[perryp]

from the bbc:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3406041.stm

realplayer video here: http://svt.se/content/1/c6/16/20/03/KONSTBRAK12_hi.ram

Sweden's foreign ministry wants an explanation from the Israeli ambassador after he vandalised an artwork depicting a Palestinian suicide bomber.

Zvi Mazel was expelled from Stockholm's Museum of Antiquities on Friday after he threw a spotlight at the exhibit, called "Snow White".

He denounced the work as "obscene" and a "monstrosity", saying it insulted the victims' families.

It depicted a woman bomber who killed herself and 19 Israelis in Haifa.

A photo of the smiling woman, 29-year-old trainee lawyer Hanadi Jaradat, appeared as the sail on a boat in a basin filled with red water.

She carried out her attack at the beachfront Maxim's restaurant in October - one of the bloodiest in a series of suicide bombings by Palestinian militants.

The ambassador's protest occurred at the opening on Friday of the "Making Differences" exhibition - part of a forthcoming international anti-genocide conference hosted by the Swedish Government and to which Israel has been invited.

"We will contact him on Monday to arrange a meeting," said a Swedish foreign ministry spokeswoman, quoted by the AFP news agency.

"We want to give him a chance to explain himself. We feel that it is unacceptable for him to destroy art in this way."

The ambassador was quoted as saying he found the exhibit "intolerable and an insult to the families of the victims".

"As ambassador of Israel I could not remain indifferent to such an obscene misrepresentation of reality," he said.

One of the two artists who created the work, Israeli-born Dror Feiler, said Ambassador Mazel had "tried to stop free speech and free artistic expression from being carried out in Sweden".

"He said he was ashamed that I was a Jew," Mr Feiler said, adding: "We see this as an offensive assault on our right to express our thoughts and feelings."

[vmarks]

Seems pretty clear- Art glorifying a terrorist is an insult to the victims, the memories of victims, and the victims' families-- and to everyone who abhorrs terrorism.

Likewise, free speech means the government doesn't prohibit a speaker, not that someone else won't. Was it right to damage the artist's property? No, but doing so wasn't a violation of free speech, instead it was a violation of the artist's property rights.

[Developer]

Pulling the plug on the thing is free speech likewise, and he didn't even damage the artwork, just the spotlight illuminating it (and it didn't look intentional).

[vmarks]

Sorry, all I've read on the topic is perryp's first post which claims 'threw a spotlight at' the so-called 'artwork'-***-terrorist-glorification.

I made the assumption that throwing a spotlight at it would cause damage. My mistake.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Seems pretty clear- Art glorifying a terrorist is an insult to the victims, the memories of victims, and the victims' families-- and to everyone who abhorrs terrorism.

Likewise, free speech means the government doesn't prohibit a speaker, not that someone else won't. Was it right to damage the artist's property? No, but doing so wasn't a violation of free speech, instead it was a violation of the artist's property rights.

How was that glorifying the terrorist?

And free speech means that you are allowed to say anything you want without having to be afraid of people destroying your property or attack you.

I hope the Swedes expel the ambassador!

It may be that in Israel that you are allowed to hinder other peoples right to free speech but that is not allowed in Sweden.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I made the assumption that throwing a spotlight at it would cause damage. My mistake.

It did cause damage.

[Barbarella C]

Originally posted by Logic:
And free speech means that you are allowed to say anything you want without having to be afraid of people destroying your property or attack you.

Sorry, bud, not in the real world.

One time this dude walked up to me and my girlfriend and asked "How much to have sex with the woman?" to which I replied "Hmm, dunno. Hey, how much to bone this guy?". She beat the **** out of both of us. That day I learned that there is no such thing as free speech.

[perryp]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Seems pretty clear- Art glorifying a terrorist is an insult to the victims, the memories of victims, and the victims' families-- and to everyone who abhorrs terrorism.

Likewise, free speech means the government doesn't prohibit a speaker, not that someone else won't. Was it right to damage the artist's property? No, but doing so wasn't a violation of free speech, instead it was a violation of the artist's property rights.

Why is this biased parasite a moderator?

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by perryp:
Why is this biased parasite a moderator?

You have the nerve to call someone biased?
ahahahahahahahahaahha. Loser.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
How was that glorifying the terrorist?

And free speech means that you are allowed to say anything you want without having to be afraid of people destroying your property or attack you.

I hope the Swedes expel the ambassador!

It may be that in Israel that you are allowed to hinder other peoples right to free speech but that is not allowed in Sweden.

Again, free speech is a concept that bars the government from preventing someone from expressing themselves, especially petitioning the government for redress.

