This *artist* is no more unusual than FR posters who *claim* to be Christians, are mendacious, contemptible, gossip, stalk, continually pull stuff out of their @sses, and spread lies? Hypocrites.
If someone paints a swastika on a synagogue is it art?
Try burning a koran and calling it art...
Big Gulp - $1
Mason Jar - $1.25
Crucifix - $3
Pissing people off and getting a government grant ordaining you as an “artist” - Priceless
Art? sounds like government funded "art"
This is ok with me...it’s almost as good as “cleaning the temple”. Let’s see how the lib-Godless spin it... We,
as Chritians, are, many times, too complacent in defending the most important thing in our life...Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The God who made everything. Happy Easter.
This *artist* is no more unusual than FR posters who *claim* to be Christians, are mendacious, contemptible, gossip, stalk, continually pull stuff out of their @sses, and spread lies? Hypocrites.
OOOOOOOH, would we be hated for that!
Just as having the right to “free speech” does not guarantee a forum in which to speak it, the freedom of expression as an artist does not (or should not) guarantee you the audience, nor the means to create your art. This is precisely why government should not fund would-be “artists” for this kind of work.
Why are non-Christians depicting Christians as meek when Jesus himself fashioned a whip and kicked the living sh*t out of the vendors who turned His Dad’s place into a mess?
Hey Andreas, looks like you ended up with a piece of performance art. Way to go.
This is done to “stick it in your face, Christians” and then gloat about how “brave” and avant-garde the “artist” is for having created this trash, called it “art” and publicly displayed it. Imagine the reaction if Serrano had done this to an object of veneration in the Islamic world; the museum would have been dismantled, brick by brick. Thus, I don’t think we’ll see real “bravery” on his part; devout Muslims don’t particularly like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
It wasn’t destroyed. It was ‘de-constructed’.
I’m sorry, but the people who destroyed this “art” have as much a right to do so as Serrano had to create it.
The artist has no right to expect his work will be protected or respected.
The government has no business funding art in any form.
I am an artist. I do not want or expect government largesse. If I sell a piece of art it is because some likes it enough to want to live with it. That’s enough for me.
This utterly devoid of talent poseur, couldn’t even qualify to clean the toilets in Norman Rockwell’s studio.
This article missing the most salient points
1. The ‘art’ was in France when it was destroyed. Our American 1st Amendment rights are not extended to other countries. France has its own laws (I don’t know what they are).
2. Even if this had happened in the U.S.A, as long as the government did not destroy the ‘art’ or prevent it being displayed, then this would not be a 1st Amendment issue free speech issue.
3. The destruction of the ‘art’ is a property crime, not a free speech infringement.
“Free speech” as Americans should strive to remember, applies strictly to the right to express oneself without GOVERNMENT censorship or reprisal. There is NOTHING in the 1st Amendment which protects one from censorship from non-government entities and persons.
Other than the government being involved in infringing free speech, you have zero protection from repercussions to your speech. Zero. Nada. Zip.
It really makes me angry when people don’t understand this. Even many Conservatives refuse to acknowledge the limits our our 1A rights.
From the article: “...we have no right to tell him how to express it.”
That means we have no freedom of speech to tell him how to use freedom of speech. That’s nonsense.
Note that just because we use freedom of speech “to tell him how to express it” does not in and of itself mean he has to comply.
Rick Moran
Did the French Christians have a right to destroy it?
Yes. Christ gave up His life for us. The least Christians can do is resist blasphemy against Him.
Art, as we learned when growing up, is in the eye of the beholder.
That is pure modernist-subjective balderdash. Art can be objectively detected by anyone.
Interesting thing about free speech; you either have it, or you don't.
No. The double standards of political correctness and hate speech laws have exposed sixties-style "free speech" as a weapon aimed at Christianity and traditional morality.
I am waiting for the picture of Mohammed to be so submerged.
Still waiting.