It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A new take on a " Patriot Act"

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:18 AM
Some would argue , Some would Cheer....But would any really find it unexpected?

The Secret Service sent agents to investigate a college art gallery exhibit of mock postage stamps, one depicting President Bush with a gun pointed at his head... The exhibit, called "Axis of Evil: The Secret History of Sin," opened last week at Columbia College in Chicago. CarolAnn Brown, the gallery's director, said the agents were most interested in Chicago artist Al Brandtner's work titled "Patriot Act," which depicted a sheet of mock 37-cent red, white and blue stamps showing a revolver pointed at Bush's head.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by Bout Time]

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 12:31 PM
Be it art, or not, depicting threats against the President of the United States' life is not a smart thing to do. It will be investigated.

Now, does this guy really think the President needs to be shot? I don't know, but I can guarantee he will think twice about creating that type of image again.

The U.S. Constiution does provide for legal, ethical ways to change the power structure. It may not be the quickest way to get something done, but the process does exist. Suggesting violence toward the President is not, in any way, an effective way to promote change. It may catch attention, but will not create real change.

So, that begs the question; what does the artist really want? Is he after true politcal awareness and change? Or does the artist just want to get his name out there in a controversial spotlight, so maybe people will buy his work, and he can begin to share in some of the power provided by financial succes?

We can never know the real answer to these questions, unfortunately. So, IMHO, the artist is a failure because;

A. He tried to invoke political change via violence, not diplomacy.
B. The attention he received does not seem positive from my perspective, thereby reducing a chance for him to sell his work.
C. He didn't intend any of these things, and his work is meaningless to the viewer, as his intentions were not clear.

Take your pick.


posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link certainly fits the theme currently showing for view at the Glass Curtian Gallery

Although no artist are affiliated with the Columbia College Chicago, the curator Mr. Michael Hernandez de Luna got his name and school mentioned (however so briefly) and somewhat in the front of some peoples' minds. Thist does not appear to be the type of life's work the artist of which the exibit is dedicated to in memeory Mr. Ed Paschke

Shallow publicity stunt, for investigating the artist in question, of course.

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 04:24 PM
duplicate thread, this one closed, continue discussion here please

new topics

top topics

log in