Had the museum chosen to not exhibit the work, that would not be 'anti-free speech.' People protesting a work is not 'anti-free speech.' It's just expressing the opposing position.

What the Israeli ambassador did was property damage, and nothing so elevated as 'anti-free speech.' -- Especially because the Israeli ambassador doesn't act on behalf of the Swedish government.

Note that the artist was Israeli-born. He could have exercised his right to free speech in Israel and painted it there- but in Israel, museums have the sense G-d gave a screwdriver and know better than to exhibit works that glorify terrorists, not because there's any governmental stricture against it, but because it's just bad taste. Doesn't mean he can't do it, but doesn't mean anyone else has to have the poor judgement to exhibit it either.

Yes, placing a Palestinian Terrorist as the sail on a boat riding on a sea of blood is glorification. In boating, you fly the flag and sail with pride. As for the damage caused, perryp indicated there was damage. Developer indicated there was no damage. In either event, there was nothing that was 'anti-free speech' - just property damage.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Again, free speech is a concept that bars the government from preventing someone from expressing themselves, especially petitioning the government for redress.

Had the museum chosen to not exhibit the work, that would not be 'anti-free speech.' People protesting a work is not 'anti-free speech.' It's just expressing the opposing position.

What the Israeli ambassador did was property damage, and nothing so elevated as 'anti-free speech.' -- Especially because the Israeli ambassador doesn't act on behalf of the Swedish government.

Note that the artist was Israeli-born. He could have exercised his right to free speech in Israel and painted it there- but in Israel, museums have the sense G-d gave a screwdriver and know better than to exhibit works that glorify terrorists, not because there's any governmental stricture against it, but because it's just bad taste. Doesn't mean he can't do it, but doesn't mean anyone else has to have the poor judgement to exhibit it either.

Yes, placing a Palestinian Terrorist as the sail on a boat riding on a sea of blood is glorification. In boating, you fly the flag and sail with pride. As for the damage caused, perryp indicated there was damage. Developer indicated there was no damage. In either event, there was nothing that was 'anti-free speech' - just property damage.

No, he wasn't just damaging property, it was gross misconduct for an ambassador with regard to free speech.

And frankly, I don't see why you (and the ambassador obviously) would immediately is `a glorification of genocide' (to use your words). Even if that opinion is shared by others, as the artist was born in Israel and still is a Jew, I find it hard to believe that one can simply call his pieces of art glorifying these kinds of attacks (or even genocide). Judging from the one piece of art I have seen (as I will probably not see the rest as with most of us here), I don't think so. The meaning to me is pretty much straight forward and it will be necessary for Israeli and Palestinians alike to ask the same question he is raising in that installation: how would a human being be willing to sacrifice and intentionally kill as many as possible, shifting from the abstract `suicide bomber' level to the level of the individual.

[dialo]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Especially because the Israeli ambassador doesn't act on behalf of the Swedish government.

That's right. He's a representative of the Israeli government, and, as revealed in the quote, acted because of his position as part of the Israeli government.

So it does touch on the broader issue of free speech since a government official decided that it is part of his official duty to limit the expression of political views.

Since posting this, I've noticed that debka (the home of fake intel but probably reliable on this) is reporting that Israeli foreign minister Silvan Shalom is fully backing him on this, making supression of political expression officially sanctioned by the Israeli government.

So as it stands, it appears that the official Israeli stance is that it should act to limit freedom of political expression in other countries.

[Spheric Harlot]

I love how both the ambassador and vmarks have pre-emptively made up their mind about just what exactly the artist meant to say ("glorification of suicide bombers"), when the ambassador's actions alone make it painfully obvious just *how* necessary artistic comment on the matter is, if only to bust some egos and make some form of discussion possible.

It is sad to see how any kind of commentary even remotely involving Jews or Israelis, or Palestinians, is *immediately* classified "anti-Semitic" by some and spontaneously invalidated, without any use of the brain.

So, props to the artist, and props to the ambassador (and vmarks) for proving him right.

-s*

[Ayelbourne]

It's important to note that the art installation in question actually has three components. One is the portrait sailing on a sea of blood, but there is also a Bach canto "Mein Herz schwimmt in Blut" ("My heart swims in blood"), and lastly this text on the wall by the pool:

"Hon tog sig i hemlighet in i Israel, rusade in i en restaurang i Haifa, sköt ner en säkerhetsvakt, sprängde sig själv och mördade 19 oskyldiga civila."

... which translates as " She took herself in secrecy into Israel, rushed into a restaurant in Haifa, shot down a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians." The artists clearly label Hanadi Jararat a murderer, awash in a sea of innocent blood.

