The removal of statues

[DrZoidberg]

Thanks for demonstrating that you think that art only can have one interpretation.

What IS going on in your head....?

You contradicted yourself (within the same paragraph). I pointed it out.

That statue is just as much an honor of a man, to glorify the Confederacy as it is a warning to racists and rebells. It's a statue of a loser. It was a statue of a loser when they put it up. I'm not saying as a judgement of his character. Just a factual statement about his cause. He lost the war. And the racists that put it up lost segregation. The statue can represents the failure of racism even more than any glory to it.

Whoever pays for or creates a piece of art doesn't get to decide for others how they will interpret it. If you are unable to look at that statue and see anything else but glorifying of racism and the Confederacy, then Sir, you are spiritually and creatively impoverished.

Artists are often asked "what a painting means" or "what they were trying to say with it". Just asking that question is to have fundamentally failed to grasp what art is. You seem to be a kind of guy who might ask a question like that?

Here's a quote from an artist that I met. "A piece of art is only completed together with the onlooker. It's always a collaboration with the artist."

 

[Keith&Co.]

You seem to be a kind of guy who might ask a question like that?

Actually, since 8th grade, I've been the guy saying that's a stupid question.

But what the art means is a separate question from why the statue was raised and if it belongs on public property.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You seem to be a kind of guy who might ask a question like that?

Actually, since 8th grade, I've been the guy saying that's a stupid question.

But what the art means is a separate question from why the statue was raised and if it belongs on public property.

You're not following your own advice. No, it's not a separate question. It's the same question.

Whether or not it belongs on public property is of course a question of what we think public property should be for. Personally, I think this is exactly what public property is for. And good art should be contentious. Well played.

To me, above all, that statue represents that all is not rosy. Some people suck. That we have to always keep fighting for what is right. I couldn't imagine a more fitting statue to go on public property.

Allowing somebody who is wrong to speak isn't to agree with them. Not allowing weak ideas to be spoken and to be spread is to create a nation of idiots. Public land is just such a space to do it.

Instead of removing art it's always better to erect a new pieces of art. One that more accurately reflect modern values. The result is more art and more beauty. Everybody wins. That way we can show the evolution of ideas. How values change. It's good if people are confronted with conflicting values and ideas. Makes us think

It's easy to destroy. It's hard to create. I'm always on the side of art and artists. At least if they're any good. Bad art I don't care about.

 

[Sarpedon]

Art, explicitly used as a political statement, can be easily and unambiguously interpreted. These are not pictures hanging in some gallery. They were erected by groups with a political purpose. It doesn't qualify as art, any more than a political poster qualifies. There are plenty of "artistic" posters, heck, I even admire the artistry of some communist propaganda posters, for example. However, I don't pretend that if I were to take one, and put it up on my wall, that I'd be making anything other than a political statement. If you want to appreciate the 'artistry' of these rather staid, formulaic and mass-produced statues, do so in a place where it is clear no political statement is being made. I keep my images of political art in a folder clearly labelled as such, and appreciate them in a way that is clearly apolitical.

 

[LordKiran]

It's easy to destroy. It's hard to create. I'm always on the side of art and artists. At least if they're any good. Bad art I don't care about.

Y'know this last sentence pretty much undermines everything you've been saying in this entire thread.

 

[LordKiran]

Art, explicitly used as a political statement, can be easily and unambiguously interpreted. These are not pictures hanging in some gallery. They were erected by groups with a political purpose. It doesn't qualify as art, any more than a political poster qualifies. There are plenty of "artistic" posters, heck, I even admire the artistry of some communist propaganda posters, for example. However, I don't pretend that if I were to take one, and put it up on my wall, that I'd be making anything other than a political statement. If you want to appreciate the 'artistry' of these rather staid, formulaic and mass-produced statues, do so in a place where it is clear no political statement is being made. I keep my images of political art in a folder clearly labelled as such, and appreciate them in a way that is clearly apolitical.

I'd say the opposite is true. Anything and everything made by human hands is art. Art is so ubiquitous that there is no inherent value to something just because we choose to emphasize its 'artness' I mean people take the time to create houses they put their blood and sweat into the creation of. These homes they make by hand, each one, a work of someone else's personal expression. Yet we tear those down all the time in the name of replacing them. Statues are not somehow sacrosanct just because one decides to assign it additional arbitrary value. At the end of the day they're no different than homes or the rundown yet beautiful hotel building they tore down near me recently: They are replaceable.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The bulk of Confederate monuments were modest affairs, often purchased for a price between $1,500 to $3,000 directly from a commercial monument-making firm such as McNeel Marble Company in Marietta, Georgia, or the Muldoon Monument Company in Louisville, Kentucky.

