Row over Aussie sponsored art telling truth about viscious Israel
Peter Terry
Row over anti-Israel art display
By Dan Silkstone, Royce Millar
Chris Evans
The Melbourne City Council is likely to review public art funding policy
after a row broke out yesterday over an artwork in a Flinders Street
shopfront.
Jewish groups and the State Opposition yesterday criticised the work, funded
by the council, as deeply offensive and probably in breach of racial
vilification laws.
The work features a large Star of David painted on a wall. Red text, on the
window in front, reads: "Since the creation of Israel in 1948. 200,000
Palestinians have been killed. 5,000,000 refugees have been created. 21,000
square kilometres of land has been annexed. 385 towns and villages have been
destroyed. 300 billion military dollars have been spent. 100+ WMD's have
been manufactured. 65 UN resolutions have been ignored."
The window was clearly marked with the City of Melbourne logo. The council
paid $8000 to curator Mark Hilton for a program of works that would promote
contemporary art from Melbourne's emerging artists. The Flinders Street work
was part of that program.
Full article at:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/03/1083436541739.html
PeterT
gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk
But is it art ?
"Art" is painting, drawing, sculpture.
"The Arts" is drama, music, poetry.
"Art Subjects" are literature, languages, history.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
".........a program of works that would promote contemporary art from Melbourne's emerging artists........."
A painting can be any topic.
And a modern work of art can contain words.
".........promote contemporary art........."
This is certainly contemporary.
A long time ago I did ask my art teacher what is art,
and I was given an answer that I didn't understand.
I think this is a topic best left to art experts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Terry
<gr...@internet.charitydays.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c8te90dmnmoj932ad...@4ax.com...
Wotan
"Peter Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40976...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
>
> Row over anti-Israel art display
>
> By Dan Silkstone, Royce Millar
> Chris Evans
>
> The Melbourne City Council is likely to review public art funding
policy
> after a row broke out yesterday over an artwork in a Flinders Street
> shopfront.
>
> Jewish groups and the State Opposition yesterday criticised the
work, funded
> by the council, as deeply offensive and probably in breach of racial
> vilification laws.
So mass murder is ok, provided it is undertaken by Jews,
but criticising them for it is "in breach of racial vilification
laws" (sic), is it ?
I DON'T BLOODY WELL THINK SO !
Who concocted and voted for these illegal instruments
of subversion of free speech, and, therefore, of democracy,
when will they be arrested for treason and what are the
present punishments for treason in Australia ?
"You can always tell when a dictatorship is being set up,
because they start burning books, arresting journalists
and banning art works."
Wotan
That has absolutely bugger all to do with the matter.
This is a matter of free speech, the rock upon which
democracy stands, and without which it can do nothing
but fall and be replaced by a dictatorship.
In this case, one run by the Jews.
Langdon Jones
with this and the value of it ... Certainly it raised some eyebrows and
ofcourse criticism from the ones most offended by the truth of the hypocrisy
of the Israeli State. There was no single Jew vilified for their
"jewishness", no one raised the question of their right to kosher food, nor
the rights to express their religion or culture in anyway ...
The state of Israel does not speak for all Jews of the world just like the
Iranian State doesn't claim to speak for the Muslims of the world, or the US
for all Christians etc. Israel is an organised body of people with political
and military power ... not a group of people attending religious meetings at
Synagogues, or taking family walks through parks on Sabbath ...
Any state can organise mass murder and ethnic cleansing should they have the
zeal for it (there are such cases of abuses all over the world in history).
There is a difference in vilifying a group of individuals for something they
have no choice for, and critisizing their individual or collective actions -
if you Jewish, your Jewish, if your Black your Black, and if your Asian your
Asian ..etc. However, the actions that groups of people take are something
they can take responsibility for. There is NO excuse for ethnic cleansing
no matter who the hell you may be, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, white, black,
whatever One may not have the choice to be born in a Jewish family, or
Christian etc., but one DOES have a choice, individually or collectively
(even more as an organised State) to NOT commit war crimes, ethnic
cleansing, political assassinations, demographic redistributions,
colonialism, oppression ....
