It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NY Art Show Closed: Bush Monkey Art Not Allowed!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Yes folks, it's true! Bush Monkey Art is NOT allowed to be shown in the USA! Do you hear that!
You better, if you know what's good for you! 1st ammendment, schmendment!




New York Art Show Shuttered After Bush Monkey Portrait

by Larry Fine
Associated Press [US]
December 13th, 2004

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A portrait of President Bush using monkeys to form his image led to the closure of a New York art exhibition over the weekend and anguished protests on Monday over freedom of expression.

"Bush Monkeys," a small acrylic on canvas by Chris Savido, created the stir at the Chelsea Market public space, leading the market's managers to close down the 60-piece show that was scheduled to stay up for the next month.

The show featured art from the upcoming issue of Animal Magazine, a quarterly publication featuring emerging artists.

"We had tons of people, like more than 2,000 people show up for the opening on Thursday night," said show organizer Bucky Turco. "Then this manager saw the piece and the guy just kind of flipped out. 'The show is over. Get this work down or I'm gonna arrest you,' he said. It's been kind of wild."
www.newsfrombabylon.com.../4712




posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Heaven forbid tasteless **** be shown in public. The abuse of the 1st amendment by some in this country is disgusting.

I don't know, I'm sure similar political statements have been made in the past, so perhaps it should be allowed, as immature and disrespectful as it may be.

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Langolier]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
That's the beauty of the 1st Ammendment. The right of free expression. Whether I like something or not doesn't matter. What matters is that we are given that right. That is, when we have a real president who understands that constitutional gobblygook.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Do I like it? No, but we can't remove it since it mocks our leader. If you do not want to see it, don't go to the damn exhibit find something else to do with your time, its not like they are forcing you to view it or to place it in your home.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Well, we can not go against the wishes of our "democratically elected dictator" right?

After all the disregard of our civil rights has been in jeopardy since he become president with the first patriot act and it looks like he cares not about the constitution.

To touchy about the monkeys isn't he.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well, we can not go against the wishes of our "democratically elected dictator" right?


Dam straight, girly!



After all the disregard of our civil rights has been in jeopardy since he become president with the first patriot act and it looks like he cares not about the constitution.


I bet he's never even bothered to read it or the ammendments.
Might give 'im a brainache.


To touchy about the monkeys isn't he.


Just a tad, eh?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:05 PM
link   
As I said, despite my backwards dislike of it, I agree it should be allowed. Still, I can't shake the feeling that a little class and decency in society might actually be a good thing.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!! And I might like to add, Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! This is great, I can't beleive this isn't on Fox News. "Today AN EVIL TERRORIST RIDCULED OUR GREAT GOD BEORGE W. BUSH! HE WILL BE EXECUTED!"

Anyways, oo ah oo ah ah oo.(monkey for Bite me El Dictator)



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 04:46 PM
link   


Monkeys never bothered Ronald Reagan!

In fact Ronnie made the monkey look good, I mean he was that good an actor, even in a B movie.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Langolier
The abuse of the 1st amendment by some in this country is disgusting.


Abuse of the First Amendment, huh?
Does abuse imply something you disagree with?




posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Langolier
The abuse of the 1st amendment by some in this country is disgusting.


So if you use it you are abusing it? It is stuff just like this that we HAVE freedom of speech. Speech you like doesn't need to be protected. And who would decide what was allowed and what wasn't?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   

"Then this manager saw the piece and the guy just kind of flipped out. 'The show is over. Get this work down or I'm gonna arrest you,' he said. It's been kind of wild."


You'll do anything to bash Bush won't you... Read the quote above and tell me what the hell Bush had to do with cancelling the art show or abusing your 1st Amendment rights... The manager of the show cacelled it and he can cancel it for whatever darn reason he wants!!! It was a private show.

The 1st Amendment protects you from government censorship... That's different from what we have here people.

The thing that makes no sense to me is how is the manager gonna arrest anyone? Sounds a bit exagerated to me......

[edit on 14-12-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

So if you use it you are abusing it? It is stuff just like this that we HAVE freedom of speech. Speech you like doesn't need to be protected. And who would decide what was allowed and what wasn't?


Too bad I can't vote you for way above



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
"Then this manager saw the piece and the guy just kind of flipped out. 'The show is over. Get this work down or I'm gonna arrest you,' he said. It's been kind of wild."



You'll do anything to bash Bush won't you...


Well, uh, no.. This is a first ammendment rights issue. That is not Bush-bashing. That is merely pointing out the fundamental weakness of Bush and his disciples, however. They cannot bear anything, any thought or any display contradicting their beliefs and world-view. They simply must shut down anything they disagree with. It's ridiculous and intellectually weak. I can't abide those who want to burn Old Glory, but b/c of their first ammendment right to do that, I just don't pay them any attention. They don't deserve it.


Read the quote above and tell me what the hell Bush had to do with cancelling the art show or abusing your 1st Amendment rights... The manager of the show cacelled it and he can cancel it for whatever darn reason he wants!!! It was a private show.


