PDA

View Full Version : "Forbidden Art" in Russian Federation. The Exhibition of 2006 year



Korotky Gennady
06-07-2010, 16:30
http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/_PG-Slava-Rossii.jpg

http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/PG-Slava-Rossii-prost.jpg


http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/_PG-Slava-Rossii-ment.jpg

Korotky Gennady
06-07-2010, 16:31
http://www.sakharov-center.ru/museum/exhibitionhall/forbidden

http://ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/_p_caviar_03.jpg

http://www.sakharov-center.ru/museum/exhibitionhall/forbidden-

http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/chechen-merilyn.jpg
http://ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/_xyak.jpg

http://ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/kabakov.jpg

http://ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/_NoName.jpg

http://ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/pamyatnik.jpg

Korotky Gennady
06-07-2010, 16:35
http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/this-is-my-blood.jpg


http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/s/v/svintusoid/razgovor.jpg

Korotky Gennady
06-07-2010, 16:45
http://www.sakharov-center.ru/museum/exhibitionhall/forbidden-

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pbiZ8Qeg99U/RySOL8tkTWI/AAAAAAAAAOk/lCrckmNR6Y0/s400/anton

Korotky Gennady
06-07-2010, 17:34
ОБВИНИТЕЛЬНОЕ ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ
по обвинению Самодурова Юрия Вадимовича,
в совершении преступления, предусмотренного п. «б» ч. 2 ст. 282 УК РФ,
Ерофеева Андрея Владимировича
в совершении преступления, предусмотренного п. «б» ч. 2 ст. 282 УК РФ.


ОБВИНЯЕТСЯ
1 Фамилия, имя, отчество : Самодуров Юрий Вадимович

2 Дата рождения : 27.09.1951 г.р.

3 Место рождения : г. Москва

4 Место жительства и (или) регистрации: г. Москва, …………………………….

5 Гражданство : РФ

6 Образование : высшее

7 Семейное положение, состав семьи : женат

8 Место работы или учебы : директор автономной некоммерческой организации культуры «Музей и общественный центр «Мир, прогресс, права человека» имени Андрея Сахарова», исполнительный директор международной общественной организации «Фонд Андрея Сахарова —Общественная комиссия по сохранению наследия академика Сахарова», тел. 623-74-80.



9 Отношение к воинской обязанности : военнообязанный.

10 Наличие судимости - не судим ; ранее привлекался к уголовной ответственности за совершение преступления, предусмотренного п. «б» ч. 2 ст. 282 УК РФ, и осужден Таганским районным судом г. Москвы 28.03.2005 по п. «б» ч. 2 ст. 282 УК РФ к штрафу в сумме 100.000 рублей (судимость погашена).



11 Паспорт или иной документ, удостоверяющий личность обвиняемого : паспорт гражданина РФ №……………… выдан …………………………………….

12 Иные данные о личности обвиняемого на учёте в НД, ПНД не состоит.



в том, что он совершил действия, направленные на возбуждение ненависти и вражды, а также на унижение достоинства группы лиц по признакам отношения к религии, совершённые публично, лицом, с использованием своего служебного положения, группой лиц по предварительному сговору, а именно :



Самодуров Ю.В., являясь на основании решения общего собрания членов международной общественной организации «Фонд Андрея Сахарова —Общественная комиссия по сохранению наследия академика Сахарова» от 09.06.2007 исполнительным директором международной общественной организации «Фонд Андрея Сахарова —Общественная комиссия по сохранению наследия академика Сахарова» и, на основании решения Совета автономной некоммерческой организации культуры «Музей и общественный центр «Мир, прогресс, права человека» имени Андрея Сахарова», - директором автономной некоммерческой организации культуры «Музей и общественный центр «Мир, прогресс, права человека» имени Андрея Сахарова» (в дальнейшем —музей) в неустановленное следствием время и месте вступил в предварительный сговор с Ерофеевым А.В., состоящим в должности заведующего отделом новейших течений Государственной Третьяковской галереи, для совместной подготовки и проведения в городе Москве общедоступной выставки, чёткая концептуальная направленность которой состояла в публичном выражении в наглядно-демонстративной форме унизительного и оскорбительного отношения к христианской религии в целом, а к православному христианству - в особенности, а также к религиозным символам, почитаемым православными верующими, путём публичной демонстрации в помещении музея по адресу : г. Москва, ул. Земляной вал, д. 57, стр. 6, специально отобранных экспонатов, возбуждающих ненависть и вражду, а также унижающих достоинство группы лиц по признаку их отношения к христианской религии в целом и православному христианству в особенности. В соответствии с достигнутой договорённостью на проведение вышеуказанной выставки Ерофееву А.В. отводилась роль куратора выставки, заключающаяся в разработке её концепции, а также в подборе экспонатов выставки, в то время как роль Самодурова Ю.В. как директора музея состояла в даче разрешения на демонстрацию экспозиции выставки в помещении музея, окончательном совместно с Ерофеевым А.В. отборе экспонатов и непосредственном размещении экспозиции, финансировании затрат на проведение выставки.

