• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Get a load of this garbage...

HoongLoong said:
I suppose the image of Christ in a bottle of urine is "art".....and, most of us would have to "Try to dredge up just a little depth", huh ?

BTW, I'm an atheist.
Click to expand...

To the artist I am sure it was. Art scares some people because it asks you to think and to stretch yourself a little, to try to understand the message without judgement. You can think it effectively communicates its message, is well crafted or whatever but condemning the artist for their attempting to communicate their thoughts is a little obtuse.
 
Last edited:
He was possibly smoking pot. The only reason Z wasnt convicted it because the only other witness is dead.

When sidewalks are outlawed, only outlaws will have sidewalks.

Z is just damn lucky he was in a backwards ass state or he would be in prison now. T was unarmed.
HoongLoong said:
Not when that "unarmed kid" is a Teenage druggie Psycho who attacks you, pummeling your face and crushing your skull against the cement.......or doncha geddit ?
Click to expand...
 
opendebate said:
To the artist I am sure it was. Art scares some people because it asks you to think and to stretch yourself a little, to try to understand the message without judgement. You can think it effectively communicates its message, is well crafted or whatever but condemning the artist for their attempting to communicate their thoughts is a little obtuse.
Click to expand...

Art, like any other concept, is not immune from being pure dreck. Some shallow minded fools who are in love with their opinions may miss that obvious fact.
 
opendebate said:
To the artist I am sure it was. Art scares some people because it asks you to think and to stretch yourself a little, to try to understand the message without judgement. You can think it effectively communicates its message, is well crafted or whatever but condemning the artist for their attempting to communicate their thoughts is a little obtuse.
Click to expand...

The problem to me is not the art itself. It's actually a pretty good piece of art. The problem to me is that the depiction in the art is representative of what a large number of people think actually happened. That isn't the fault of the artist, or of the art itself. It's the fault of disingenuous people that took advantage of this tragic event for their own aggrandizement. Art such as this has its place, but it is just that; art, not fact. The term "Artist's Rendition" doesn't even apply, as much as poetic license.

Art can be uplifting or it can be thought provoking. It can be reflective. It can and most times does evoke and invoke emotion in ways words cannot.

In many instances, art can be 'inciteful' (not a real word) or insightful. This art can be both. I feel it was meant to be the former rather than the latter, and that makes it a target. Not because it's art, but rather a form of speech that must stand to scrutiny like any other form of speech.
 
mak2 said:
He was possibly smoking pot. The only reason Z wasnt convicted it because the only other witness is dead.

When sidewalks are outlawed, only outlaws will have sidewalks.

Z is just damn lucky he was in a backwards ass state or he would be in prison now. T was unarmed.
Click to expand...

Some are hopeless because of their deeply ingrained biias. Facts are twisted to fit their delusions.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The problem to me is not the art itself. It's actually a pretty good piece of art. The problem to me is that the depiction in the art is representative of what a large number of people think actually happened. That isn't the fault of the artist, or of the art itself. It's the fault of disingenuous people that took advantage of this tragic event for their own aggrandizement. Art such as this has its place, but it is just that; art, not fact. The term "Artist's Rendition" doesn't even apply, as much as poetic license.

Art can be uplifting or it can be thought provoking. It can be reflective. It can and most times does evoke and invoke emotion in ways words cannot.

In many instances, art can be 'inciteful' (not a real word) or insightful. This art can be both. I feel it was meant to be the former rather than the latter, and that makes it a target. Not because it's art, but rather a form of speech that must stand to scrutiny like any other form of speech.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, what passes for art can be simply pure bullsh*t put into that form simply to mask the fact that it's simply bullsh*t.
 
Occam's Razor said:
I respect your right to your opinion... but it is just that. Others obviously had another opinion.

The state capitol is not hallowed ground. It isn't a sacred or sanctified place. It's a place of the people. All the people, of all different opinions.

Viva le difference!

Exactly what is the threat here? Will the capitol fall? Will one party suddenly become moot? Will the building implode? Perhaps you should make the trip to the capitol building and add the above sentiment to the painting in the space provided... while there is still room...
Click to expand...
Its not opinion, its political statement. The man was found not guilty. End of story.
 
mak2 said:
He was possibly smoking pot. The only reason Z wasnt convicted it because the only other witness is dead.

When sidewalks are outlawed, only outlaws will have sidewalks.

Z is just damn lucky he was in a backwards ass state or he would be in prison now. T was unarmed.
Click to expand...
So if you are ever attacked you will just lay there till the attack is over or you are dead?
 
Beaudreaux said:
The problem to me is not the art itself. It's actually a pretty good piece of art. The problem to me is that the depiction in the art is representative of what a large number of people think actually happened. That isn't the fault of the artist, or of the art itself. It's the fault of disingenuous people that took advantage of this tragic event for their own aggrandizement. Art such as this has its place, but it is just that; art, not fact. The term "Artist's Rendition" doesn't even apply, as much as poetic license.