The monkey picture?
Bush's likeness, maybe?
When the pissy little manager got offended, because he's a sycophant with a weak little mind and brittle pride, he shut the show down, infringing on the first ammendment rights of all who participated and wished to see it. But, you know that already.


The 1st Amendment protects you from government censorship... That's different from what we have here people.


If that isn't censorship, than nothing is. You might wanna go back and re-read the definition.



The thing that makes no sense to me is how is the manager gonna arrest anyone? Sounds a bit exagerated to me......


If it's private property, skippy, and the folks don't leave, presto! They can be arrested for trespassing.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Well, uh, no.. This is a first ammendment rights issue. That is not Bush-bashing. That is merely pointing out the fundamental weakness of Bush and his disciples, however. They cannot bear anything, any thought or any display contradicting their beliefs and world-view. They simply must shut down anything they disagree with. It's ridiculous and intellectually weak. I can't abide those who want to burn Old Glory, but b/c of their first ammendment right to do that, I just don't pay them any attention. They don't deserve it.


reread what I said... It was a private show... the manager can cancel the show for any reason... The 1st Amendment doesn't protect you from this... You can be pissed at the manager but not at Bush... The Manager has the right to ccensor anything or everything however he pleases... The guy could have said fine, walked away, and hung his painting up outside. Then if some government official came along and demanded he take the painting down... That would be a 1st Amendment issue... But thats not what we have here.

Do you think Bush really gives a rats *** about some starving artists painting.............. Ack




Read the quote above and tell me what the hell Bush had to do with cancelling the art show or abusing your 1st Amendment rights... The manager of the show cacelled it and he can cancel it for whatever darn reason he wants!!! It was a private show.


The monkey picture?
Bush's likeness, maybe?
When the pissy little manager got offended, because he's a sycophant with a weak little mind and brittle pride, he shut the show down, infringing on the first ammendment rights of all who participated and wished to see it. But, you know that already.


Whoa... Stop... I asked what did Bush personally have to do with shutting this art show down.



The 1st Amendment protects you from government censorship... That's different from what we have here people.


If that isn't censorship, than nothing is. You might wanna go back and re-read the definition.


The government had nothing to do with closing this art show... the MANAGER closed the show...



The thing that makes no sense to me is how is the manager gonna arrest anyone? Sounds a bit exagerated to me......


If it's private property, skippy, and the folks don't leave, presto! They can be arrested for trespassing.



the name ain't skippy... The manager said "I'll arrest you." How is he personally going to arrest anyone?

Basically, I asked the same questions over again because you just sidestepped them the first time. The fact is there was no abuse of the 1st Amendment here because the government had absolutely nothing to do with closing down the art show.

I wouldn't have cared about seeing that painting if I was attending the art show... I sure as hell wouldn't have bought it. But you can't twist the dang story around to make it sound like Bush personally closed down the show.....................

Go read up on the 1st Amendment.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
It was a private show... the manager can cancel the show for any reason...

From what I understand, this didn't simply concern a privately owned space. If you read the article it says:


"Bush Monkeys," a small acrylic on canvas by Chris Savido, created the stir at the Chelsea Market public space, leading the market's managers to close down the 60-piece show that was scheduled to stay up for the next month.

I would say this is the reason for why Associated Press published this article and why the artist in question is outraged.


[edit on 15-12-2004 by Durden]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Lost Sailor, your non-argument is, well.. just that.
Nice try, tho. I suggest you go back and actually READ the article, and then read the First ammendment.

I await your flames..



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Dude... Just answer my question... What did Bush have to do with this? How did the government betray anyones 1st amendment rights? And Durden the art showing was privatley funded and wasn't funded by the government or a government affiliate. So no ones 1st Amendment rights were trampled on.

The guy had the right to do this, whether you agree with his decision or not.



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


I bet he's never even bothered to read it or the ammendments.
Might give 'im a brainache.



As far as he has said himself.....he doesn't read (or can't I imagine). I know he said the newspaper or something but I doubt he even reads anything.

edit to add: on topic: Bush Bashing aside.....I have to agree with lost sailor on this one. The manager did have the right to shut it down. If it was funded by the government, then it would be a 1st amendment rights issue. I didn't read the whole article but this is what it sounds like to me.

[edit on 15-12-2004 by MacMerdin]



posted on Dec, 15 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Dude... Just answer my question... What did Bush have to do with this? How did the government betray anyones 1st amendment rights?


Lost...Sailor.. good name.

Okay, I'll go real slow for ya... Image - strong resemblance to D U B Y A - Bush-loving manager got soooper mad - can't handle anyone dissin' on his "God-appointed" president - shut down show.

You got it yet, 'Sailor? I sure hope so.

When someone keeps something, writing, photos, art out of the reach of others, that's censorship. If its private, than its not trampling on the 1st ammendment right, legally-speaking. But, that's what the essence of ALL censorship is, whether you choose to own up to that truth or not.

The manager who shut the show down, cuz he was too small-minded and afraid of a silly image, is pathetic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join