Используя своё служебное положение директора музея и полномочия, которыми он наделён в силу ст. 7 Устава музея (руководить текущей деятельностью музея, действовать без доверенности от имени музея, нести ответственность за выбор, приобретение, установку и функционирование всех экспонатов и подготовку экспозиции музея, отвечать за выбор и исполнение всех программ и проектов музея, при сотрудничестве с советом музея, персоналом, консультативным советом, сторонними специалистами), Самодуров Ю.В. принял решение о размещении будущей экспозиции выставки в помещении музея по адресу : г. Москва, ул. Земляной вал, д. 57, стр. 6, на период с 07 марта 2007 года по 31 марта 2007 года, заранее включив проведение выставки в утверждённый им как директором музея и размещённый на общедоступном Интернет-сайте музея план выставочной деятельности на 2007 год, обеспечил техническую поддержку для создания экспозиции выставки, наибольшим образом соответствующей её преступным целям.

Далее, во исполнение совместного преступного умысла, Ерофеев А.В., используя своё служебное положение и профессиональные познания, осуществил подбор и доставление в город Москву экспонатов, ранее не разрешённых к публичной демонстрации в различных выставочных залах и галереях, после чего представил нижеперечисленные экспонаты для обозрения Самодурову Ю.В.

Осмотрев отобранные Ерофеевым А.В. ряд экспонатов и в полной мере осознавая их соответствие концептуальной направленности выставки, Самодуров Ю.В. дал согласие и принял решение о размещении и публичной бесплатной демонстрации в помещении музея по адресу : г. Москва, ул. Земляной вал, д. 57, стр. 6 на период с 07 марта 2007 года по 31 марта 2007 года, согласно плану проведения выставок на 2007 год, ряда экспонатов из числа отобранных Ерофеевым А.В. ;

в том числе экспонат - графическую композицию И. Кабакова «Пошёл ты…, несущий в себе особо циничное и изощрённое деструктивное воздействие на сознание и подсознание зрителей, исполненный с использованием наложения ряда изображений в стилистике, свойственной для оформления детских рисунков, на фразы, состоящие из предельно грубых нецензурных (матерных) выражений и состоящий, таким образом, в совмещении несовместимого — образов детства и грязной, нецензурной, крайне оскорбительной брани, - что представляет для зрителя грубейшее и сильнейшее личное оскорбление, унижает его человеческое достоинство.

в том числе экспонат - скульптуру Леонида Сокова «Памятник», включающую ненормативную матерную лексику, составляющую часть скульптуры, воплощённую в пространственной реализации работы, выполненную из металла и представляющую собой совокупность трех букв «х», «у», «й», что образует при чтении сверху вниз нецензурное матерное слово, несущий в себе, учитывая общий антирелигиозный контекст выставки и название данного экспоната грубейшее надругательство над религиозными и нравственными чувствами граждан, унижение их человеческого достоинства ;

в том числе экспонат «Кухонный разговор» Михаила Рогинского, включающий ненормативную матерную лексику, изображающий верхнюю поверхность стола, на которой расположены стеклянная банка, нож, полуоткрытый спичечный коробок, круглое блюдо, рядом три круглых предмета (предположительно, картофелины), на стене за столом на зеленом фоне красная надпись нецензурного, матерного бранного характера, представляющая для зрителя грубейшее и сильнейшее личное оскорбление, унижение его человеческого достоинства ;

в том числе экспонат - графическую композицию Авдея Тер-Оганьяна «Взрыв № 5», включающий ненормативную матерную лексику и составляющий собой стилизованное изображение взрыва на фоне белых клубов дыма, всё это - на фиолетовом фоне, поверх чего написано с восклицательным знаком состоящее из четырёх букв «х», «у», «я», «к» нецензурное, матерное слово, публичное употребление которого и экспонирование надписей этого слова является грубейшим оскорблением общественной нравственности ;

