Handling of Offensive Art & Videos - A Primer

[jbg]

Here are two contrasting approaches to handling of offensive art forms, whether museums, videos, or cartoons. I'd like some discussions on the various approaches to the problem.

I can understand some people being very offended by content. Even though I am not Christian I have not visited the Brooklyn Museum exhibit, nor do I plan to. I also don't plan any more virulent response than trying to get government funding cut off. Why the difference?

Article about youtube video:

Obscure Film Mocking Muslim Prophet Sparks Anti-U.S. Protests in Egypt and Libya (link)

(and note that the headline says nothing about the murder of the ambassador).

Updated | 8:13 p.m. Angered by reports in the Egyptian media that members of the Coptic Christian diaspora in Washington had produced a crude film mocking the Muslim prophet, protesters climbed the walls of the United States Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and tore down the American flag. Later, a Libyan security official told Reuters that armed militiamen had attacked the United States consulate in Benghazi, killing a staff member.

Thread about "cartoon jihad".

Muslim Rage Over Cartoon Small Danish paper the cause (link)

The Danish PM expressed alarm yesterday concerning the continuing and growing anger in the Muslim world about 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad with such details as a bomb in his turban.

Last September these cartoons ran and then were republished last month by a Norwegian magazine. The response has been quite silly. Flag burnings, protest rallies, boycotts, threats to Scandinavian nationals living abroad, bomb threats and the like.(Oh, and they've been burning pics of Dubya too, like he had anything to do with it!)

In response, Denmark has evacuated all its nationals from the Gaza strip and recommended that those in the West Bank also leave. Some evacuations have occured due to the bomb threats, and thousands of Palestinians protested for a second day. A Danish/Swedish dairy corporation has been hit worst by the boycotts and has shut down production of its products in Saudi Arabia. Muslim law(?) forbids any illustrations of the Prophet and I guess doing it 12 times puts you in a special 'hate' category. Never mind that they are protesting some of the wrong nations for what a newspaper printed with freedom of the press.

Article about handling of offensive, anti-Christian museum exhibit.

Innocence of Mrs. Clinton (link to article about handling of offensive, anti-Christian museum exhibit)

*************

Well, recall what happened here in New York in 1999, when the Brooklyn Museum put up a now-notorious art show called “Sensation.” It featured a painting that mocked the image of the Christian saint, Mary, mother of Jesus. The painting depicted Mary surrounded by photos of genitalia cut out from an off-color magazine, and the artist, Chris Ofili, splattered his painting’s image of Mary with elephant dung, which he had used in other works. The painting became known as the Elephant Dung Splattered Madonna. It was so offensive to New Yorkers that their elected representatives, Mayor Giuliani and the city council, tried to . . . . to do what?

It turns out they didn’t riot. They didn’t fire any grenades. They didn’t burn down any embassies or museums. They did, in typically civilized fashion, try to stop their funding of the Brooklyn Museum.

************

Edited September 23, 2012 by jbg

[bleeding heart]

Smack in the middle of the Danish cartoon controversy, the right-wing Canadian Western Standard and the left-wing American Harper's both published the cartoons.

There was zero violent incident as a result of these publications.

So how do we account for this?

[Guest American Woman]

Smack in the middle of the Danish cartoon controversy, the right-wing Canadian Western Standard and the left-wing American Harper's both published the cartoons.

There was zero violent incident as a result of these publications.

So how do we account for this?

There was zero violent incident - where?

[bleeding heart]

There was zero violent incident - where?

There were zero violent incidents that have been in any way attributed to the republishing of the cartoons by the two magazines that I noted.

Where? Anywhere.

It's meaningful, because they were, to my knowledge, literally the only publications to print them once the controversy erupted.

That is, most (ie every single other, I believe) publication refused to publish the cartoons--out of political correctness, or out of genuine fear of a violent backlash, I can't say.

These two magazines published them...to no violent effect.

Which is interesting, and in my view, heartening.

[edit: obviously, i don't wish to too promiscuously overstate how nobody published the cartoons...perhaps a few others did, as well. but in terms of relatively broad readerships, I think the WS--and moreso, Harper's--stand alone.)

Edited September 23, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

Why are you comparing these two incidents, that came from very different cultures, apart from the religious differences ?

Maybe you should be expressing concern that the Mayor of New York spoke out against an art exhibit as well ?