The statute removed in Durham on Monday night was made by McNeel and an almost identical statue, also constructed by McNeel, stands in nearby Lenoir County, North Carolina. McNeel and Muldoon, as well as numerous other monument companies, marketed the standing soldier (or the “parade-rest soldier,” as it was described) to UDC[United Daughters of the Confederacy] chapters across America, offering them a cheap, idealized, and ready-made manifestation of the very mythos that the UDC was seeking to simultaneously preserve and spread. In fact, the Durham monument bears a striking resemblance to the Confederate monument that was removed from downtown Gainesville, Florida on Monday night. Like its Durham cousin, the Gainesville sculpture was commissioned by the UDC and unveiled in 1904 to celebrate Robert E. Lee’s birthday.

http://jezebel.com/confederate-monuments-arent-history-theyre-a-cheap-cul-1797854438

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, since 8th grade, I've been the guy saying that's a stupid question.

But what the art means is a separate question from why the statue was raised and if it belongs on public property.

You're not following your own advice. No, it's not a separate question. It's the same question.

The bible can be seen as literature.
Saying 'don't teach it as a fact in science or history' is not destroying literature.
Saying the government should not endorse the bible is not destroying literature. Or religion. Do whatever you want with the Creation story in a church, but your religion cannot dictate what's taught in biology.

That's the question here. You're discussing it as art. Moving these statues from public land to private is a political question. It does not rewrite or censor history. It does not destroy the statue or art.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Art, explicitly used as a political statement, can be easily and unambiguously interpreted. These are not pictures hanging in some gallery. They were erected by groups with a political purpose. It doesn't qualify as art, any more than a political poster qualifies. There are plenty of "artistic" posters, heck, I even admire the artistry of some communist propaganda posters, for example. However, I don't pretend that if I were to take one, and put it up on my wall, that I'd be making anything other than a political statement. If you want to appreciate the 'artistry' of these rather staid, formulaic and mass-produced statues, do so in a place where it is clear no political statement is being made. I keep my images of political art in a folder clearly labelled as such, and appreciate them in a way that is clearly apolitical.

That's funny, because there's loads of Communist propaganda art that is bought and sold today because of it's artistic value alone. Early Soviet art was top notch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_avant-garde

But even if true, you're so wrong. It's just such tragic impoverished and intellectually shallow way to look at the world and art.

I repeat, allowing a message to be said and displayed isn't to agree with it. Propaganda for a lost cause is a demonstration of it's loss. Context matters.

The statue went up in a different world than we have today. Removing the statue is tantamount to trying to clean away something embarrassing from your history. I'm sorry, but history is history. The shame doesn't diminish because we all pretend it didn't happen.

- - - Updated - - -

It's easy to destroy. It's hard to create. I'm always on the side of art and artists. At least if they're any good. Bad art I don't care about.

Y'know this last sentence pretty much undermines everything you've been saying in this entire thread.

Ok, please explain what you mean.

 

[Treedbear]

All this way through the thread and nobody yet has shat on those asshole Iraqis who pulled down Saddam's statues after he was thrown out? ...

Revisionist dickheads.

... We pulled down the statues of Saddam Hussein for the benefit of the Iraqi people and we should do the same for the unfairly disadvantaged minority in own country. ...

Post #39

Since that post I've come to realize (thanks to Dr Zoidberg) that I was so wrong. I failed to see the multifaceted significance and benefit to future historians and art aficionados.

And actually it would be so relevant to today. He really could represent the disenfranchised black man in America.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're not following your own advice. No, it's not a separate question. It's the same question.

The bible can be seen as literature.
Saying 'don't teach it as a fact in science or history' is not destroying literature.
Saying the government should not endorse the bible is not destroying literature. Or religion. Do whatever you want with the Creation story in a church, but your religion cannot dictate what's taught in biology.

That's the question here. You're discussing it as art. Moving these statues from public land to private is a political question. It does not rewrite or censor history. It does not destroy the statue or art.

The context matters for art. It gets a lot of its power from it's position. Moving it takes that power away.

It's both a discussion of art and politics. It's all the same.

No, you're correct. It doesn't re-write history. But it attempts to.

 

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/8ZhaiA237e8[/YOUTUBE]

Those statues are the same as those KKK flags.

 

[LordKiran]

That's funny, because there's loads of Communist propaganda art that is bought and sold today because of it's artistic value alone. Early Soviet art was top notch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_avant-garde

But even if true, you're so wrong. It's just such tragic impoverished and intellectually shallow way to look at the world and art.

