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
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
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.