Or maybe we can just cut to the chase: who on this thread doesn't like Muslims - raise your hand...

[Shady]

Why are you comparing these two incidents, that came from very different cultures, apart from the religious differences ?

Yes, one culture is a mature, respecting culture. The other is infantile and uncivilized.

who on this thread doesn't like Muslims - raise your hand...

I don't like their infantile, uncivilized mentality, and their tendancy for physical violence.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't like their infantile, uncivilized mentality, and their tendancy for physical violence.

Is anyone else willing to admit to holding Prejudices such as this?

[Guest American Woman]

There were zero violent incidents that have been in any way attributed to the republishing of the cartoons by the two magazines that I noted.

Where? Anywhere.

It's meaningful, because they were, to my knowledge, literally the only publications to print them once the controversy erupted.

That is, most (ie every single other, I believe) publication refused to publish the cartoons--out of political correctness, or out of genuine fear of a violent backlash, I can't say.

These two magazines published them...to no violent effect.

Which is interesting, and in my view, heartening.

[edit: obviously, i don't wish to too promiscuously overstate how nobody published the cartoons...perhaps a few others did, as well. but in terms of relatively broad readerships, I think the WS--and moreso, Harper's--stand alone.)

Ok, now I see; they were published after the whole controversy had settled. I thought they published the cartoons after the controversy started but while it was still going on - "Smack in the middle of the Danish cartoon controversy, the right-wing Canadian Western Standard and the left-wing American Harper's both published the cartoons" - so I wondered how anyone could conclude that the violence wasn't in any way attributed to their publications at all.

At any rate, this confirms what I was saying earlier in the thread about the Mohammad video. So many there are saying that the film maker is to be taken to task because "everyone knows that insulting Mohammad will lead to violence and death." My view is that everyone doesn't "know" that, that it's not true, and in effect, this confirms it.

I wonder how much "insulting Mohammad" enters into all of these riots and violence; I think some of it might be seizing an opportunity to lash out at the 'infidels,' knowing that the media as well as a good part of the population, will get on the case of the person who insulted Mohammad. It's an opportunity for them to get what they want, and it seems to be working on some levels.

[Wayward Son]

Personally I would think that any legitimate comparison between the reaction of Muslims to the recent film disparaging their prophet would be the reaction of Christians to The Last Temptation of Christ. Seems no one remembers the bombing of Saint Michel theatre by a group of fundamentalist Christians leaving 13 injured - 4 of whom were severely burned, and left the threatre out of commission for 3 years. Another Christian group (Christian Solidarity) said that they would do what ever was necessary to stop the film from being shown, and would not hesitate to go to prison.

The fanatics largely won in stopping the film form being shown in most theatres - In the US General Cinemas, United Artists and Edwards Theatres with more than 3650 theatres between them refuse to screen the film. Other theatres had their screenings shut down by individual cities and towns banning the movie from playing. And Blockbuster Video refused to carry the movie (a policy which remained in place).

(And keep in mind The Last Temptation was offensive by promoting things like saying that Jesus led and ordinary life, got married and had sex with the woman. Oh my!!! Imagine their reaction at the time if the film promoted Jesus as a child abuser, a homosexual and someone who has sex with a donkey.)

Edited September 23, 2012 by Wayward Son

[Guest American Woman]

Personally I would think that any legitimate comparison between the reaction of Muslims to the recent film disparaging their prophet would be the reaction of Christians to The Last Temptation of Christ. Seems no one remembers the bombing of Saint Michel theatre by a group of fundamentalist Christians leaving 13 injured - 4 of whom were severely burned, and left the threatre out of commission for 3 years. Another Christian group (Christian Solidarity) said that they would do what ever was necessary to stop the film from being shown, and would not hesitate to go to prison.

The fanatics largely won in stopping the film form being shown in most theatres - In the US General Cinemas, United Artists and Edwards Theatres with more than 3650 theatres between them refuse to screen the film. Other theatres had their screenings shut down by individual cities and towns banning the movie from playing. And Blockbuster Video refused to carry the movie (a policy which remained in place).

(And keep in mind The Last Temptation was offensive by promoting things like saying that Jesus led and ordinary life, got married and had sex with the woman. Oh my!!! Imagine their reaction at the time if the film promoted Jesus as a child abuser, a homosexual and someone who has sex with a donkey.)