These acts on the part of Israel are entirely politically motivated and
criticisms of these motivations are purely political to. Only Nazis wish to
take the criticism of the Jewish state beyond the realms of the purely
political and to the realms of the racial/genetic. The "art" in question,
in my humble opinion, did not express such slants when engaging in the
criticisms of the ACTIONS of the State of Israel, to the extent of vilifying
Jewish people for their Jewishness (unless all Jews identify with the acts
of ethnic cleansing as an attribute of Jewishness, and I doubt that very
much ...)
LJ
"Wotan" <Wo...@Valhalla.net> wrote in message news:4097...@212.67.96.135...
LDL
> Who concocted and voted for these illegal instruments
> of subversion of free speech, and, therefore, of democracy,
> when will they be arrested for treason and what are the
> present punishments for treason in Australia ?
>
> "You can always tell when a dictatorship is being set up,
> because they start burning books, arresting journalists
> and banning art works."
The interesting thing is that with your freedom of speech, you must also
exercise the consequence delivered by your freedom. That is why most mature
people think before they say because there are consequences for your
actions. Those who take the responsibility in a mature fashion tend not
"shoot from the hips".
The artwork that is in question is certainly freedom of the artist speech
but also he must take the responsibility and the consequence of his freedom.
The thing that many civil libertarians do not consider the community in
general but only themselves. Because of this so called civil liberty, the
western society such as Australia has created a system that actually lets
criminals get off scott free leaving a trail of destruction where the
community and the victims having to pay.
In similar circumstances, we have speed limits on motorised vehicles (which
is also a restriction of some of our freedom) for safety reasons so what is
the difference where racially motivated artwork can also comes under the
similar consequences.
It is not just stopping freedom of speech but also using common sense
Kindest regards
Me
"LDL" <enqu...@asio.gov.au> wrote in message
news:mWUlc.20612$TT....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
the window
> Kindest regards
>
>
LDL
> after all the trouble caused by the jews in israel, common sense goes out
> the window
What happens in Israel should stay there in Israel so how does that involve
Australia?
The artist in question is "forcing" his views onto Australia public not to
mention that this was publicly sponsored through their taxes. What made it
offensive that the artwork was politically motivated where it did not
resemble art, not whether it is Jewish or Islamic or other religious based.
Common sense in Australia has not gone out of the window.
What pissed me off in this incident was that there were bully boy tactics
(possibly some Jewish involvement) which threatened to cause violence and
destruction. That I do condemn despite the race or cultural heritage.
Regards
Peter Terry
>
> > after all the trouble caused by the jews in israel, common sense goes
out
> > the window
>
> What happens in Israel should stay there in Israel so how does that
involve
> Australia?
>
Mark
> The artwork that is in question is certainly freedom of the artist speech
> but also he must take the responsibility and the consequence of his freedom.
And what consequences would those be? Assuming that the claims made
are actually true (I have no idea myself), who could take issue with
it? You think that ordinary Australians are going to riot and set up
concentration camps because someone puts a few supposed facts about
Israel in a window? Given how laid-back most Australians I've known
have been, I have a real hard time believing that.
Mark
LDL
What the fuck you are talking about.
You talk crap about me giving nothing but small useless comments and then
you go do the same.
How about stop your hypocritical attitude and get on with life. Maybe then
I won't constantly pull you down.
Dickbrain
LDL
news:69e61443.04050...@posting.google.com...
The consequence what I am talking about is from your actions.
You have the freedom to speak as long you are purely able to take
responsibility. If I slander someone, then I have to take the
responsibility to back up my arguments or I might have to take up the
consequence and there are plenty of examples for that.
No I do not think that Australians are going to set up concentration camps
etc. That is more of an exaderation on your behalf.
The item in question was it appropriate to express your views in form as
art. Do you know what the symbol of the Star of David means. That symbol
has been through hell and back and those people of course feel that it is
being inappropriately defames in the form of art.
Does art has the right to trample against anyone's culture and heritage
(this does not mean strictly for the Jewish people) in the aid of free
speech? Should the public pay for such art that is willing to trample on
people's cultural heritage in the form of tax paying dollars.
What would the Islamic community say if there was a art work which displays
the Islamic Crescent and detailing half truths about terrorism in the name
of Islam such as September 11, Lockerbie, Munich 1972 Olympic games, Bali
Bombings... the list goes on in the aid of free speech. Just how would the
Islamic community feel that this artwork was publicly funded.
