowed for a father to force his daughter to marry a specific man that she does not want to marry?

Answer:
...... If she is married without her permission, by threat or coercion, then the marriage is not valid. The only exeption is in the case of the father and his daughter who is less than nine years of age. There is no harm if he gets her married while she is less than nine years old, according to the correct opinion. This is based on the messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) marrying Aisha without her consent when she was less than nine years old, as is stated in authentic Hadith. ....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Marriage at an early age
http://www.islamicvoice.com/august.98/marriage.htm#EAR
Question:
I have a nine year-old girl who is married to a person at the age of 20.....

Answer:
..... Scholars have discussed at length the marriage of a young girl who has not attained puberty and whether her father may marry her away without her permission. If such a marriage takes place it is valid. However, it is perhaps best if the marriage is not allowed to be consummated until the girl attains puberty .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:
Reliance of the Traveller - Islamic Sacred Law according to Shafi'i School:
BOOK M: MARRIAGE
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/NHMK_RT/book_m.htm#m3.13
(unfortunately this link isn't freely viewable anymore...)
m3.13 Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

..... The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride's father or father's father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent .........

...... Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission ........

........ Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4b_1249043706
What you are seeing is a mass wedding in Gaza, in which 450 couples were wed. Note the ages of some of the brides.

Still claim that I'm raving?

You need more fantasy liberals in your head.
The real ones are bad enough.

Aside from the cactus part, this is correct. The image falls within the known iconic parameters for a depiction of Christ and the context makes the image plain.

CueSi is correct: don't play stupid.

He's not playing.

CueSi
10-09-2010, 03:19 AM
Aside from the cactus part, this is correct. The image falls within the known iconic parameters for a depiction of Christ and the context makes the image plain.

CueSi is correct: don't play stupid.

It comes from the belief that stupid should hurt. :D

~QC

Odysseus
10-09-2010, 11:49 AM
It comes from the belief that stupid should hurt. :D

~QC

Wei claims to be a teacher. In academia, stupid equals tenure.