• Ghostdreams

    You are SO wrong.
    The first picture after the attack was a huge pic of Mohammed. There most certainly have been other pictures of him over the last two years (since the attack). I’ve know I’ve seen several.
    In just the last couple of weeks there were at least two drawings that were “Muslim offensive” that I noticed. One had Mohammed and “Allah” in it with Allah screaming obscenities at the prophet and the other was Mohammed with rotten fruit on top of his head.making comments to an Imam about the rotten fruit.
    Today though, the front picture is of the UK PM, Therea May, beheaded, holding her head under her arm. I’m guessing that is CH’s comment on the both the Griffin/Shield photo, the upcoming UK elections and also they’re making the point, “We do free speech here, period. The USA used to but they’re busy being fascist now.”
    They’re half right. It seems some of the people in the United States half forgotten what free speech s and why a free press is so important. It’s not always convenient.
    Free speech and a free press means that other people have a right to say, think, create things that yawl might not like. Period.
    Now, IF someone actually says, “I’m going to kill ——” and they mean it? That’s different but in this photo? It was very evident that Shield and Griffin were playing on Trump’s comment about Megyn Kelly. Griffin went so far as to put a disclaimer about “not promoting violence” and then said, “I am mocking the Mocker in chief.”
    Why anyone would get upset over this, I don’t know.
    Just sayin.
    Oh yah. Go check out the CharlieHebdo news. You can see for yourself they’re not stopping doing what they do best, PUBLISHING OPINIONS FREELY, any time soon.
    PS A month before the shootings, Charlie Hebdo was close to shutting down as sales had dipped below 30,000. Its brand of provocative, no-holds-barred humour appeared to have gone out of fashion. The attack sparked horror across the world. Donations poured in for the victims, 7.5 million people bought the first post-attack issue and 200,000 people signed up for a subscription.
    The people who planned the attack wound up financially SAVING charlie Hebdo. THE IRONY! SMH.
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-magazine-prophet-muhammad
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30790409
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/04/charlie-hebdo-anniversary-edition-cover-is-released-one-year-after-attacks

  • Ghostdreams

    The whole point of art is to show the point of view of the artist!
    Ms. Griffin’s piece is hardly the first piece of political art to be called grotesque or “inappropriate.”
    I would really encourage people to go look up Goya’s “Disasters of War”, David Cerny’s “Shark,” Hogarth’s “A Harlots Progress” or even Turner’s “Slave Ship” and then perhaps reconsider their response to Kathy Griffin’s photograph.
    I mean, Kathy did a photo that some people might find distasteful but that’s the point. Meanwhile, while people go into hysteria over Ms. Griffin’s photograph, Trump has been very busy, LITERALLY, destroying peoples lives (and now it looks like he has bigger game in his sights – the entire planet) AND THIS isn’t some vague theoretical idea! Trump IS actually DESTROYING LIVES.
    Be it his push in having ICE pick up undocumented workers (for simply existing here) to his signing a religious rights exec order making discrimination against LGBTQ all fine and good so long it’s done in the name of some lunatic god to handing over billions in JOBS, JOB TRAINING AND WAR WEAPONS to Saudi Arabia (one of the worst countries in the world for human rights abuses) to insulting the European nations THAT HAD OUR BACK OVER 9/11 BUT I could literally keep typing out the crimes of Trump as POTUS and still be here typing at the end of today.
    Kathy chose to take a photograph depicting how she felt about his Megyn Kelly comment.
    Unlike the GOP images put out with President Obama being lynched, burned alive, etc, Kathy’s photograph did not encourage the viewer to go out and get violent.
    What’s more, even before the controversy broke Ms Griffin put in a disclaimer saying she did not in any way mean to promote violence and that she was simply “mocking the mocker in chief.”
    Yawl need to grow up and stop this double standard weird shit you do.
    BTW, where were yawl when Ted Nugent, Clint Eastwood, Rep Joe Walsh and Peter Fonda ranted off about killing President Obama? Nowhere in sight! AND these guys actually SAID they were going to KILL the president. smh.
    Again with the double standards eh? You might want to stop that shit.