I repeat, allowing a message to be said and displayed isn't to agree with it. Propaganda for a lost cause is a demonstration of it's loss. Context matters.

The statue went up in a different world than we have today. Removing the statue is tantamount to trying to clean away something embarrassing from your history. I'm sorry, but history is history. The shame doesn't diminish because we all pretend it didn't happen.

- - - Updated - - -

It's easy to destroy. It's hard to create. I'm always on the side of art and artists. At least if they're any good. Bad art I don't care about.

Y'know this last sentence pretty much undermines everything you've been saying in this entire thread.

Ok, please explain what you mean.

Think about the implications of those last two sentences together when applied to every argument you've made thus far. Seems pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The context matters for art. It gets a lot of its power from it's position. Moving it takes that power away.

Is this meant to dissuade me?
Taking power away from racist propaganda is, in my mind, a good thing. It really is.
I don't see any downside from that.

 

[Elixir]

The context matters for art. It gets a lot of its power from it's position. Moving it takes that power away.

Is this meant to dissuade me?
Taking power away from racist propaganda is, in my mind, a good thing. It really is.
I don't see any downside from that.

Y'mean the Alt-Left isn't keeping you awake at night? I thought I was the only one...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Arm bands are just art. Everyone should have to pay for them.

 

[laughing dog]

... We pulled down the statues of Saddam Hussein for the benefit of the Iraqi people and we should do the same for the unfairly disadvantaged minority in own country. ...

Post #39

Since that post I've come to realize (thanks to Dr Zoidberg) that I was so wrong. I failed to see the multifaceted significance and benefit to future historians and art aficionados.
View attachment 12213
And actually it would be so relevant to today. He really could represent the disenfranchised black man in America.

You people don't understand - Saddam was a bad guy, but Confederates were good guys.

 

[jonatha]

What IS going on in your head....?

You contradicted yourself (within the same paragraph). I pointed it out.

That statue is just as much an honor of a man, to glorify the Confederacy as it is a warning to racists and rebells. It's a statue of a loser. It was a statue of a loser when they put it up. I'm not saying as a judgement of his character. Just a factual statement about his cause. He lost the war. And the racists that put it up lost segregation. The statue can represents the failure of racism even more than any glory to it.

Dunno what motivates Swedes to put up heroic statues of defeated traitors, but around here (where we're going to move statues of the Confederacy's last Secretary of War and one of its famous cavalry generals as soon as we can figure out where to move them to), they were put up to warn the darkies that even though their side won the war nothing much had changed....

 

[Tom Sawyer]

All this way through the thread and nobody yet has shat on those asshole Iraqis who pulled down Saddam's statues after he was thrown out?

Revisionist dickheads.

Yeah, but you could barely turn your head in Baghdad without bumping into a Saddam statue. It's one thing being reminded of history. It's another when history is constantly shouting in your ear and poking you in the face. Also, Saddam didn't represent any kind of significant movement. He was just himself and his cronies. His statues now mostly just represent that dictatorships is bad. Yeah... not profound.

Umm ... no.

The pulling down of Saddam's statues wasn't motivated by the number of statues he'd had built around town. It was motivated by what the statues represented - the celebration of the oppression and death that Saddam used to hold power over his citizens. If Saddam had made one statue which got pulled down or a thousand statues which got pulled down, the rationales behind the behavior would have been the same. There would have been no conversation along the lines of "Yay, we're free now. Let's keep this one statue of himself which our former dictator up in that park over there as a memory of this historical period". They would have gone over to that park and pulled it down because they didn't want a celebration of the man's oppression and death remaining in their city - regardless of how in their face it may or may not have been.

Similarly, the Confederacy represents the oppression and death of a group of people because of their skin colour. The motivations behind it are still an open wound in America and those statues are a celebration of that oppression and death.

 

[Philos]

The pulling down of Saddam's statues wasn't motivated by the number of statues he'd had built around town. It was motivated by what the statues represented - the celebration of the oppression and death that Saddam used to hold power over his citizens. If Saddam had made one statue which got pulled down or a thousand statues which got pulled down, the rationales behind the behavior would have been the same. There would have been no conversation along the lines of "Yay, we're free now. Let's keep this one statue of himself which our former dictator up in that park over there as a memory of this historical period". They would have gone over to that park and pulled it down because they didn't want a celebration of the man's oppression and death remaining in their city - regardless of how in their face it may or may not have been.

Similarly, the Confederacy represents the oppression and death of a group of people because of their skin colour. The motivations behind it are still an open wound in America and those statues are a celebration of that oppression and death.

Tom,

I wonder what the Trumpsters would say about removing statues of Mao, Stalin or Adolf Hitler...Oh wait.....

A.