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.

 

Pope attacks art vandalising Bible

page: 14
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Art will and should challenge everything. Many posts have critiqued this piece of art as degenerate, as wrong or sacrilegious.

In the 1930's, the Nazi's routed out what they considered to be degenerate artists.

I think that anyone who criticizes this work needs to have a really hard think about what their posts reveal about them.

If christianity/christians is/are so fragile that it/they are threatened by this, then that says an awful lot about christianity/christians. If you were so certain in your religion, this would be water off a ducks back and be meaningless to you.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Art will and should challenge everything. Many posts have critiqued this piece of art as degenerate, as wrong or sacrilegious.

In the 1930's, the Nazi's routed out what they considered to be degenerate artists.

I think that anyone who criticizes this work needs to have a really hard think about what their posts reveal about them.

If christianity/christians is/are so fragile that it/they are threatened by this, then that says an awful lot about christianity/christians. If you were so certain in your religion, this would be water off a ducks back and be meaningless to you.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mithrawept
Art will and should challenge everything. Many posts have critiqued this piece of art as degenerate, as wrong or sacrilegious.

In the 1930's, the Nazi's routed out what they considered to be degenerate artists.

I think that anyone who criticizes this work needs to have a really hard think about what their posts reveal about them.

If christianity/christians is/are so fragile that it/they are threatened by this, then that says an awful lot about christianity/christians. If you were so certain in your religion, this would be water off a ducks back and be meaningless to you.


Totally agree, (and dont at the same time.)

A) If people thought too much about what their comments said about them then there would not be as much need for art like this to flush those revelations out and the art would not be as meaningful.

B)Again, religion IS fragile and again the art becomes more powerfully purposeful because of it.

C) Religion TELLS people how to react to critics and people who do not respect their icons in the same way as they do. They have little control over how they feel because they are brainwashed into feeling certain things. This sort of art exposes (amongst otherthings) their lack of freedom.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Wobbly is spot on here.

Christians attempt to censor any opposing view because their belief will not stand up to scrutiny. It is a defense mechanism, in the same way that a person losing an argument will refuse to discuss it any further.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mithrawept
Wobbly is spot on here.

Christians attempt to censor any opposing view because their belief will not stand up to scrutiny. It is a defense mechanism, in the same way that a person losing an argument will refuse to discuss it any further.



Ill go head to head as far as Christians "censor"(ring) and other major religions doing far more than what you have posted. Choose your religion(s) and im sure ill lay to rest anything you present to me.

Keep in mind, Gloves are off and im sure will get along fine.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by mithrawept
Wobbly is spot on here.

Christians attempt to censor any opposing view because their belief will not stand up to scrutiny. It is a defense mechanism, in the same way that a person losing an argument will refuse to discuss it any further.



Ill go head to head as far as Christians "censor"(ring) and other major religions doing far more than what you have posted. Choose your religion(s) and im sure ill lay to rest anything you present to me.

Keep in mind, Gloves are off and im sure will get along fine.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by Wobbly Anomaly]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I hate and despise all religions yet i cannot condone what has happened here. Noones beliefs should be made fun of. Public defacing of what some see as a "guide" is not on. In your home yes do what you like. But to make someone feel as though they are being made fun off is disgusting.
The people that did this should be ashamed and seriously need to grow up.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   


Bravo to the Artist!

Art when well done should provoke an emotional response, be it a positive or a negative makes no difference.

The point of fine art is to get people talking and sharing their thoughts creating a cultural event.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
personally, my first reaction was something along the lines of "about time"

despite my personal complete detestation of christianity, is it not difficult to imagine that people that have been harmed emotionally and psychologically by bigoted religious beliefs might just need a few moments to express their anger and pain without condemnation from an overtly abrahamic world-view?

if you are a christian, none of this should affect you. your god has said repeatedly that only he shall judge.

and, yes, no matter how you look at it, your knee-jerk reaction to this particular bit of news does show that you have taken judgment of right and wrong/good and bad into your own hands.

leave them alone. if they are, indeed, wrong, then they'll suffer your ever-loved eternal damnation.
but maybe they'll get a moment's peace before a spiteful god begins all his childish, jealous smiting, eh?



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by mithrawept
Wobbly is spot on here.

Christians attempt to censor any opposing view because their belief will not stand up to scrutiny. It is a defense mechanism, in the same way that a person losing an argument will refuse to discuss it any further.



Ill go head to head as far as Christians "censor"(ring) and other major religions doing far more than what you have posted. Choose your religion(s) and im sure ill lay to rest anything you present to me.

Keep in mind, Gloves are off and im sure will get along fine.


If you are saying that you will argue on behalf of christians to say they dont censor then i except your challenge. Just tell me the thread you've started and i'll be more than happy to respond.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
Well, the nice thing about this gallery is, you guys don't have to go to it.