в том числе экспонат «Реклама Макдональдса» под авторством А. Косолапова, представляющий собой выполненную средствами цветной шелкографии в виде плаката-постера графическую композицию, включающую размещенные на ярко красном фоне изображение лица человека, узнаваемое, напоминающее манерой исполнения обычно используемое в церковном сакрально-культурном пространстве изображение Иисуса Христа, а также логотип сети ресторанов «Макдональдс» (включая соответствующее написание названия этой сети на английском языке) и выполненную белым шрифтом надпись на английском языке следующего содержания «This is my body» (в переводе на русский язык: «Это — тело мое), - соединяющий сакральное (образ Иисуса Христа и элемент христианского религиозного культа) с вульгарным (продукция массового питания) и тем самым содержащий в себе кощунственное надругательство над святым для православных таинством ; издевательски демонстрирующий и транслирующий идеи-утверждения о том, что тело Иисуса Христа не более ценно, чем гамбургер или иной продукт массового общественного питания, либо сравнимо (сопоставимо) с этими продуктами, что образ Иисуса Христа равноценен образу любого человека, который используется в рекламных акциях, что равноценны или сравнимы (сопоставимы) по сути религиозный христианский обряд причастия и употребление пищи в любом заведении общественного питания, что Евангельские тексты не обладают особой ценностью и сравнимы по своей ценности с рекламными слоганами ;

в том числе экспонат - «Икона-икра» под авторством А. Косолапова, представляющий собой выполненную посредством печати по холсту графическую композицию, представляющую собой совершенно определенно узнаваемый оклад православной христианской иконы Богородицы с Младенцем, вместо изображений ликов, кистей рук и облачений которых, составляющих существенную и значимую для верующих часть указанной иконы, помещено натуралистическое изображение черной игры, повторяющее контуры указанных элементов оригинала иконы, - являющий собой в силу использованного приема пачкания православной иконы сознательную демонстрацию презрения к религиозным ценностям, надругательство над религиозными чувствами верующих и унижение их человеческого достоинства, осуществляемые по мотиву религиозной нетерпимости и ненависти;

в том числе экспонаты - две работы Александра Савича «Из серии путешествия Микки Мауса по истории искусства» », изображающие евангельскую сцену Нагорной проповеди Иисуса Христа и евангельскую сцену взятия Иисуса Христа под стражу в Гефсиманском саду, изготовленные на основе широко известных, узнаваемых (что абсолютно исключает любую двойственность толкования содержания и направленности этих экспонатов) гравюр Юлиуса Шнорр фон Карольсфельда посредством их раскрашивания и размещения автором экспонатов вместо (поверх) лица Иисуса Христа изображения известного мультипликационного персонажа Микки Мауса, который является совершенно определенно узнаваемым комическим героем мультфильмов; в силу использованного приема соединения священного для верующих христиан образа Иисуса Христа и комичного образа Микки Мауса, представляющих собой карикатуры на Иисуса Христа, крайне оскорбительные и унизительные для человеческого достоинства православных верующих. Основная содержательная нагрузка и цель данных экспонатов состоят в том, чтобы транслировать следующие идеи-утверждения: что равноценны и равнозначны (сопоставимы) образы Иисуса Христа и Микки Мауса; что равноценны и равнозначны (сопоставимы) по своему культурному и нравственному содержанию православное христианство и любой медийный продукт, например, мультфильм про Микки Мауса; что православное христианство — своего рода мультипликационная сказка, история, предназначенная для времяпрепровождения, легкого развлечения, не несущая в себе никакого ценного духовно-нравственного или религиозно-культурного содержания. Следовательно, указанные экспонаты А. Савича представляют собой и осуществляют предельно циничное, издевательское оскорбление, дисфорическое высмеивание религиозных убеждений и религиозных чувств православных верующих, унижение их человеческого достоинства по признаку отношения к религии. Экспонат, совершенно очевидно, умышленно направлен на достижение указанного выше результата ;

в том числе экспонат - «Без названия» под авторством В. Бахчаняна, представляющий собой фотоколлаж, изображающий один из фундаментальных христианских символов - распятие Иисуса Христа на кресте, при этом вместо головы Иисуса Христа автором экспоната помещено изображение советского ордена Ленина, что является крайне оскорбительным для православных верующих, унижает их человеческое достоинство. Основное содержание и цель данного экспоната состоят в том, чтобы транслировать следующие идеи-утверждения: что равноценны и равнозначны образы Иисуса Христа и В.И. Ульянова-Ленина; что равным образом тоталитарны и деспотичны как православное христианство, так и большевистский режим В.И. Ульянова-Ленина. Следовательно. работа В. Бахчаняна «Без названия» представляет собой и осуществляет предельно циничное, издевательское оскорбление и уничижительное, дисфорическое высмеивание религиозных убеждений и религиозных чувств православных верующих, жестокое унижение их человеческого достоинства по признаку отношения к религии. Экспонат, совершенно очевидно, умышленно направлен на достижение указанного выше результата.