What also gave me the shits on this account was the bullyboy tactics
(presumably the Jewish community was distantly behind this) to threatened
violence if the picture wasn't taken down.
Although personally I am not on anyone's side but artwork like that is not
appropriate and there are more avenues to express your views.
In retrospect, I stand firm on my views that you are free to say what ever
you wish but as long as you are going to accept the consequence for those
statements. That what I believe is free speech.
Kindest regards
Weaver
-------------
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Red_Words_on_Glass.asp
The Herald Sun verifies (under the unfortunate headline 'Art Offends
Jews') that public funds paid for the exhibit:
A spokeswoman for the City of Melbourne said the art was part of a
rotating exhibition at the Flinders St window space, called 24seven.
She said the council provided $8,000 to curator Mark Hilton to fund
different art in the space throughout this year.
While the singling out of democratic Israel for a publicly-funded
harangue is itself outrageous, HonestReporting will focus on the
numerous factual errors:
-; Independent analyses by SIPRI, B'Tselem, and other agencies
indicate that no more than 20,000 Palestinians have been killed by
Israeli forces since 1948. Meanwhile, Israel has lost 20,297 military
personnel since the War of Independence.
-; The actual number of Arab refugees in 1949 was, according to
Israeli sources, 538,000. (The UN puts the figure at 720,000.) Due
primarily to neglect by Arab leaders, their descendents have reached
over 4 million.
-; The 21,000 square kilometers of land that the exhibition claims
Israel 'annexed' apparently refers to the actual size of Israel itself
- without considering disputed territories. This is a clear indication
that the 'artist' considers Israel's very existence illegitimate.
-; '200,000 settlements'?! Even if one includes the Golan and eastern
Jerusalem, there are no more than 350 disputed settlements.
Ultimately, it's up to Melbourne residents to decide if their public
funds are to be used for political statements. However, they should
not have the right to publicly promote gross factual inaccuracies.
-------------
It's a shame the level some people will sink just to see their name in
lights.
Mark
> You have the freedom to speak as long you are purely able to take
> responsibility. If I slander someone, then I have to take the
> responsibility to back up my arguments or I might have to take up the
> consequence and there are plenty of examples for that.
So are you saying that the 'artist' is slandering someone? That their
claims are lies? Again, I don't know, but you seem to be implying that
they're lying.
> What would the Islamic community say if there was a art work which displays
> the Islamic Crescent and detailing half truths about terrorism in the name
> of Islam such as September 11, Lockerbie, Munich 1972 Olympic games, Bali
> Bombings... the list goes on in the aid of free speech. Just how would the
> Islamic community feel that this artwork was publicly funded.
How would Nazis feel if there was an artwork displaying the swastika
and detailing their slaughter of Jews and others in WWII? Personally,
I wouldn't care what they thought... as far as I can see the only
valid question is, are the claims true?
> In retrospect, I stand firm on my views that you are free to say what ever
> you wish but as long as you are going to accept the consequence for those
> statements. That what I believe is free speech.
But if you're basing your idea consequences on some individuals
disliking what you display, then you can justify prohibiting _any_
piece of art. You'll always find someone who dislikes anything that
you put on display.
Mark
Weaver
> because they start burning books, arresting journalists
> and banning art works."
Yeah, the Nazis did all of those things, and so would the BNP given
half the chance.
------------
http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/042804.htm
GLOBAL PRESS FREEDOM DETERIORATES
Middle East & North Africa: Of the 19 Middle Eastern and North African
countries, only one (5%), Israel, is rated Free. One country (5%),
Kuwait is Partly Free, while 17 (90%) are Not Free. In 2003, Morocco
slipped over the cusp to Not Free, primarily as a result of
restrictive anti-terrorist legislation and a legal crackdown on
critical media voices. The Middle East is the only region with an
average rating of Not Free.
------------
Notice the one state that has a free press?
Rohan
This is a fair topic. At first I throught it absurd the Melb City
Council demanded these painted over. But then on further readings (I
wish I had the URLs) I was reminded of the importance of the Star of
David.
I'm not religious at all. Perhaps for that reason I can imagine an
equal situation where "a piece of literary art" were drawn over either
my cross, my star of david, or my crescent moon would cause equal
distress in any way which or form.