Legitimate comparison? Not sure, since this YouTube video about Mohammad wasn't a blockbuster movie being shown in movie theaters throughout the Middle East. However, I most certainly do recall the reaction you are speaking of, and denounced it, putting all of the blame for the violence where it belonged - on those reacting with violence. I didn't take the stand that it was understandable that some Christians became violent, taking Martin Scorsese to task (who, btw, received an Academy Award nomination for the film), and I don't recall any non-Christians at large claiming that the movie should have never been made/shown. In other words, the criticism was directed solely and completely at those who reacted violently. So it's really not a comparable situation.

Edited September 24, 2012 by American Woman

[Shady]

Is anyone else willing to admit to holding Prejudices such as this?

Is reality and the truth all of a sudden prejudice? I'm not pre-judging, I'm post-judging.

[Michael Hardner]

Is reality and the truth all of a sudden prejudice? I'm not pre-judging, I'm post-judging.

Your reality is indeed a prejudice, as you have pre-judged people based on their background.

Sorry, I didn't make the definition.

[Shady]

Legitimate comparison? Not sure, since this YouTube video about Mohammad wasn't a blockbuster movie being shown in movie theaters throughout the Middle East. However, I most certainly do recall the reaction you are speaking of, and denounced it, putting all of the blame for the violence where it belonged - on those reacting with violence. I didn't take the stand that it was understandable that some Christians became violent, taking Martin Scorsese to task (who, btw, received an Academy Award nomination for the film), and I don't recall any non-Christians at large claiming that the movie should have never been made/shown. In other words, the criticism was directed solely and completely at those who reacted violently. So it's really not a comparable situation.

I think in a way it's a comparable situation, in that you illustrated perfectly the differences in reactions to the two events.

[Shady]

Your reality is indeed a prejudice, as you have pre-judged people based on their background.

Sorry, I didn't make the definition.

No, once again, I'm post-judging. I'm judging what HAS happened.

[jbg]

Or maybe we can just cut to the chase: who on this thread doesn't like Muslims - raise your hand...

I have no problem with Muslims as people. I have a lot of problems with a culture that insists that it is entitled to censor expression wherever it may appear, by senseless violence or otherwise.

[Michael Hardner]

I have no problem with Muslims as people. I have a lot of problems with a culture that insists that it is entitled to censor expression wherever it may appear, by senseless violence or otherwise.

Aha - the "some of my best friends" defense ?

[Wayward Son]

Legitimate comparison? Not sure,

To me the OP is about comparing of the most extreme Muslims and Christians. The former riot and burn down places according to the OP. The latter deal with offense in a civilized manner (again according to the OP). My opinion of the their reaction to the movie in question is that it was not an example of responding in a civilized manner. They could have allowed those who wanted to see the movie go see it, and stayed home themselves. But that didn't happen. Imagine if instead the internet was around and their children could have just found the movie, or the trailer, in seconds on youtube. Do you think that would have dialed up the response? I do. Imagine if the movie was far, far more offensive. Do you think that would have dialed up the response? I do.

When I compare the fundamentalist Christians I know to the fundamentalist Muslims I know I see little difference to the way they react to slights against their religon. Although the ones I know only make up a small number of people, all of them agree with the idea of free speech, but any insults towards their religion quickly shows that they feel blasphemy should not be allowed. What do they do about it? Nothing. But that is only because of time and place they find themselves in now.

[jbg]

What do they do about it? Nothing. But that is only because of time and place they find themselves in now.

They don't kill people. That's the important thing.

Personally I would think that any legitimate comparison between the reaction of Muslims to the recent film disparaging their prophet would be the reaction of Christians to The Last Temptation of Christ. Seems no one remembers the bombing of Saint Michel theatre by a group of fundamentalist Christians leaving 13 injured - 4 of whom were severely burned, and left the threatre out of commission for 3 years. Another Christian group (Christian Solidarity) said that they would do what ever was necessary to stop the film from being shown, and would not hesitate to go to prison.

That was a distinct outlier. Nothing like the massacres typical of radical Islam, or even historically, before the advent of modern Islamists.

[Michael Hardner]

They don't kill people. That's the important thing.

That was a distinct outlier. Nothing like the massacres typical of radical Islam, or even historically, before the advent of modern Islamists.

How about home grown religious terrorists in the west?

[jbg]

How about home grown religious terrorists in the west?

Not sure I follow.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't like their infantile, uncivilized mentality, and their tendancy for physical violence.