После чего, Самодуров Ю.В., Ерофеев А.В., добиваясь дальнейшего усиления негативного психологического и нравственного воздействия экспонатов на сознание посетителей выставки, пришли к выводу о необходимости сочетания в экспозиции выставки как экспонатов, содержащих нецензурную брань, так и экспонатов с использованием религиозной символики, оскорбительных по отношению к христианской религии и христианам как отдельным её представителям содержания, для чего, используя свое служебное положение, обеспечили размещение таких ранее отобранных Ерофеевым А.В. экспонатов, как графическая композиция Авдея Тер-Оганьяна «Взрыв № 5», скульптура Леонида Сокова «Памятник», графическая композиция Ильи Кабакова «Пошёл ты…», картина «Кухонный разговор» Михаила Рогинского в непосредственной близости от других экспонатов, использующих и содержащих в себе религиозную символику христиан.

В свою очередь, будучи публично представленными на выставке, последние содержат в себе унизительные характеристики, отрицательные эмоциональные оценки и негативные установки в отношении группы лиц, являющихся верующими христианами. Указанные унизительные характеристики проведены с помощью метода коллажа священных для христианской религии символов, таких как крест, оклад иконы, священный литургический текст, иконография сюжетов Священной истории Нового Завета — с заведомо профанными образами — символами культуры потребления (логотип закусочной Макдональдс, изображение рыбной икры), вульгарными (персонаж мультфильмов про Микки Мауса) или в течение длительного времени противопоставлявшимися христианству идеологическими символами, такими, как советский орден или заголовок советской газеты «Известия». В качестве составной части коллажей подобраны образы, являющиеся по смыслу антонимами основных ценностей христианской веры и культа или же ассоциируются с образами его исторических противников.

Таким образом, употребленные в экспонатах и перечисленные выше образные приемы направлены на создание впечатления смыслового перечеркивания, отрицания, уничтожения смысла христианских сакральных символов и, следовательно, уничтожение смысла христианской веры, а тем самым и непосредственное и публичное оскорбление христиан как носителей этой веры.

В полной мере учитывая выраженные в экспонатах негативные установки, предельно отрицательные эмоциональные оценки в отношении группы лиц, являющихся верующими христианами, Самодуров Ю.В. осознавал, что размещение графической композиции А. Тер-Оганьяна «Взрыв № 5», скульптуры Л. Сокова «Памятник», графической композиции И. Кабакова «Пошёл ты…», экспоната «Кухонный разговор» М. Рогинского, как в совокупности, так и в отдельности, в непосредственной близости от других экспонатов, использующих элементы религиозной символики православного христианства, заведомо и непосредственным образом оскорбит религиозные чувства и унизит человеческое достоинство православных верующих.

В продолжение задуманного, добиваясь дальнейшей реализации своих преступных намерений, Самодуров Ю.В. и Ерофеев А.В. умышленно и сознательно приняли решение о просмотре посетителями экспонатов выставки через небольшое отверстие в загораживающей экспонаты специально поставленной стене-перегородке, в результате чего ещё в большей степени усилено негативное психологическое и нравственное воздействие на зрителей выставки, возбуждающее у них чувство оскорбленности, униженности человеческого достоинства, которое выставка оказывала своим содержанием и направленностью, совокупностью использованных в её экспонатах средств визуального психологического воздействия, поскольку осознавали, что просмотр экспозиции посетителями через отверстия в стене-перегородке будет происходить не по причине согласия с позицией авторов экспонатов и организаторов выставки или их одобрения, а по причине самой по себе явки в место проведения выставки, то есть основного действия, проявляющего волю зрителя посетить выставку.

Продолжая реализацию своего преступного умысла, направленного на возбуждение ненависти и вражды и на унижение достоинства как можно более широкого круга верующих граждан, исповедующих христианскую религию, в особенности православное христианство, добиваясь данной преступной цели, Ю.В. Самодуров в заключительный период проведения выставки, 28.03.2008, в помещении Музея и Общественного центра им. А. Сахарова, организовал и провёл публичное обсуждение выставки с привлечением в том числе Ерофеева А.В., средств массовой информации и последующим опубликованием результатов обсуждения на общедоступном сайте музея в сети Интернет. В ходе публичного обсуждения выставки 28.03.2007, а также в своих последующих публичных выступлениях Самодуров Ю.В. неоднократно подтверждал свой умысел на совершение действий, связанных с организацией указанной выставки совместно с Ерофеевым А.В.