  • EastCoastJ

    How am I wrong ?? I’m a huge fan of Charlie Hebdo. They are genuine artists with genuine backbone.

  • Ghostdreams

    Tyler, someone has stolen your work dude!
    https://www.infowarsstore.com/gear.html
    BTW, Alex Jones of INFOWARS, has now appropriated Tyler.Griffin’s art piece and is making T-shirts of it AND he selling them for $15 a piece!!
    TYLER! SUE THE FUCKER!
    This is what I mean about the GOP and the rightwing!
    They’re all outraged about the “legalities” and evil Kathy and Tyler making an image they don’t like.
    They put the two people through hell. Kathy Griffin has apologized…
    AND THEN they TAKE the image they thought was so horrid and should NOT be out there…
    They put it on T-shirts (MASSIVE copyright Infringement) and SELL IT to make MONEY FOR THEMSELVES OFF OF IT!
    UNbe-fucking-lievable! LOL

  • Ghostdreams

    OUCH! My bad! I completely misread your post. My apologies. I will delete my reply to your last comment posthaste.

  • Ghostdreams

    I had such a radically different reaction to this piece from yourself that I thought I would ask: When you first saw this piece, did it have the text they wrote up about it attached to it?
    See, I looked at the photograph and read the writing that accompanied it,
    “There was blood coming out of his eyes, blood coming out of his…wherever.”
    To me, this is an obvious jab at Dtrump over the comments he had made about Megyn Kelly last summer. I remember quite well what Trump said about Megyn Kelly because I have never (before or since) heard a politician speak about women the way Trump does.
    The next statement with the photograph was a disclaimer saying Ms. Griffin does not condone violence and was simply “mocking the mocker in chief.”
    I didn’t find the piece threatening before the disclaimer and after the disclaimer, I don’t know how any CAN see it as threatening. The people involved went out of their way to make sure it couldn’t be misread AS being threatening.
    As for the idea that because you’re an artist you can say this isn’t art?
    That is the kind of thing the judges from the Academy would say to the Impressionists. “This isn’t art and we know better because WE are the real artists.”
    We all know how that turned out. No one remembers that names of the judges who rejected the young Impressionists but most us remember Monet, Renoir, Manet, Pissarro, Cezanne, Seurat, etc.
    As for the idea that violent images or threatening images are not, or cannot be art?
    Do you dismiss the graphic arts as art? If you think this piece was threatening, Charlie Hedbo just put up a very similar image of Theresa May (PM of UK). The image looks to be “drawn” and has Britians Prime Minister, Theresa May holding her severed head under arm.
    Perhaps you don’t LIKE the work but that doesn’t mean it’s not “art.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4583582/Charlie-Hebdo-decapitated-Theresa-new-cover.html
    More examples from artists in the Fine Art department (although I don’t like the high brow, low brow bs of the art world) would be Goya’s Disasters of War. He has two men cut in pieces. One is castrated. That’s pretty damn threatening and violent but it most certainly IS ART.
    Hogarth’s “A Harlots Progress” may be be crude and obscene but that’s the point and despite the religious fanatic rants of the day, it was and is ART. Same with Cerny’s “Shark” (violent and threatening) or, quite a bit (MOST) of Francis Bacon’s work (see his Triptych “Meat” for a taste – pun intended), or David’s “The Death of Marat.”
    I get a little queasy when someone starts making these declarations “I’m an artist and I am going to tell you what is and isn’t art.”
    I don’t think there is any one person who has the final word on what is, or isn’t, “art.”
    That is just my opinion.
    Be well and take care.
    PS btw, all that worry and concern over Baron Trump seeing this image. Kathy pulled it down STAT because of the concern about the kid seeing.
    Meanwhile, Alex Jones, the rightwing owner of the conservative site, “INFOWARS” has stolen the image, put it on a bunch of t-shirts and is now selling it with nasty “CNN Terrorist” alongside the image.
    THAT is hypocrisy (along with copyright infringement).

  • EastCoastJ

    that’s okay !

  • EastCoastJ

    But, unlike with the railroad tracks peril, too many people presently are dealing with Muslim terrorists having beheaded their family members for real.