Here in Sweden, I and the people I know think it's truly absurd for Mazel to say this piece glorifies terrorism. Perhaps he didn't bother to read the text.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Logic:
It may be that in Israel that you are allowed to hinder other peoples right to free speech but that is not allowed in Sweden.

That is correct, my friend!

I would think a diplomat would have a bit more self-control.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
It's important to note that the art installation in question actually has three components. One is the portrait sailing on a sea of blood, but there is also a Bach canto "Mein Herz schwimmt in Blut" ("My heart swims in blood"), and lastly this text on the wall by the pool:

"Hon tog sig i hemlighet in i Israel, rusade in i en restaurang i Haifa, sköt ner en säkerhetsvakt, sprängde sig själv och mördade 19 oskyldiga civila."

... which translates as " She took herself in secrecy into Israel, rushed into a restaurant in Haifa, shot down a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians." The artists clearly label Hanadi Jararat a murderer, awash in a sea of innocent blood.

Here in Sweden, I and the people I know think it's truly absurd for Mazel to say this piece glorifies terrorism. Perhaps he didn't bother to read the text.

Thanx for translating the text and telling me the title of the song, didn't know about that. Backs even more, what I argued before.

[Ayelbourne]

Some tidbits from the Swedish press today:

Here's a quote from a Swedish woman after viewing the installation "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" (name not given in article):

"Det är starkt och väldigt vackert i sin fruktansvärda sorg. Närmare än så här kommer man nog inte känslan av förlusten och allt det blod som flutit"

My rough translation: "It is strong and very beautiful in it's terrible sorrow. You could probably not get any closer to the sense of loss and all the blood that has flowed."



The museum director, Kristina Berg, feels that the installation asks this question: "Vilka omständigheter driver en kvinna att ta ett så extremt beslut?" (What circumstances would drive a woman to such an extreme decision?").

I think that's a valid question, and for crying out loud - it's an art installation at a conference on genocide! But no, Mazel simply attacked the installation with a spotlight tripod the moment he laid eyes on the picture of Jararat, without finding out anything more about the piece. Actually, he's lucky he wasn't electrocuted.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
The meaning to me is pretty much straight forward and it will be necessary for Israeli and Palestinians alike to ask the same question he is raising in that installation: how would a human being be willing to sacrifice and intentionally kill as many as possible, shifting from the abstract `suicide bomber' level to the level of the individual.

You would fit in well here in Sweden! We certainly have many problems here, but we also believe that one should not turn away from or deflect the hard questions. Art must also be able to ask these hard questions of us and deal with difficult subjects. It's one of the reasons we value art so highly.

[Troll]

Encouraging to see that Israelis themselves are becoming more and more critical of their government's policies. First the pilots and now this Israeli artist causing his ambassador to lose his cool.

[perryp]

The ambassador, or his number one fan vmarks, has yet to explain why he thinks the artwork 'glorifies terrorists'. He should be sent back to Israel immediately.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by perryp:
The ambassador, or his number one fan vmarks, has yet to explain why he thinks the artwork 'glorifies terrorists'. He should be sent back to Israel immediately.

To do what, receive a metal. Unfortunately, many ministers in the Israeli government agree with his course of action.

Shraon agrees with envoy's course of action.

[vmarks]

Have you seen the 'art' ? It's absolutely glorifying the terrorist- it puts her face there as a memorial, a testament to her.

What's so interesting here is that you all support the right of the artist to speak in this manner, but refuse the right of the Ambassador to speak in opposition. Why aren't both valid?

Certainly burning albums has always been a free speech activity when you oppose the speech artists put on albums. The difference there is, the burners are burning their own property. The Ambassador damaging the artist's property is the only bad act here. You can disapprove of his speaking in opposition to the artist's speech, but both are valid, even if you consider one reprehensible.

We only disagree on which of the two exercises of free speech are reprehensible, the artist's or the Ambassador's.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
You would fit in well here in Sweden! We certainly have many problems here, but we also believe that one should not turn away from or deflect the hard questions. Art must also be able to ask these hard questions of us and deal with difficult subjects. It's one of the reasons we value art so highly.

Absurd. Art should only be white and black, and reflect the widely accepted opinion of the government.
Thinking is for the weak. You should know that by now.

Remember War is Peace,
Criticism is Glorification.

villa

[villalobos]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Have you seen the 'art' ? It's absolutely glorifying the terrorist- it puts her face there as a memorial, a testament to her.

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
"She took herself in secrecy into Israel, rushed into a restaurant in Haifa, shot down a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians."

War is Peace.