В результате вышеуказанных совместных действий Самодурова Ю.В., Ерофеева А.В. в специально предназначенном помещении Музея и Общественного центра им. А. Сахарова, расположенном по адресу : г. Москва, ул. Земляной вал, д. 57, стр. 6, была открыта и проведена общедоступная, бесплатно посещаемая выставка «Запретное искусство 2006», на которой с 07 марта 2007 года по 31 марта 2007 года публично демонстрировались объединённые в единую экспозицию экспонаты следующих авторов : Михаил Рошаль-Федоров «Дадим угля сверх плана», 1972, дерево, масло, Вячеслав Сысоев - «Апокалипсис», начало 1980-х, бумага, тушь, «Свет против тьмы», 1985-1986, бумага, тушь, гуашь, «Крестный ход», начало 1980-х, бумага, тушь ; Александр Косолапов - «Реклама Макдональдса», 2000, цветная шелкография, «Икона-икра», 1995, печать на холсте ; Александр Савко - две работы из серии «Путешествие Микки Мауса по истории искусства», 1995, печать по металлу ; Вагрич Бахчанян - Без названия, середина 1980-х, фотоколлаж, «Известия», середина 1980-х, фотоколлаж ; Группа «Синие носы», «Чеченская Мерилин», 2004, фото ; Вячеслав Мизин, две работы из серии «Интимные места», 2004, фото ; Авдей Тер-Оганьян - «Взрыв №5», 2002, холст, масло ; Леонид Соков - «Памятник», 2002, металл, литье, «Поговорим», 1985, шелкография ; Илья Кабаков - «Пошел ты …», конец 1980-х, шелкография ; Михаил Рогинский - «Кухонный разговор», 1966, холст, масло ; Дмитрий Гутов - «Календарь с выставки «Компромат»», 1996, Валерий Нилин : «Ясса», 2005, фото ; Группа «ПГ» - три работы из серии «Слава России», бумага, печать.

Умысел Самодурова Ю.В. состоял в том, что он совместно с Ерофеевым А.В. произвел отбор экспонатов определенной направленности. Фонд экспонатов для формирования выставки изначально подбирался им совместно с Ерофеевым А.В. не по критериям их художественной ценности, а исключительно по критерию возможности их использования для более сильного выражения отрицательных эмоциональных оценок, нетерпимости в отношении граждан, исповедующих православную веру либо выражающих принадлежность или предпочтительное отношение к православному христианству, для целенаправленного, осознанного и умышленного показа кощунственных в религиозном смысле произведений. Данный факт подтверждается также и тем, что Самодуров Ю.В. в своих публичных выступлениях пытался подвести под свои действия идеологические и правовые основания, искажая действительное содержание норм российского законодательства.

Сведения о проведении указанной выставки и содержании экспозиции стали известны неопределенному, широкому кругу граждан, исповедующих христианскую религию, в особенности православное христианство, в том числе и тем гражданам, которые не посещали выставку и не проживают в городе Москве и узнали о факте проведения выставки и её содержании из средств массовой информации и от граждан, выставку посещавших.

В результате проведения выставки «Запретное искусство 2006» граждане, приверженные традиционным культурным ценностям русского народа, в особенности, граждане, исповедующие православную веру либо выражающие принадлежность или предпочтительное отношение к православному христианству, в том числе и в наибольшей степени - посетители выставки, подверглись при просмотре указанных экспонатов сильнейшему психотравмирующему воздействию чрезмерной силы, несущему прямую угрозу целостности личности и разрушения сложившейся у них картины мира, что явилось психо-травмирующим событием и сильнейшим стрессовым фактором для них, причинило им непереносимые нравственные страдания и стресс, а также чувства униженности их человеческого достоинства.

Как следствие указанных выше умышленных действий Самодурова Ю.В., Ерофеева А.В., выразившихся в совместной организации и проведении выставки «Запретное искусство 2006», были возбуждены ненависть и вражда, а также унижено достоинство широкого, неопределенного круга верующих граждан по признаку их отношения к христианской религии, в особенности к православному христианству, чем грубо нарушены принципы конституционного строя Российской Федерации, закреплённые в положениях ч. 5 ст. 13, ст. 14, ст. 28 Конституции РФ, гарантирующих принцип веротерпимости как залог гражданского мира и демократического общества,



то есть совершил преступление, предусмотренное п. «б» ч. 2 ст. 282 УК РФ.

tvadim133
06-07-2010, 22:23
I have found a following long list who sent letters to the prosecutors:

2 delegates of the state duma (Chuev and Chaplinsky), one non-commercial organization "Narodny Sobor", 4 just citizens, The muslim centre of Northern Caucase, The foundation of slavic culture, The centre "The right for Life" + some more citizens.

Again Were they just to pay 100 000 rur as a fine?

For me it is just ridiculous....

Art objects are one of the form of expressing the vision and the phylosophy of an artist, even it is very provocative!

farsideofthelune
07-07-2010, 01:58
I get it all except for the last picture. What's up with the bitch?

tvadim133
07-07-2010, 02:08
It seems to me, as for the last one there is nothig provocative at all (may be there are some vulguar words (not visible)on the bottler of wine?)

What picture woud make you go to the police, to be honest?