Because western societies don't have gun obsessions, start wars, drop nukes, torture, and play 'Call of Duty' in their spare time.

If you don't like what you claim in your quote, maybe you should support the Democrats over the GOP

[jbg]

If you don't like what you claim in your quote, maybe you should support the Democrats over the GOP

Likewise, I promise never to vote for the Conservative Party or Parti Conservateur.

[Guest American Woman]

To me the OP is about comparing of the most extreme Muslims and Christians. The former riot and burn down places according to the OP. The latter deal with offense in a civilized manner (again according to the OP). My opinion of the their reaction to the movie in question is that it was not an example of responding in a civilized manner.

Of course the attack on Saint Michel theater in Paris was a violent reaction similar to the riotous responses to the Mohammad video (although no one sought out and killed anyone). But that was one violent reaction. There was a lot of objection to the movie, as you pointed out, but by far the protests were not violent. In fact, just the one in Paris was. The protest in front of Universal's L.A. headquarters drew about 25,000 participants, and there was no violence. Over 1,200 Christian radio stations in California denounced the film, without calling for violence. Mastermedia International urged a boycott against MCA, again, without calling for violence.

On the other hand, how much violence has erupted in the Middle East over the Mohammad video? A price was even put on the filmmaker's head, in contrast to an Academy Award nomination for Scorsese, who unlike the Mohammad filmmaker, had no fear for his life resulting in his going into hiding.

They could have allowed those who wanted to see the movie go see it, and stayed home themselves. But that didn't happen.

They could have, but they chose to protest it, to denounce it, and to try to convince people not to show it and/or see it. In other words, they were exercising their freedom of expression. I have no criticism for the Muslims in question for not liking the video. I would have no criticism if it were banned in their countries. In fact, I think that's how it should have been dealt with.

Imagine if instead the internet was around and their children could have just found the movie, or the trailer, in seconds on youtube. Do you think that would have dialed up the response? I do.

I'll throw your hypothetical back at you. Imagine instead of a video on the internet, this video was a major movie production, set to be shown at movie theaters throughout the Middle East. Imagine that instead of the film maker being raked over the coals by so many, he was nominated for the highest film honor - an Academy Award.

Do you think that would have dialed up the response - even more?

Imagine if the movie was far, far more offensive. Do you think that would have dialed up the response? I do.

Which was more offensive is a matter of opinion, and is really irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is, both were offensive to Muslims and Christians respectively. It's not the degree that fundamentalist/extremist Muslims take issue with as there have been similar reactions to what could be considered much less offensive cartoons (if you're going to go that route).

When I compare the fundamentalist Christians I know to the fundamentalist Muslims I know I see little difference to the way they react to slights against their religon.

How many fundamentalist Muslims do you know who live in the Middle East, where these violent reactions, killings, riots are taking place/have taken place? There's a huge difference between how they reacted there and how they reacted here, in our countries.

Although the ones I know only make up a small number of people, all of them agree with the idea of free speech, but any insults towards their religion quickly shows that they feel blasphemy should not be allowed. What do they do about it? Nothing. But that is only because of time and place they find themselves in now.

The fact that they do "Nothing. But that is only because of time and place they find themselves in now." speaks of the difference between here and what is happening in the Middle East, so I'm not sure what point you are making.

[jbg]

On the other hand, how much violence has erupted in the Middle East over the Mohammad video? A price was even put on the filmmaker's head, in contrast to an Academy Award nomination for Scorsese, who unlike the Mohammad filmmaker, had no fear for his life resulting in his going into hiding.

Pakistani bounty placed on anti-Islam filmmaker (link)

Sat, Sep 22 2012

By Jibran Ahmad

PESHAWAR (Reuters) - A Pakistani minister offered $100,000 on Saturday to anyone who kills the maker of an online video which insults Islam, as sporadic protests rumbled on across parts of the Muslim world.

"I announce today that this blasphemer, this sinner who has spoken nonsense about the holy Prophet, anyone who murders him, I will reward him with $100,000," Railways Minister Ghulam Ahmad Bilour told a news conference, to applause.

"I invite the Taliban brothers and the al Qaeda brothers to join me in this blessed mission."

[Shady]

Not sure I follow.

It's the tired, intellectually dishonest, "all cultures and religions are equally to blame." When factually that's complete nonsense. I'm guessing his white/western guilt won't allow him to look objectively at the situation. So he has to feign the equivalence argument.