There are probably other religious symbols too, which should not
ordinarly be drawn into "art". These symbols come to light as being
most important to people both in Australia and around the world.
My take is it's highly insensitive. It's tantamount to shitting on
someone's doorstep.
If one wants to have a go at Israel, rather than Judaism, then perhaps
they should draw a map of Israel and write their stuff over that
instead.
It's not necessary to draw a whole religion into a political issue.
Rohan
Rohan
It's the symbols. It's equating the actions of one prime minister
Sharon with the whole world of Judaism.. and even in art that's not
really fair.
Personally, I have quite a problem with censorship of art.. but this
is "city art" out in the streets which could create tension. Stick it
in a specified art show - go for it. But sick it in a street you can
expect smashed windows, molotov cocktails and bombs. It's not what we
really need. It's tantamount to painting swastikas on Flinders St
Station.
Rohan
Rohan
LDL interesting that I am supporting your views here after having a
good go at you in a previous post :)
These kinds of artform have been most important in public perception
over the millenia, as you no doubt know. While I am personally
bothered by the use of the Star of David, there is still a place for
art in the public forum... and this must, as it has in the past, have
clear way over the current socio-political manifest.
> What would the Islamic community say if there was a art work which displays
> the Islamic Crescent and detailing half truths about terrorism in the name
> of Islam such as September 11, Lockerbie, Munich 1972 Olympic games, Bali
> Bombings... the list goes on in the aid of free speech. Just how would the
> Islamic community feel that this artwork was publicly funded.
Yeah, they would hate it. Just as countless western artists have
wielded their brushes in defiance over a very broad spectrum of time.
But look at the western art that has survived. Take a good guess...
probably not much of it in total. I would bet you a hundred guinneas
(if I could find some) that dozens, hundreds, or thousands of western
pieces of art were thrown into the fire or desroyed in various other
ways because the population at the time could not accept them.
> What also gave me the shits on this account was the bullyboy tactics
> (presumably the Jewish community was distantly behind this) to threatened
> violence if the picture wasn't taken down.
C'mon. Some drunk fuck from any part of the community would have
thrown a VB stubby through the window at some stage where it not for
an early vanguard of activists who preferred to pre-empt such an
action.
> Although personally I am not on anyone's side but artwork like that is not
> appropriate and there are more avenues to express your views.
Yeah, like in art galleries. I agree.
> In retrospect, I stand firm on my views that you are free to say what ever
> you wish but as long as you are going to accept the consequence for those
> statements. That what I believe is free speech.
Be careful with this, because it doesn't always equate to "our way of
life".
George Bush always rants on about "freedom", and "the American Way"
while censuring people who express views which are deemed by his folks
anti-American. It smacks of 1950's Macarthyism. We have to carefully
balance things like censorship of anti-Sharon posters with an
overzealous federal government intent on ensuring the public don't get
a chance to think too broadly about such things before the next
election
Rohan
>
> Kindest regards
LDL
"Weaver" <verbati...@uk2.net> wrote in message
news:b8243622.04050...@posting.google.com...
> Honest Reporting debunks this piece of anti-Israel propaganda:
>
> -------------
> http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Red_Words_on_Glass.asp
>
> The Herald Sun verifies (under the unfortunate headline 'Art Offends
> Jews') that public funds paid for the exhibit:
>
It also offends me and I am gentile and a tax payer on both fronts. Firstly
the use of art and so-called free speech to promote instability of tolerance
to all people and secondly it was not the artist's money but the public.
The Jewish community would obviously be vocal about it because it was their
symbol being used.
LDL
"Rohan" <ro...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:f28a1552.04050...@posting.google.com...
I am not saying that they would but the threats were made and that is
already crossing the line into bullyboy tactics. The landlord of the area
should not wear the costs for what the artwirk perceived to the community in
general.
Would a drunk throw a full stubby as an empty stubby usually bouses off the
window pane in most occasions :)
> > Although personally I am not on anyone's side but artwork like that is
not
> > appropriate and there are more avenues to express your views.
>
> Yeah, like in art galleries. I agree.
Remember that artwork which has a picture of a crucifix emersed in urine
that angered many Christians? Once again it boild down to the
responsibility of your freedom of speech.