Darya Alexandrovna
07-07-2010, 12:44
That what is called Contemporary Art nowadays is 90% bullshit and only 10% something rare and really talented.
Exhibition has been provocative, but excetp provocation there is nothing else for me.
A piece of shit that will be forgotten in a few years after the scandal.
A one more piece of crap that turns one's life to a bump.
A word ART for both this and real masters of painting, sculpture, craftsmen who really knew how and also did something outstanding - it is insulting!
When people are getting used to bad taste and are ready to accept rubish as gold it is a serious problem, crisys of our society.

PS: Harsh words, I know. But it's my pain scream. Not trying to make anybody agree. But that's what I think.

farsideofthelune
07-07-2010, 14:13
Too bad Warhol is so hard to reach - wanna know what he's gotta say about these art pieces.

tvadim133
07-07-2010, 14:26
That what is called Contemporary Art nowadays is 90% bullshit and only 10% something rare and really talented.
Exhibition has been provocative, but excetp provocation there is nothing else for me.
A piece of shit that will be forgotten in a few years after the scandal.
A one more piece of crap that turns one's life to a bump.
A word ART for both this and real masters of painting, sculpture, craftsmen who really knew how and also did something outstanding - it is insulting!
When people are getting used to bad taste and are ready to accept rubish as gold it is a serious problem, crisys of our society.

PS: Harsh words, I know. But it's my pain scream. Not trying to make anybody agree. But that's what I think.

I would agree in some points.

But the art must not be conservative only but developing.

Actually Gogen's paintings or cubism were B...t those times, according to opinions of many people.

Art is a reflection of the phylosophy, visions of artists, his understanding the world,,, it can be provocative, it can be for all ages or just for a short period of time.

I did not like the objects showed here, but what I do not like more is that when organizations or dumb (may be not very dumb, but..) people apply to a court to forbid any pieces of any art.

It seems to me, that even Lolita can "hurt" someone's feeling and by some people it can be considered to be a propaganda of pedo...you know what.

That is really shocking!

Darya Alexandrovna
07-07-2010, 14:59
I knew that somebody would say that.))) And I agree with you, Vadim.
But never the less, I do believe that what is considered to be "devil/ evel/ bad" is not something odd scary looking, terrifying every creature around. Devil is an idea in your head stating "well, there's nothing bad in at least trying this. this can also be allowed... and this too. And one more step. And what's whrong woth this tiny-miny little thing... drop by drop you get deeper and deeper into the negative side..."
I'm sure you get what I mean.
Each thing must have it's time and place. there are some things which artists are intelligent enough to understand will not be understood by mass customers, you know. Provocation should have an aim, to provoke uncontrollingly just for sake of provocation... why? what kind of fun is that?

I can not change the world. But I can at least have my understanding, right? :)
Per my taste I adore things that make world better: beautifull music, insiring fine arts (and it belongs to different centuries and times), well written filling literature.
An Art that brings positive, constructive energy. (It make strike and shock, but in the end you get why it was for, you have something that enriched you, not that made you feel like a piece of shit in a huge shit disposal tank)
Thanks for listening:bedtime:
;)

tvadim133
07-07-2010, 15:31
Art should wake up emotions first of all.

Bad emotions (for example: sadness, fear) can develop the soul as well as positiveness or hope.

The most important thing is that that or this piece of art does it.

Yes, many people need just beautifull things, first of all.

But life is not only entertainment.

Hamlet, Macbeth are "horrible stories" full of fear, doubts and so on.

Aida is a sad story about love, responsibities, treachery, payment.

Shemyakins sculptures (for example: defects on Bolotnaya sq) are not positive for me, but the make people just think a bit about theirs defects.

P.S, I underline, that showed-above paintings are far away from being masterpieces at all, but "a court" is this case smell more than the exibition itself, to my mind.

Darya Alexandrovna
07-07-2010, 15:51
Art should wake up emotions first of all.

Bad emotions (for example: sadness, fear) can develop the soul as well as positiveness or hope.

The most important thing is that that or this piece of art does it.

Yes, many people need just beautifull things, first of all.

But life is not only entertainment.

Hamlet, Macbeth are "horrible stories" full of fear, doubts and so on.

Aida is a sad story about love, responsibities, treachery, payment.

Shemyakins sculptures (for example: defects on Bolotnaya sq) are not positive for me, but the make people just think a bit about theirs defects.

P.S, I underline, that showed-above paintings are far away from being masterpieces at all, but "a court" is this case smell more than the exibition itself, to my mind.

I did not mean everything to be sunny/nice/ sweet-sweet pthtttttt:eek:
But, which means are used in Macbeth to make it?! After that horrible story what do you have in your mind?!
There must be some level of honour and respect and humanity ...
I feel I can not find right words...
Pureness of things may be is what I seek. Filth and dirt are poisoning, that's what i want to say. In both abstaract and direct meaning.

martpark
07-07-2010, 16:11
I did not mean everything to be sunny/nice/ sweet-sweet pthtttttt:eek:
But, which means are used in Macbeth to make it?! After that horrible story what do you have in your mind?!
There must be some level of honour and respect and humanity ...
I feel I can not find right words...
Pureness of things may be is what I seek. Filth and dirt are poisoning, that's what i want to say. In both abstaract and direct meaning.