Criticism is Glorification

villa

[SimeyTheLimey]

The ambassador should have kept his cool, or better yet, ignored it completely. The "art" speaks for itself. It's disgusting.

[theolein]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Have you seen the 'art' ? It's absolutely glorifying the terrorist- it puts her face there as a memorial, a testament to her.

What's so interesting here is that you all support the right of the artist to speak in this manner, but refuse the right of the Ambassador to speak in opposition. Why aren't both valid?

Certainly burning albums has always been a free speech activity when you oppose the speech artists put on albums. The difference there is, the burners are burning their own property. The Ambassador damaging the artist's property is the only bad act here. You can disapprove of his speaking in opposition to the artist's speech, but both are valid, even if you consider one reprehensible.

We only disagree on which of the two exercises of free speech are reprehensible, the artist's or the Ambassador's.

You really overdid yourself on this one. I find it both sad and somehow telling that neither you, nor the ambassador can see how people in Sweden could be horrified by the blood bath that is the Israeli-Palestinian situation. All you see is your own side of it.

If the ambassador had done his job, he would have stated his opinion. Attacking an artwork because you don't agree with it is not generally considered to be stating one's opinion.

To be fair, I saw this same phenomenon in South Africa during the Apartheid years, where the beleaguered whites only had eyes for their own problems and not those of the millions of blacks living in atrocious conditions. I would also, again to be fair, be surprised, if there were many Palestinians able to see the bloodshed as a whole and not just their own side of the equation.

[Wiskedjak]

While I agree that this art could be offensive to Israelis, I find the ambassador's reaction to be similar to most Israeli governement reactions to things they don't like: attack

[vmarks]

Of COURSE the people of Sweden can be horrified.

Why they would have accepted a work that glorifies and memorializes a terrorist violates an understanding that an international forum to be held next week in Stockholm called "Preventing Genocide: Threats and Responsibilities" would not be linked with intifada conflict. The Historical Museum exhibition is being held in tribute to the conference.

They're holding the conference, of course they're horrified. Why this piece was accepted is bizarre. The agreement that the intifada would not be linked is to prevent the events that happened in Durban, where a similar conference turned into 'Bash Israel for everything you can think of.' Israel isn't comitting genocide, it's fighting a war against a group of people committing terrorism in the name of forwarding a self-declared state in exile.

Haven't I said over and over again that the Ambassador shouldn't have damaged the work? It wasn't his property to damage- but his act is as much speech as the art is, and objecting to objectionable speech is reasonable. Even Sweden's Ambassador to Israel says that the art may 'very well be in bad taste.'

And surely, it is in bad taste. How an exhibition devoted to preventing genocide can feature a work that casts the murderer of 22 Israelis as Snow White speaks for itself.

[perryp]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Have you seen the 'art' ? It's absolutely glorifying the terrorist- it puts her face there as a memorial, a testament to her.

Mr Marks, you're dreadfully confused. The artist has said "I'm absolutely opposed to suicide bombers". That seems very clear to me. The textual part of the artwork says the bomber "murdered 19 innocent civilians". Is that a glorification? Calling someone a murderer? Only the most twisted person would think calling someone a murderer is glorification, as the ambassador, Mr Sharon and Mr Marks do.

Originally posted by vmarks:
What's so interesting here is that you all support the right of the artist to speak in this manner, but refuse the right of the Ambassador to speak in opposition. Why aren't both valid?

Attacking an artwork isn't 'speaking', Mr Marks, it's attacking an artwork.


Below are a few comments from a pro-israel site. Expect to see more of this kind of language soon.


-------------------------------

Can any Swedes or Norwegians reading this tell me: What's up with the people of your countries? It seems that you are losing the "moral high ground" and are floating in the gutter.

Sweden is an extremely nasty case of dhimmitude and pro-Arab stupidity.

The exhibit was smashed because it was a piece of anti-Semetic filth, crude propaganda glorifying mass murder. You and every other Swede should damn well be ashamed of yourselves for not destroying the damn thing sooner.

I hope Israel refuses to remove Mazel from his post and, instead, protests to the Swedish government for its support (as best I can tell, the exhibit was hosted by a government-owned and -operated museum) of Islamo-Nazi art.

Maybe somebody could make a piece of artwork that consisted of a map of the arab world floating in a toilet filled with excrement.

right on. And we could stick the Swedish flag on a turd

Looks like Stockholm thinks it can prevent genocide by celebrating it.

The only true Artist there was the Israeli Ambassador:
what a wonderful PERFORMANCE !

Too bad he didn't follow with a punch to that bitch swede Kristian Berg's jew hating face for including such a hateful exhibit in the first place

Bravo to Ambassador Zvi Mazel and a big raspberry to Sweden (((@#%&)). This calls for banning Swedish products until they smarten up!

The artist, who is an Israeli - Swede should be revoked of his Israeli citizenship.

F Sweden, just another card carrying member of the Axis of Weasel.

The Swedish are nearly as anti Israel as the fffrench, mostly based on their hatred of Jews. No wonder that such nasty garbage finds its way into an exhibt.

Why am I not one bit surprised that the creator of this piece of artistic masturbation is an ex-Israeli? It's for [deleted] like him that the Hebrew slang word "yahudon" (literally: "little Jew", idiomatically: "Jewish uncle Tom") exists.

Lots of mazel for Mazel. I hope his career is not harmed thought. He seems like a decent and moral individual, something completely foreign to the Euro mindset.

If Sweden wants to embrace the glorification of political murderers and race-violence, that is Swedens right. I'm also glad that Mazel took the only appropriate, human response.

The loss is that Mazel will be villified and the monstrous nature of the exhibit, and the implications of what kinds of worthless, depsicably monstrous people these swedes are.. will probably go un-noticed.

Nordic Nazi scumbags. I hope they enjoy Sharia Law.

Hopefully this incident will do just the opposite and unveil the Scandinavians for what they are.

**** Sweden and the cheese ball it rolled in on.

I don't care what the Swedes think of Israel. Swedes are corrupt slime disguised as civilized people. **** Sweden.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The Ambassador damaging the artist's property is the only bad act here.

No.

The truly pitiful aspect is that he did so in the utterly blind, ignorant assumption - seen frequently - that anything that has a Palestinian on it and somehow comments the Israeli/Palestinian situation is automatically and inherently anti-Semitic.

EVEN WHEN THE PIECE ACTUALLY SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

If a Jewish artist making an example of a single suicide bomber and commenting her deeds by placing her asail atop a tub of blood and naming the whole triptychon "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" is "glorification" by erecting her a "memorial", then your view of the outside world is *so* awkwardly warped that I have to wonder what they put in your drinking water.

It is downright *painful* to see such pathos and absurdity.

-s*

[Millennium]

From descriptions of the artwork, it does seem as though it was incredibly rude and insulting to the victims and their families.

However, that is no excuse for the ambassador's actions. 'Free speech' means free speech, and even rudeness such as this ought to be protected.

This is the same problem I have with the hate-speech laws so common in certain European countries. I hope justice is done for this ambassador, meaning that, at the absolute least, he should be removed from his duties. Even if it is, though, the larger problem will remain.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
No.

The truly pitiful aspect is that he did so in the utterly blind, ignorant assumption - seen frequently - that anything that has a Palestinian on it and somehow comments the Israeli/Palestinian situation is automatically and inherently anti-Semitic.

EVEN WHEN THE PIECE ACTUALLY SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

If a Jewish artist making an example of a single suicide bomber and commenting her deeds by placing her asail atop a tub of blood and naming the whole triptychon "Snow White and the Madness of Truth" is "glorification" by erecting her a "memorial", then your view of the outside world is *so* awkwardly warped that I have to wonder what they put in your drinking water.

It is downright *painful* to see such pathos and absurdity.

-s*

Wait- so you can't see at all how this piece possibly glorifies and memorializes the murderess over the victims?

And you call my world view warped?

I'm of the mind that the artist wanted more than anything to be provocative- "At last, he managed to render something which caused a political outcry - that's what is called artistic terror," Buki Greenberg, a friend of Feiler's and fellow musician-artist, said yesterday.

I'm not even going to respond to perryp's provokations by posting absurd BS from some other site. I never voiced the sentiments he's quoting from them, and won't defend those words.

[perryp]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Wait- so you can't see at all how this piece possibly glorifies and memorializes the murderess over the victims?

No. Evidence has been provided that it doesn't. You have ignored it. This reveals your intellectual standards.

Originally posted by vmarks:
I'm not even going to respond to perryp's provokations by posting absurd BS from some other site. I never voiced the sentiments he's quoting from them, and won't defend those words.

Mr Marks, the quotes are from people who have the same position as you. Surely you agree with them? I offer them to you as a gift, as a service. Perhaps you can learn them by heart and drop some of these pearls of wisdom into dinner party conversation.


----------------------------


Can any Swedes or Norwegians reading this tell me: What's up with the people of your countries? It seems that you are losing the "moral high ground" and are floating in the gutter.

Sweden is an extremely nasty case of dhimmitude and pro-Arab stupidity.