  • Michael Huck

    You are absolutely right, I really think Griffin is motivated by hate, while Shields sees that as his kind of art. Some years ago I suggested to some people in charge they have to do something about this violence and I suggested that in war there should be promoted the standards representet by people like Rommel-Montgommery or Sir Douglas Bader and General Galland or Graf Luckner. They just did not care, they all want to shed blood.

  • Ghostdreams

    IT IS ART. Just because you don’t like this piece doesn’t mean we’re going to redefine the word art for you. Many have tried and failed to do the same before and it ain’t happenin.
    THE definition of the word ART: Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author’s imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.
    Griffin/Shields image fits the category quite well. It might not be appreciated for it’s “beauty” but it is a photograph (art) taken by a professional photographer of a performance artist. That is to say, the two “authors” of the piece who were using their “imaginative and technical skills” to produce a piece intended to be “appreciated for it’s emotional power.” It sure the hell has caused an emotional shitstorm. It DEFINITELY fits the definition of the word “art.”
    You might think it is “bad art” or “trashy art” or whatever. That is your opinion but raving that it is “not art” is pointless and delusional.
    IT IS ART.
    Btw, the Muslim terrorists that attacked Charlie Hedbo would say much the same thing you’re saying? They were yelling that the drawings and paintings of Mohammed produced by the artists working at Charlie Hebdo were NOT ART. NO! The pictures were BLASPHEMY instead. Again, the cartoons done by the cartoonists working at Charlie Hedbo ARE art! They are images produced “expressing the author’s imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power.”
    Reminder:
    In 1850 the French Academy united and declared the work of the Impressionists to be “trash.” They screamed, “THIS IS NOT ART.” But it was and is art.
    When Picasso and Braque came out with their Cubist paintings the mainstream art critics screamed, “TRASH! This is not art!” But it was and is art.
    When Jackson Pollack came out with his “action art” paintings the first reaction from critics was, “THIS IS TRASH!” But it was and is art.
    When Robert Mappelthorpe put out his photograph’s of gay sex acts photographed in B/W with a large format camera, lots of foiks yelled, “TRASH! FILTH! THAT IS NOT ART!” BUT is was an is art.
    When photographer Andres Serrano put out “Immersion” (aka “Piss Christ) many people screamed, “TRASH! BLASPHEMY! THAT IS NOT ART!” Serrano even received death threats.
    But it was and is art.
    I could, literally, type a book full of examples of artists who have had their art declared to be “NOT ART” but the point is …
    This is art. You might not like it. You might call it “BAD” art… but it is art none the less.

  • EastCoastJ

    They were enjoying wearing those shirts at gay pride parades. As a shot at Trump I guess. Yeah…that makes sense. Chechen Muslims have started concentration camps for gay men, yet gays hate…Trump ??

  • EastCoastJ

    But those pieces of controversial art are REAL art (or at least debatably so). This was just a photograph celebrating Muslim murder of so-called infidels which goes on daily.

  • EastCoastJ

    And not everyone agrees with you that Trump is destroying lives. Or….certainly not any more than Obama and the Clintons did. All Presidents have to make rough decisions. (I voted for Obama but I’ll admit he killed people through military action).

  • EastCoastJ

    “BTW, where were yawl when Ted Nugent, Clint Eastwood, Rep Joe Walsh and Peter Fonda ranted off about killing President Obama? Nowhere in sight!” How do you know that ??

  • EastCoastJ

    Photographs aren’t art, anyway. One can be a good photographer, but it’s still just a craft.

  • EastCoastJ

    And why did gays, who are supposed to be so artistically-aware, blame the Charlie Hebdo victims for their own murders? Gays said “that’s what you get for not respecting Is-LAM and diversity!” And then they cheered the Muslim bomber who almost made it into the Louvre. No, no, no….that’s not the France I know. This is why it’s questionable whether people like yourself, gay activists, Tyler Shields, and the Kathy person even belong in a free-thinking cultured society at all, or are you becoming more oppressive than you’re worth?

  • EastCoastJ

    It’s not art, and stop pretending it is just because you like the subject-matter. (The gall of comparing that snapshot to The Death Of Marat..)