But aren't those paintings criticising filth and dirt? They certainly aren't promoting it. No one looking at them is going to run in the streets and replicate the scenes.

rusmeister
10-07-2010, 07:07
The stuff posted here is largely not critical of evil/wrong. This sort of "art" aims at shocking people. But Darya is right. The trouble with shocking people is that it delivers diminishing returns, forcing shockers to continually "up the ante". Once people yawn at the portrayal of a naked body, then they must resort to the depiction of sexual acts in order to shock. Once people start yawning at that, they must resort to perverted (literally "Turned the wrong way") sexual acts. Once people start yawning at that, they have to invent ever more horrific images, until, in their blind delusion that they are creating "art", they can no longer see that they are merely churning out nightmares, and as Darya said, filth and poison.

Taking the first post as an example of the best of what such "art" would have to offer - the "artist" (if one can call him that) is trying to criticize evils in Russia. But the effect is only one of complaining, whose only attraction is shock value - it is not one that would stir people to action, and once the shock wears off, it will be ignored.

andymackem
13-07-2010, 13:09
But who has the right to define what is "shocking"? Is this an area where the state should draw the boundaries? The church? Or is it up to the individual to make his or her own judgement?

Personally I'm not greatly impressed with the art involved in this exhibition, but I do not believe it is criminal. There are, after all, many other things I don't like which are not illegal. Dima Bilan springs instantly to mind, as does supporting Spartak. :lol:

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, relies on the freedom to offend and to be offended. When offended, isn't it better to state your case more persuasively than the other guy, rather than demanding he be silenced?

And I also have the freedom not to go to a contemporary art gallery looking for things which might offend me.

martpark
13-07-2010, 13:32
The law suit is so childish and primitive, maybe what the paintings were critiquing, that it gives the artwork more attention than it had.

A great quote from the group who brought the lawsuit:

"If you like expressing yourself freely, do it at home, invite some close friends," Mr Kassin said.

"But from the moment that such an exhibition takes place in a public space, and especially if it contains insults, it's no longer art but a provocation," he added.

I'm sure the church was happy in the old days expressing their 'anti-government' beliefs to the basement wall.

Ian G
13-07-2010, 13:37
The stuff posted here is largely not critical of evil/wrong. This sort of "art" aims at shocking people. But Darya is right. The trouble with shocking people is that it delivers diminishing returns, forcing shockers to continually "up the ante". Once people yawn at the portrayal of a naked body, then they must resort to the depiction of sexual acts in order to shock. Once people start yawning at that, they must resort to perverted (literally "Turned the wrong way") sexual acts. Once people start yawning at that, they have to invent ever more horrific images, until, in their blind delusion that they are creating "art", they can no longer see that they are merely churning out nightmares, and as Darya said, filth and poison.

Taking the first post as an example of the best of what such "art" would have to offer - the "artist" (if one can call him that) is trying to criticize evils in Russia. But the effect is only one of complaining, whose only attraction is shock value - it is not one that would stir people to action, and once the shock wears off, it will be ignored.

I agree with you that artists are struggling to find new ways to shock. Stravinsky's Rite of Spring or Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon or Flaubert's Madame Bovary or Joyce's Ulysses no longer have the power to shock that they did once. In fact once the shock value has worn off a bit we can actuallly appreciate them better as art.

But in many ways Russia is a very conservative society, Rusia's bureaucrats are famously conservative in their 'tastes'- (despite the President's much publicised love for Deep Purple) the favoured artists are people like Tsereteli and Shilov. As recent events show, any criticism of the State, Militsiya, Army, the Soviet Union, the Russian Orthodox Church etc still has a lot of power to shock in Russia, while in many other countries such criticism would raise barely an indifferent yawn from the public.
Once this kind of art has lost its power to shock and provoke debate (as has happened in Britain, for example- with artists like Damian Hurst and the Chapman brothers struggling to find taboos to fall foul of and in the process just boring their audience) then artists will have to start looking for a new approach. When the bourgeoisie have 24 hour television and internet access and are no longer able to be shocked then one of the main driving forces behind art has petered out. This hasn't yet happened in Russia, a country which still has plenty of revered institutions. And plenty of targets for subversive artists to take pot shots at.

I'm not making any judgements about artistic merit here. Radical (and possibly inflammatory) content, and artistic merit are two quite different things. Art may have both, either, or neither.

