A Swedish artist makes what he calls 'art' by floating a boat with a picture of a Palestine woman that was a suicide bomber in a pool of red to sybolize the blood of her victims. The Jewish ambassador to Sweden saw it at the Swedish Museum and disconnected the lights and threw them into the pool in anger at what he termed to be a mockery of those that died.
Question is... was the ambassador justified in doing that? Was the Swedish artist right in calling that 'art' or was it taking it too far?
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 3231 100%
I don't see how this is art. I think we are wrong to say anything a person identifies as art is, in fact, art. So, to me this is not art. However, I think the person who did this, has a right to express themselves anyway they choose. The Jewish ambassidor did not have a right to do what he did. I question, why the Swedish art museum had such an item on display though. I think, lately art museums like to display stuff of a controversial or offensive nature because it will draw in larger crowds. I think this is wrong. They will say it was art and that is why it was displayed, but I don't think it should be "anything goes." How about the people you are going to offend. Should they not be considered at all?
International Level: Diplomat / Political Participation: 320 32%
JB maybe if you provide a link or something about it I could give an opinion about this. Photographers take pictures of children dying of hunger or being killed in other ways and they even give prizes for capturing these kind of pictures. If this guy is sensationalizing the whole thing of course I'm all against it, maybe if you provide a link I would be able to give a better opinion. Thanks.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 1089 100%