When did freedom of speech become freedom to be openly offensive?

It’s always included that. If there weren’t the freedom to be offensive, it wouldn’t be “free speech.”

Or are you one of the people calling for legal sanctions against the publishers of the Mohammed cartoons? Because that’s the argument they use.

There is no right not to be offended. Period.

There was a time when we legally recognized “fighting words” and I say this Arboleda guy is due.

We still do recognize “fighting words.” The definition is that they’re directed to and likely to cause an imminent breach of the peace. That means getting up in someone’s face and calling them an ethnic slur, or yelling at an agitated crowd that they should start throwing things at the police or breaking stuff. This isn’t even close.

well, I’m in the wrong line of work.

Professor Blather on March 5, 2008 at 9:44 PM

Trust me, you’re not. Besides, I don’t think most of these jokers make any money doing “art”.

Is art the biggest scam in human history?

No offense to any art aficionados out there – but if people can make good money painting a giant black schlong on the wall and writing “Once you go Barack …” like they were the first ones to think of that little witticism … well, I’m in the wrong line of work.

In all fairness to the artist, it’s quite possible that the Web pages were constructed prior to the artwork actually being installed in the studio, which would necessitate a digital mockup.

Ransom on March 5, 2008 at 7:06 PM

Could be, but that’s a lot of work to do when a simpler way would be to just wait and take real photos after the stuff was installed. Plus the “appointment only” thing is still hinky, too.

The paranoid side of me worries that part of the “concept” is to put up the “exhibit” and then record media and blog reactions for posterity. ;)

Anyway, thanks y’all for confirming I’m not crazy. Commenter malaclypse at Protein Wisdom actually caught it before I did, but silly me didn’t read that thread until after I posted.

They will fail miserably. People are already starting to “wake up” to the fact that he is just another bloviating politcian. By Nov, he will be washed up.

kcd on March 5, 2008 at 4:13 PM

kdc
At the initial launching of Obama, I expected voters to reject him based on his inexperience and lack of achievement. Certainly, I laughed a year ago, at claims that a three-year senator could become a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.

So–”The opera ain’t over until the fat lady sings”–I won’t dismiss Obama or his crazy worshippers until this election ends. What should never be dismissed is the potential to harm through the irrationality of true fanatics.

This season revealed a new ingredient within the American political environment. Frankly, I found this change alarming. At first,the idea of large numbers of our youth becoming involved in their government appeared to be a healthy change. Involvement, however, morphed into a stream of lemmings dashing towards the cliffs.

Perhaps I was naive, but I never expected to see the rise of political messiahism in the United States. We lacked the serious problems which allowed leader-worship to sprout in other countries. I’m specifically referring to the numbers of hysterical youths mindlessly chanting during their Obamamessiah trace and the rage expressed towards non-participants,

Their mob frenzy response towards anyone who rejects their blind adoration is reminiscent of some dangerous youth movements in history. What has changed? Educational backgrounds? The decline of rational thought? At one point,I was reminded of those old film clips of the young Red Guards chanting during Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution. People reaching that “mob frenzy” state will harm others.

This phenomenon may disappear for the moment, but something very ugly has been spawned in our country. They may lose their messiah of the moment, but will be waiting for the next one to light their fuse.

Missy on March 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM

I tend to agree with you. The drop shadows on all of the framed pieces looked pshopped. There are jpg artifacts on the Hillary stand up poster. Also the penis and a few others look like they were superimposed.

Also there is no mention of the medium used other than referring to the “re-appropriated imagery.”

Art is like sex. If it doesn’t feel good to me, your explanation probably won’t help.

If you have to add so many qualifiers to “explain” the “Art”
(age-ism, sexism, ad nauseam-ism) it has pre-failed to be artistic, and is simply superfluous semiotic sludge posing as inspiration.

Mau-mauing the radical chic, redux.

Or is that reflux?

Hey, I thought the Bud/Gap/Obamas-as-Benetton exhibit was kinda incisive.

Cuffy Meigs on March 5, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Ohhhhhh, Benetton. I didn’t recognize it as such. It gave me a creepy feeling like the family was being viewed through a rifle scope or some such.

Not due to racist / sexist reasons but because they’re freaking Socialists who seem committed to ramming ruinous and destructive programs down our throats.

While I recognize their theoretical necessity, I am strongly against ‘rooftop recalls’. Still, like the ability to nuke the planet into a glowing cinder, a politician thinking that someone up to a mile away might be looking at them through a scope has a certain deterrent value.

Missy on March 5, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Wow Missy, great Wiki-Fu! Those are indeed the same rooms, the same lighting… the same magazine on the table in Hillary’s Book Cover room, the same car outside the Gates Gallery.

These two artistic endeavors only have life on the Internet, they have no existence in the real world. Nice catch.

Kid from Brooklyn on March 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM

LOL!!!!! HAAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!