The exhibit was smashed because it was a piece of anti-Semetic filth, crude propaganda glorifying mass murder. You and every other Swede should damn well be ashamed of yourselves for not destroying the damn thing sooner.

I hope Israel refuses to remove Mazel from his post and, instead, protests to the Swedish government for its support (as best I can tell, the exhibit was hosted by a government-owned and -operated museum) of Islamo-Nazi art.

Maybe somebody could make a piece of artwork that consisted of a map of the arab world floating in a toilet filled with excrement.

right on. And we could stick the Swedish flag on a turd

Looks like Stockholm thinks it can prevent genocide by celebrating it.

The only true Artist there was the Israeli Ambassador:
what a wonderful PERFORMANCE !

Too bad he didn't follow with a punch to that bitch swede Kristian Berg's jew hating face for including such a hateful exhibit in the first place

Bravo to Ambassador Zvi Mazel and a big raspberry to Sweden (((@#%&)). This calls for banning Swedish products until they smarten up!

The artist, who is an Israeli - Swede should be revoked of his Israeli citizenship.

F Sweden, just another card carrying member of the Axis of Weasel.

The Swedish are nearly as anti Israel as the fffrench, mostly based on their hatred of Jews. No wonder that such nasty garbage finds its way into an exhibt.

Why am I not one bit surprised that the creator of this piece of artistic masturbation is an ex-Israeli? It's for [deleted] like him that the Hebrew slang word "yahudon" (literally: "little Jew", idiomatically: "Jewish uncle Tom") exists.

Lots of mazel for Mazel. I hope his career is not harmed thought. He seems like a decent and moral individual, something completely foreign to the Euro mindset.

If Sweden wants to embrace the glorification of political murderers and race-violence, that is Swedens right. I'm also glad that Mazel took the only appropriate, human response.

The loss is that Mazel will be villified and the monstrous nature of the exhibit, and the implications of what kinds of worthless, depsicably monstrous people these swedes are.. will probably go un-noticed.

Nordic Nazi scumbags. I hope they enjoy Sharia Law.

Hopefully this incident will do just the opposite and unveil the Scandinavians for what they are.

**** Sweden and the cheese ball it rolled in on.

I don't care what the Swedes think of Israel. Swedes are corrupt slime disguised as civilized people. **** Sweden.

[theolein]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...And surely, it is in bad taste. How an exhibition devoted to preventing genocide can feature a work that casts the murderer of 22 Israelis as Snow White speaks for itself.

Indeed, it says that Israelis have no sense of artistic abstraction.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by perryp:
Mr Marks, the quotes are from people who have the same position as you. Surely you agree with them? I offer them to you as a gift, as a service. Perhaps you can learn them by heart and drop some of these pearls of wisdom into dinner party conversation.b

Here, you're just being an asshole, and you know it.

Jerk.

-s*

[The Ayatollah]

1. The 'art' is crap.
2. The Israeli ambassador was wrong to strike out like he did.

[swrate]

Those quotes seem very nazy to me pp

Quite incredible what happens in these threads jumping to extreme conclusions.

Imo what happens in a museum is exposed, therefore, public property and has to be respected, same as administrations hospitals schools...

Glorifying terrorists?
I was wondering exactly that... had it been showing the other side....
it would then become civilized.

One should keep in mind info changes all the time;
Different extreme = different interpretation, so the issue matches well the theme of the exposition “ making the differences”

This sentence from article posted by Ayelbourne:
The museum director, Kristina Berg, feels that the installation asks this question: "Vilka omständigheter driver en kvinna att ta ett så extremt beslut?"

What circumstances would drive a woman to such an extreme decision?"

It doesn't seem like "THEY" Maze + Cie can answer those questions.

Ask the black widows, or any woman who loses members of her family, people of her blood, one by one, no more hope.
DESPAIR

(few Israeli woman are suicide bombers so on “the other side” the pic/painting/composition would be:
“war steel machines and armies over red sea” and not “ a woman sail over tears of blood” nor Snow white, but more like Robotcop or whatever his name, the result, "sea of blood" is the same.
We face the blood of sons daughters, brothers sisters, fathers husbands, mothers wives, lovers and this causes emotion.

Say installation “the victory of our army and settlement of our colonies”,
A Palestinian delegate while visiting the museum and becoming aggressive seeing sea of blood, could he be labelled “close to terrorism”.


I think its alarming when a population refuses to recognize facts of it’s own history. The topic becomes taboo and is black ousted, adding more erased happenings to the long list.

We change chronologies and make analogies, pressured by instances. We rearrange facts our way, religions, nations, societies, reality is evidence.

In this case , if there is a blame on the Museum for exposing that piece, it shows extreme reduction of freedom of speech/expression by that nation, while King of Morocco is trying tolerance, it would be strange to make more of a fuss.

X facing reflection with unease, feeling loss of control, refusing to see reality, zap the taboo subject.
It could return like a boomerang.

Tchetchenians, Palestinians and others feel they ARE victims of a genocide, why hide it? It is prevention to talk about it so I hope it will be discussed in the Stockholm forum.

[Ratm]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
I think that's a valid question, and for crying out loud - it's an art installation at a conference on genocide! But no, Mazel simply attacked the installation with a spotlight tripod the moment he laid eyes on the picture of Jararat, without finding out anything more about the piece. Actually, he's lucky he wasn't electrocuted.

Its as if the Israelis are paranoid that these poor people not be shown to be anything other than extremist, zealots, terrorists.

She was a mother of two for God's sake; what could motivate a mother into taking her own life leaving her children motherless. Everything in this life has a motive and a reason but it seems that in this situation the Israelis don't want you to ask the questions and find the answers.



She witnessed her brothers crucifixion by Israeli security forces. That's what drove her over the edge.

[eklipse]

Props to the Israeli ambassador:

It's not every day that I find cause to congratulate an Israeli official, but this one is most definitely deserving of praise for having the courage and dignity to destroy such a horribly unbalanced and hate-filled exhibition.

Absolutely it was the right thing to do.


Far too often the Palestinians are portrayed as the only the ones with blood on their hands - the exhibit should not have been allowed without a balancing point-of-view.

(Although I suppose, the museum's curators must be forgiven for being unwilling or unable to commit to building an entirely new wing to accommodate an olympic sized swimming pool filled with 'red liquid' and an armada of little wooden boats with images of Israeli officials and military personnel on the sails in order to present a somewhat accurate comparison of the amount of blood spilt by Israel)

[Developer]

Originally posted by perryp:
Attacking an artwork isn't 'speaking', Mr Marks, it's attacking an artwork.

Oh come on. If you see the video you see that he was not "attacking the artwork", he was pulling the plug on the spotlights illuminating the artwork; thereby apparently non intentionally overthrowing one of the spotlights. I see that as protest against exhibiting that thing. Now as an ambassador he should have just articulated his criticism and he will have to pay for the spotlight, but to say he was "vandalizing an artwork" is exaggerating it, don't you think?

[Spheric Harlot]

eklipse: Finally, a good dose of counter-spin!

[Developer]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
EVEN WHEN THE PIECE ACTUALLY SAYS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

If I look at this part of the installation, I can very well understand why it can be seen in bad taste to the victims. What the artist claims to be his intentions is irrelevant. The artwork speaks for itself.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Developer:
If I look at this part of the installation, I can very well understand why it can be seen in bad taste to the victims. What the artist claims to be his intentions is irrelevant. The artwork speaks for itself.

Not to get into the philosophical aspect of meaningfulness of art, but a) intention IS relevant to art, and b) claiming that a piece of art "speaks for itself" is somewhat ignorant. Art speaks entirely different things to different people, depending upon mood, general predisposition, cultural, political, and religious background, etc etc.

Why do you think so much art is controversial?

Again, the reaction by the ambassador, and by vmarks, makes it patently obvious just how necessary discussion is, and at the same time, how nearly impossible.

-s*

[Ratm]

Once upon a time in the middle of winter

For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin

and three drops of blood fell

She was also a woman

as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

Seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character, less suspicious of intentions

and the red looked beautiful upon the white

The murderer will yet pay the price and we will not be the only ones who are crying

like a weed in her heart until she had no peace day and night

Hanadi Jaradat was a 29-year-old lawyer

I will run away into the wild forest, and never come home again

Before the engagement took place, he was killed in an encounter with the Israeli security forces

and she ran over sharp stones and through thorns

She said: Your blood will not have been shed in vain

and was about to pierce Snow White's innocent heart

She was hospitalized, prostrate with grief, after witnessing the shootings

The wild beasts will soon have devoured you

After his death, she became the breadwinner and she devoted herself solely to that goal

”Yes”, said Snow White, "with all my heart”

Weeping bitterly, she added: "If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased"

Run away, then, you poor child

She secretly crossed into Israel, charged into a Haifa restaurant, shot a security guard, blew herself up and murdered 19 innocent civilians

as white as snow, as red as blood, and her hair was as black as ebony

And many people are indeed crying: the Zer Aviv family, the Almog family, and all the relatives and friends of the dead and the wounded

and the red looked beautiful upon the white

www.makingdifferences.com

[Ratm]

Originally posted by Developer:
Oh come on. If you see the video you see that he was not "attacking the artwork", he was pulling the plug on the spotlights illuminating the artwork; thereby apparently non intentionally overthrowing one of the spotlights.

Are you blind? You can see clearly that after he unplugged the second spotlight with out it toppling over -- with applied force tossed the spotlight into the pool. Watch the clip again and this time look at the direction and the momentum of his hand.

[itai195]

Perhaps one of the reasons she became a suicide bomber is because much of her society encourages it? Quite possibly her family is pretty well off for it -- they've probably received money, a new home, and their mother is probably celebrated as a hero. AFAIK, isn't that the point of the artwork and why her photo is labeled "Snow White?" It doesn't sound as if it glorifies suicide bombers to me, it just shows that nobody would be one if it weren't for some powerful external influences. There's no point in politicizing it beyond that.

I'd guess the ambassador probably just made a rash decision, based on Israelis' growing frustration with what they perceive as anti-Israel bias throughout Europe. In some cases that perception is justified but I'm not sure this is one.

I'm amazed how poor of a job the Sharon government and its envoys are doing creating good will for Israel throughout the world... Seeing Israeli ambassadors destroying artwork isn't exactly something that will endear people to Israel's cause.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
a) intention IS relevant to art, and b) claiming that a piece of art "speaks for itself" is somewhat ignorant.

No, and no. When you interpret (or evaluate) an artwork you have to look at the artwork itself, not at what the artist says it's intention are. In other words, what counts is the viewers interpretation (with his cultural background etc.) of the artwork, not the artist's interpretation of it. That's what I mean with the artwork has to speak for itself.

And to depict a terrorist as a sail of a boat of hope and the see of blood can be seen as bad taste if the blood is the blood of your countrymen or friends or relatives even. That interpretation is at least as correct as yours or the artist's. The fact that the artist has to support his interpretation with an accompanying textual explanation supports the conclusion that the artwork in itself is poor.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Developer:
No, and no. When you interpret (or evaluate) an artwork you have to look at the artwork itself, not at what the artist says it's intention are. In other words, what counts is the viewers interpretation (with his cultural background etc.) of the artwork, not the artist's interpretation of it. That's what I mean with the artwork has to speak for itself.

That is simply wrong - which is to say, it's only half of it.

I have a very different cultural background from Joseph Beuys, and seeing twenty wooden sleds topped with felt pulling a VW bus means absolutely NOTHING to me without knowing a little background on the artist, and what his intentions may have been.

Context of creation matters, and denying that is simply wrong.

Originally posted by Developer:
And to depict a terrorist as a sail of a boat of hope and the see of blood can be seen as bad taste if the blood is the blood of your countrymen or friends or relatives even. That interpretation is at least as correct as yours or the artist's. The fact that the artist has to support his interpretation with an accompanying textual explanation supports the conclusion that the artwork in itself is poor.

You're claiming the artwork speaks for itself, and suddenly the float with the photograph is "a boat of hope"?

And that interpretation is "at least as correct" as what the artist himself has stated?

Your logic is *exactly* that of Bible literalists who claim that historical context is irrelevant and that the book speaks for itself, easily justifying anything from slavery over racism to warfare, subjugation of women, and murder.

No, Developer, taking a statement by anybody, deliberately disregarding his background, and then claiming that it means the exact opposite, is not legitimate argumentation in any regard.

-s*

[sanity assassin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Have you seen the 'art' ? It's absolutely glorifying the terrorist- it puts her face there as a memorial, a testament to her.

Sounds a bit like how many Israelies, even today, still hold Jewish terrorists from Irgun in high regard, what was the name of that Jewish terrorist whi became Prime Minister of Israel?

Anyway, this is just another example of sane people who don't toe the extreme Jewish line that they are above criticism, or comment. I'm glad to see the world beginning to portray these barbaric types of people for what they are, and who wish to deny us the right to express our disagreement with Israeli policy.

[Developer]

Erzähl mir doch nichts, mann. Wenn man z. B. eine objektiv hermeneutische Analyse macht ist der Kontext der Entstehung völlig irrelevant, sondern man erschließt sich alle möglichen Interpretationen. Und dabei kommt man sowohl zu der vmarkschen als auch bei vollständiger Betrachtung zu der des Künstlers. Das sollte unstrittig sein, und das ist eben der Schwachpunkt der Installation, dass sie beides zulässt.

Wenn du hier behaupten willst ich würde damit Sklaverei rechtfertigen, muss ich sagen du hast sie doch nicht mehr alle.