> > In retrospect, I stand firm on my views that you are free to say what
ever
> > you wish but as long as you are going to accept the consequence for
those
> > statements. That what I believe is free speech.
>
> Be careful with this, because it doesn't always equate to "our way of
> life".
>
> George Bush always rants on about "freedom", and "the American Way"
> while censuring people who express views which are deemed by his folks
> anti-American. It smacks of 1950's Macarthyism. We have to carefully
> balance things like censorship of anti-Sharon posters with an
> overzealous federal government intent on ensuring the public don't get
> a chance to think too broadly about such things before the next
> election
It is more of a paradox. You can never have true freedom because there will
always be some restrictions and with that, there will be some consequences.
> Rohan
> >
> > Kindest regards
Tilly
> Row over anti-Israel art display
>
> By Dan Silkstone, Royce Millar
> Chris Evans
>
> The Melbourne City Council is likely to review public art funding
> policy after a row broke out yesterday over an artwork in a Flinders
> Street shopfront.
>
> Jewish groups and the State Opposition yesterday criticised the work,
> funded by the council, as deeply offensive and probably in breach of
> racial vilification laws.
I could just imagine what would happen if it was the the same but
anti-Islamic ,anti-aboriginal or anti-gay !!!!!There would be a huge uproar
from all of these groups and from you I suspect.....<sigh>
Tilly
--
Brig...@hotmail.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.679 / Virus Database: 441 - Release Date: 7/05/04
Richard Cranium
wrote:
>Peter Terry wrote:
>> Row over anti-Israel art display
>>
>> By Dan Silkstone, Royce Millar
>> Chris Evans
>>
>> The Melbourne City Council is likely to review public art funding
>> policy after a row broke out yesterday over an artwork in a Flinders
>> Street shopfront.
>>
>> Jewish groups and the State Opposition yesterday criticised the work,
>> funded by the council, as deeply offensive and probably in breach of
>> racial vilification laws.
>
>
>
>I could just imagine what would happen if it was the the same but
>anti-Islamic ,anti-aboriginal or anti-gay !!!!!There would be a huge uproar
>from all of these groups and from you I suspect.....<sigh>
>
>
>Tilly
>--
>Brig...@hotmail.com
Hey . . . I do a daily portrait of Mohammed and Allah . . . then I
flush!
Rohan
Oh, you've been roaming about town with your friends late at night
testing the resiliance of shop fronts, izzit? Waste not want not!
> > > Although personally I am not on anyone's side but artwork like that is
> not
> > > appropriate and there are more avenues to express your views.
> >
> > Yeah, like in art galleries. I agree.
>
> Remember that artwork which has a picture of a crucifix emersed in urine
> that angered many Christians? Once again it boild down to the
> responsibility of your freedom of speech.
Yes I remember Pisst Christ. I didn't get a chance to go look at it
before it got defaced by some extremist.
> > > In retrospect, I stand firm on my views that you are free to say what
> ever
> > > you wish but as long as you are going to accept the consequence for
> those
> > > statements. That what I believe is free speech.
> >
> > Be careful with this, because it doesn't always equate to "our way of
> > life".
> >
> > George Bush always rants on about "freedom", and "the American Way"
> > while censuring people who express views which are deemed by his folks
> > anti-American. It smacks of 1950's Macarthyism. We have to carefully
> > balance things like censorship of anti-Sharon posters with an
> > overzealous federal government intent on ensuring the public don't get
> > a chance to think too broadly about such things before the next
> > election
>
> It is more of a paradox. You can never have true freedom because there will
> always be some restrictions and with that, there will be some consequences.
I mostly agree. Some of the most wonderful expressions of freedom can
be enjoyed in a highly regulated environment. It's just how much of
that regulation is mandated by the people that counts. Total freedom
can becom a "Tragedy of the Commons"- causing everyone to suffer
through the whims of a few "freedom-loving" individuals. It's boils
down to how much one can trust the regulator, and how homogeneous the
population is in respect to its thirst for the whole gamut of
"freedoms".
Rohan
>
> > Rohan
> > >
> > > Kindest regards
DemSoc
"Peter Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40976...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
>
Peter Terry
"DemSoc" <dem...@MarxIsEvil.com> wrote in message
news:c7qnl5$jne$1...@news.f.de.plusline.net...