The only reason this is being done under the guise of 'art' is so that it can provoke a reaction, which from the few posts here already, it's certainly achieved.


so the reaction is the big jolly is it, what if it was a picture of a close relative/loved one of yours with all sexual profanities scrawled across it, would the big jolly still be there would you still be chuckling because it is for a "reaction"



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mithrawept
Art will and should challenge everything. Many posts have critiqued this piece of art as degenerate, as wrong or sacrilegious.



so should art challenge opposition to racism- would you support an art display in which blacks are treated as golliwogs, apes and as nothing better than slaves- would that be challenging for you?
#



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by mithrawept
Art will and should challenge everything. Many posts have critiqued this piece of art as degenerate, as wrong or sacrilegious.



so should art challenge opposition to racism- would you support an art display in which blacks are treated as golliwogs, apes and as nothing better than slaves- would that be challenging for you?
#


I would support it. I dont find golliwogs or representations of slaves offensive at all. Infact it might actually be a very good way to raise awareness about racism. No doubt the politically correct brigade would have it banned....then we'd have this same conversation....again !

BTW, i woulnd't find it challenging either , but some people would, and it would be best aimed at those that did to get maximum effect.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
I would support it. I dont find golliwogs or representations of slaves offensive at all. Infact it might actually be a very good way to raise awareness about racism. No doubt the politically correct brigade would have it banned....then we'd have this same conversation....again !


you misunderstand- I am giving an example of an art exhibition that would not be about raising awarenss of racism, but praising it- like I said challenging people who are against racism


Art is filled with snake oil salesmen, more fool the mugs who give these children in adults' clothing credence



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by noonebutme
Well, the nice thing about this gallery is, you guys don't have to go to it.

The only reason this is being done under the guise of 'art' is so that it can provoke a reaction, which from the few posts here already, it's certainly achieved.


so the reaction is the big jolly is it, what if it was a picture of a close relative/loved one of yours with all sexual profanities scrawled across it, would the big jolly still be there would you still be chuckling because it is for a "reaction"


If it was a private display for my family then yes, that would be fine. In a public gallery you would have to convince me of the cultural significance of it first. If it was a naked celebrity then i could see the artistic merit in that.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
If it was a private display for my family then yes, that would be fine. In a public gallery you would have to convince me of the cultural significance of it first. If it was a naked celebrity then i could see the artistic merit in that.


I was responding to a poster who said the pupose was to gain outrage- those additional caveats you have included are irrelevant to the poster's point.

I would also question anyone who think it is "fine" to have a picture of their loved one scrawled with sexual obscenities as long as it was a private family thing



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
I would support it. I dont find golliwogs or representations of slaves offensive at all. Infact it might actually be a very good way to raise awareness about racism. No doubt the politically correct brigade would have it banned....then we'd have this same conversation....again !


you misunderstand- I am giving an example of an art exhibition that would not be about raising awarenss of racism, but praising it- like I said challenging people who are against racism


Art is filled with snake oil salesmen, more fool the mugs who give these children in adults' clothing credence


Yeah, go for it. Again i would not be offended, i know some people would, but not me personally. Most people i know would be critical of the artists intent but it would still be art, in my opinion bad art, but art non the less.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
If it was a private display for my family then yes, that would be fine. In a public gallery you would have to convince me of the cultural significance of it first. If it was a naked celebrity then i could see the artistic merit in that.


I was responding to a poster who said the pupose was to gain outrage- those additional caveats you have included are irrelevant to the poster's point.

I would also question anyone who think it is "fine" to have a picture of their loved one scrawled with sexual obscenities as long as it was a private family thing


Your opinion is understandable, but it is just yours. I was responding to your question because i thought it was a fair and challenging expression of your point of view. Art in fact.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
If it was a private display for my family then yes, that would be fine. In a public gallery you would have to convince me of the cultural significance of it first. If it was a naked celebrity then i could see the artistic merit in that.


I was responding to a poster who said the pupose was to gain outrage- those additional caveats you have included are irrelevant to the poster's point.

I would also question anyone who think it is "fine" to have a picture of their loved one scrawled with sexual obscenities as long as it was a private family thing


Your opinion is understandable, but it is just yours. I was responding to your question because i thought it was a fair and challenging expression of your point of view. Art in fact.


I like your honesty, I'll give you that, but I still think that you thinking a photo of your mum scrawled with sexual abuse terms as "fine" demeans you as a person- I would probably have issues with you, but hey ho, it is a forum



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly
If it was a private display for my family then yes, that would be fine. In a public gallery you would have to convince me of the cultural significance of it first. If it was a naked celebrity then i could see the artistic merit in that.


I was responding to a poster who said the pupose was to gain outrage- those additional caveats you have included are irrelevant to the poster's point.

I would also question anyone who think it is "fine" to have a picture of their loved one scrawled with sexual obscenities as long as it was a private family thing


Your opinion is understandable, but it is just yours. I was responding to your question because i thought it was a fair and challenging expression of your point of view. Art in fact.


I like your honesty, I'll give you that, but I still think that you thinking a photo of your mum scrawled with sexual abuse terms as "fine" demeans you as a person- I would probably have issues with you, but hey ho, it is a forum


I do see your point, if anyone in our family produced picture of my mum naked and asked us to scrawl obsecenities on it then they would not be popular to say the least, but i'm sure you know how challenging you are being by saying that. Your post is art, the reality of the the concept is not as it doesnt exist and i doubt if it ever would, but yes i'd be offended if it was my mum.....but it would still be art.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join