Art can be uplifting or it can be thought provoking. It can be reflective. It can and most times does evoke and invoke emotion in ways words cannot.

In many instances, art can be 'inciteful' (not a real word) or insightful. This art can be both. I feel it was meant to be the former rather than the latter, and that makes it a target. Not because it's art, but rather a form of speech that must stand to scrutiny like any other form of speech.
Click to expand...

Well said. I do agree with your comments regarding art in general, but of of course, not this piece specifically. Of course everyone is free to express how they feel about it but this is a forum to exchange and often scrutinize (so I'e learned) those expressions and I found the OPs comments a little ragey and ignorant.

I give art and awful lot of room. It is often meant to provoke deeper thought. I wonder, if it makes you angry, maybe you need to take a closer look at that. Which, judging by your response, I am guessing you understand. This piece will obviously be "inciteful" (loved that part) to those who were so angered by the media treatment of Zimmerman and will be seen differently by others.

BTW, this perspective is completely valid one and to write off everyone who sees this as a racist act to nothing more than media puppets is a little small minded.
 
Strawman. But I can say I will never shoot an unarmed kid if I dont have to. I still fear no sidewalk.
CRUE CAB said:
So if you are ever attacked you will just lay there till the attack is over or you are dead?
Click to expand...
 
Not straw at all. It could happen to you just like it happend to GZ. Never say never and I am sure GZ didnt set out to shoot first.
It was proven in court that the gun was fired just like he said it was.
And which is it, wont or wont if you dont have to. Take a stand one way or the other.
 
opendebate said:
Well said. I do agree with your comments regarding art in general, but of of course, not this piece specifically. Of course everyone is free to express how they feel about it but this is a forum to exchange and often scrutinize (so I'e learned) those expressions and I found the OPs comments a little ragey and ignorant.
Click to expand...
No argument from me.

opendebate said:
I give art and awful lot of room.
Click to expand...
As do I.

opendebate said:
It is often meant to provoke deeper thought. I wonder, if it makes you angry, maybe you need to take a closer look at that. Which, judging by your response, I am guessing you understand. This piece will obviously be "inciteful" (loved that part) to those who were so angered by the media treatment of Zimmerman and will be seen differently by others.
Click to expand...
Thought you may like that word. This piece of art doesn't make me angry at all. That's why I said I thought it was a good piece of art. My use of the word you liked was solely to point out my interpretation of the reason behind the adverse reaction to the piece.

opendebate said:
BTW, this perspective is completely valid one and to write off everyone who sees this as a racist act to nothing more than media puppets is a little small minded.
Click to expand...
Not at all small minded. I can understand the reason behind many of those that see that case as a racial issue, and it's a valid concern. But to maintain a broad minded view, I also see the motivation of some (not all) of the leaders behind the outrage. Personally, I think they picked the wrong case to make their point. There are unfortunately more than enough cases of actual racism out there to choose from They just hitched to the wrong horse here, IMHO.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Thought you may like that word. This piece of art doesn't make me angry at all. That's why I said I thought it was a good piece of art. My use of the word you liked was solely to point out my interpretation of the reason behind the adverse reaction to the piece.
Click to expand...

Confession, I continue to use you as a collective you so it (understandably) sounds as if I am directing it at an individual). You did not come across as angry to me at all.

Not at all small minded. I can understand the reason behind many of those that see that case as a racial issue, and it's a valid concern. But to maintain a broad minded view, I also see the motivation of some (not all) of the leaders behind the outrage. Personally, I think they picked the wrong case to make their point. There are unfortunately more than enough cases of actual racism out there to choose from They just hitched to the wrong horse here, IMHO
Click to expand...
.

I don't disagree on most of this. My point regarding the small mindedness is for those who either refuse or are incapable of understanding the validity of the opposing view. We should be able to look past all the noise surrounding their stance and acknowledge its validity.

I realize now that I may not have done a very good job of keeping my response focused on what you said instead of what everyone around has said. My apologies for that.
Click to expand...
 
Thrilla said:
interesting.... I wonder why the artist decided to completely misrepresent the event in his painting?... it's rather amazing in it's shear dishonesty


folks who look at this will believe Z was standing up firing at TM.. and had no injuries or evidence of the assault that, you know, actually happened.


and I outright reject the idiot theme of " we are all Trayvon Martin".... I'm certainly not Trayvon Martin... I do not even remotely relate to TM.
I'm alive, and I did not assault a person who ended up killing me in self defense.


people done lost their goddamn minds :roll:
Click to expand...


Notice Martin Luther King Jr. standing next to him. :roll:

Oh I know it. I was discussing this topic, and I was called a "bigot" over and over again by DiAnna. No actual facts in her arguments. She just succeeded in using slander to cover up the giant hole in her argument. I honestly don't understand what's gotten into people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom