Art Work Offends Iranian Diplomat

Originally posted by NGC2736
I doubt this was as much about art, good or bad, as about politics.

I believe that is exactly what it is about. Only I think there might be a little religious politics involved in there too. After all the extremists want to convert everybody to their religion. This is just them trying to get a foot in the Mexican door.

15 or 20 years ago this would NEVER have been such an issue.

[edit on 24/11/07 by Keyhole]

What will Iran do to Mexico if the picture isn't removed from the exhibit? What can they do? Nuke Mexico once they develop the weapons?

To be serious, twenty years ago Iran put a price on the head of Salman Rushdie, the author of "The Satanic Verses," a book considered offensive to Islam. Rushdie, who was living in England, had to go into hiding for a long time.

It's one thing for the clerics to rule in Iran, but "when in Rome..."

Suppose now they will have to behead the artist while his children watch.

I don't think they'll do anything to Mexico. If this is just manipulation, then the only real purpose was probably to generate awareness of the Muslim faith among the Mexican people. The majority of which are Catholic.

The Iranians know where we in the US are headed. Or more properly, where we in North America are headed. They're not stupid. Their leaders may be... uncooperative, but they know what they're doing.

For once, they may have been right about terrorists coming over the border.

reply to post by apc


They're doing a piss-poor job at increasing awareness...
Are they following the school of thought that any publicity is better than none?

I don't know. The story I got from the article is that the diplomat had a disagreement with the artist, got pissed off, then left. Unfortunately it was picked up by the press and blown out of proportion.

Des photos de Fouad Bellamine déclenchent l'ire iranienne au Mexique

Run the above through BabelFish or some other translation matrix.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I have two problems with this. The first is why are obscene images now considered art? What happened to landscape scenes or a bowl of fruit. Why does art have to offend or make you feel bad to be art these days?

Nudity and sexuality have been depicted in art for as long as art has existed. From Roman and Greek statues, to India's Kama Sutra.

I'd say it is far from a modern concept, but a timeless passion that drives people to create erotic art.

The second question is what gives the ambassador the right to dictate the cultural activities of a foreign government? Take note of this, these fanatics aim to rule the world.

Agree wholeheartedly there!

I hope people like that stop reproducing because they are ashamed, and disappear. No more children to brainwash for them, which in turn to continue the stupid thinking

But that will never happen, these "I am pure do not show me that" people are the most perverted ones. If indeed he does not care about the "earthly pleasures" then that picture should not matter to him

If the US bombs Iran I hope they drop porn magazines, that will really have an effect , unlike bombs which only help to create more people like that ambassador

[edit on 25-11-2007 by pai mei]

This kinda reminds me of the furore over "Piss Christ"...Everywhere it was exhibited, christians went of their collective nut...Mildly amusing at the time..

I mean, it is art afterall...

And the value or lack of value in said art is always an individual, subjective thing...

I don't see what the fuss is all about...

reply to post by Keyhole


Actually, most of the comments on this topic have an artistic or political point of view.
However, as an Iranian individdual, I look at this event in another way. Who you think this so called diplomat guy is? or what his past diplomatic/political/artistic/educational/carrier/... backgrounds are?
Let me help you: This guy, Ghadiri Abyaneh, Iran Embassador in Mexico is like other high ranked Government individuals in the AhmadiNejad administration, merely a member of revolutionary guards (Pasdaran). He did this objection only as a way of bootlicking to his bosses and to make his position more secure and maybe having an eye on futre promotions.

Never mind, I know what's it about now, ROFL!

[edit on 25-11-2007 by TheoOne]

It could possibly tarnish his reputation even further, I don't think he needs anyone rallying ill will against him through artistic vision with Bush breathing down his neck. Not to defend the guy, he's a bit of a whacko but people are ignorant and he's aware that it could change minds seeing him depicted in a certain light.

I have no problem with it existing, but art has commonly been used as a weapon. This is nothing new.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by rationalgaze]

Am i the only one who is annoyed by society's fascination with each other's genitals?

This is hardily something that needs to be argued over, let alone have art made of.

The connotations made by the artist could represent any number of ideas or theories, but the problem is that they suck.

It reeks of what is becoming all too common in society these days - that people are more willing to shock than to try and share some sort of profound meaning.

Of course, by this reckoning one could assume that because of his shock-reaction, the iranian ambassador was infact acting appropiately.

I did some research on the artist work and all the pictures I saw were abstracts meaning that he paints in a way that leaves to the imagination of the viewer.

He seems fond of domes because most of the art I saw is about domes.

Still I can no see where is the object of art that is causing so much problem with the Iranian ambassador.

reply to post by marg6043


The artist's name?

I'm interested enough to see whether or not his work is truly as pathetic as i think it is.

P.s; the only name i can find is Fouad Bellamine, but there are no domes apparent when i research that name.

EDIT: Correction; make that only 1 dome i can find that are apparent.

Most of the art i saw was shoddy, to say the least - the kind of thing that you'd call 'modern art' if it was more colourful.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Throbber]

reply to post by Throbber


Well I am not fond of abstracts I like more realistic art work, its all about what you like or not in a piece of art.

This is a link to some of his art and I will have to say that is nothing porno in the pictures in this link.

If you look at the two last pictures they are indeed about domes.

www.minculture.gov.ma...



[edit on 25-11-2007 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


Thank you for the link, i don't see why i was getting hyped up over defending the iranian ambassador on this.

Maybe i saw a group of people taking only one side of the discussion and decided to bring up a counter-point.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Si, but he had to know the media frenzy would follow.

Purely speculative I know. But in light of the stated radical goal for the West, the application of Islamic Law as supreme authority, and knowing that these are not just a bunch of ignorant Jawas, and knowing what events have transpired here in the US and in Europe that clearly were nothing more than attempts to force Islamic ideals on others and generate media attention, I have to think there's something more to this.

But despite my ability to write extremely long sentences, I could be wrong.

Originally posted by free_ir

Let me help you: This guy, Ghadiri Abyaneh, Iran Embassador in Mexico is like other high ranked Government individuals in the AhmadiNejad administration, merely a member of revolutionary guards (Pasdaran). He did this objection only as a way of bootlicking to his bosses and to make his position more secure and maybe having an eye on futre promotions.

Thank you for the this post, which does make sense to me.

It's just when he mentions that the artwork insults Islam, is when people not of this faith see this as "intolerance". This artwork wasn't meant to be insulting to Islam. But by saying it was insulting to Islam, and saying it will cause a "diplomatic crisis", he has maybe just started an international problem along with maybe raising tensions or anger in the Islamic communities.

I hope you are right about this, so, do you actually see any more "fuss" being raised about this incident?

Originally posted by Throbber
Am i the only one who is annoyed by society's fascination with each other's genitals?

Sorry to interject juvenile humor, but am I the only one who finds it amusing that someone named Throbber is complaining about peoples facination with genitals?

Its almost as amusing as the thought of Marge desperately searching the internet for images of vagina's.

LOL


Anyway, I would tend to agree with free_ir's post that this is just bootlicking by the "Ambassador".


[edit on 11/25/07 by makeitso]

reply to post by makeitso


The humour is appreciated, however my username refers to two things.

1: When the vein in your forehead throbs under concentration (which i call my 'throbber' out of affection).

2: My real name, Robin, can be turned into the nickname Rob, which is then inserted into the word Throbber.

I suppose that yes, it could be taken as reference to the throbbing member of the male anatomy that has brought great pleasure to women throughout the world and the world's history, if one were so inclined.

Still, some do say that finding humour where you can is a gift, so i shan't blame you for your... indiscretion.