Darya Alexandrovna
13-07-2010, 13:37
And who can set then a boundary that one should not kill? Or may be I want to make a video installation of violent rape, to shock and critisyze, but for that I will take a video first!
We are so ****ing free that some people, gettign to the core of life set night clubs where people come nacked and wealthy people being so fed-up with their freedom just take drugs, ****..big bankers run on their knees dressed in nothing else than a dog-lead.. this is called having fun. So what it is? Good? Bad? No limits? Or it is an addiction to have more and more? And it doesn't bring what they seek. They want to taste life, but it turnes more tasteless than water!
Once i heard that Being Free doesn't mean doing whatever you want, but not doing what you do want. Means, being FREE from your desires, being not addicted.
I am not God to set limits. You can accept that this world is more than you think it is, but still you have your conscience and understanding. Macking the entire mass of people on the planet be as free as each of us want is setting chaos, because evil spirit is more easily settelled:asskiss:. To make a masterpiece or at least a copy of it demands much more time, will, consiousness and energy than to destroy it. To cure a person is much more difficult that to make a person ill. To behave yourself is more difficult to let yourself go. Why? Do be set in the limits is more difficult than to destroy all of them. It requires work!
I am not a person of rules at all. I myself destroy some limits and go agains collective directions. But still I think that what we do must be for progress, for development, not for destruction.
We all will die. we can die tomorrow, today. So what shall be left behind?
To Create! Creat and develope. This what I believe in.
Shock and filthy "Art" are not our methods.:focus:

rusmeister
13-07-2010, 14:21
But who has the right to define what is "shocking"? Is this an area where the state should draw the boundaries? The church? Or is it up to the individual to make his or her own judgement?

Personally I'm not greatly impressed with the art involved in this exhibition, but I do not believe it is criminal. There are, after all, many other things I don't like which are not illegal. Dima Bilan springs instantly to mind, as does supporting Spartak. :lol:

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, relies on the freedom to offend and to be offended. When offended, isn't it better to state your case more persuasively than the other guy, rather than demanding he be silenced?

And I also have the freedom not to go to a contemporary art gallery looking for things which might offend me.

Maybe the real question is, "Should we live (or pretend to live) as a society at all?" (ie, should we pretend to be unified by anything at all?) If the individual is to be the measure of all things, and completely divided from all other people, then indeed, it would not matter what the individual did. Of course, when such sophistic individuals actually build such a state, they will be overrun by barbarians who actually have more sense than they do.

Since we must, evidently, live together, we must build a common society as long as we do so. What, then, shall be the standards of truth, of good and evil, that we will agree on in this society? We can't talk about "progress" or "freedom" until we do so.

So what is truth? (Something few here are likely to agree on.)
If Christian claims are false, then the sooner that outrageous falsehood is revealed to all, and its mythos debunked and forgotten, the better. But if they are true, then such "artists" are laughing at their own Creator, a Being infinitely superior to them, something we can only grasp by imagining an ant laughing at us even as we are standing over their own anthill. In any event, their "art" is a deliberate insult to people who do believe them to be true - it is an assault on others, and not merely "freedom" for themselves.

As to "demanding that they be silenced", I'd ask, "Who is giving them publicity (which means public attention and de facto praise, and NEVER means de facto criticism) in the first place? And for what reasons?" Is it news if a criminal in cell scribbles the word "darkness" in his cell to deny that there is light? The answer is the same for people who are mentally ill. Why should we broadcast this stuff so that everyone MUST hear of it, unless they are to stuff their ears full of cotton and hear nothing? Sitting in my living room, if I dare turn on the TV or go online, I am NOT free to not hear of it. If I ride a commuter bus to Moscow, ditto.

shurale
13-07-2010, 15:36
Should their art (or "art") be destroyed?

andymackem
13-07-2010, 15:56
So what is truth? (Something few here are likely to agree on.)
If Christian claims are false, then the sooner that outrageous falsehood is revealed to all, and its mythos debunked and forgotten, the better.

Except that no matter how comprehensively a myth is debunked and forgotten, it still persists (and I'm talking about things far more comprehensively debunked than Christianity). You'll have encountered, for example, holocaust deniers? A survey conducted among Russian football fans last month revealed that 8 per cent of them thought Russia would win the World Cup this year (Russia had not even qualified for the finals; a further 2 per cent backed Turkey who were similarly absent). No matter what information people have, some will believe anything. I'm an atheist, and consider myself rational. But if God came to Earth tomorrow and told me I was wrong, I'm pretty sure I'd spend a good chunk of time seeking to demonstrate that He'd done no such thing because it would undermine my whole belief system. And I doubt that I'm unique.


But if they are true, then such "artists" are laughing at their own Creator, a Being infinitely superior to them, something we can only grasp by imagining an ant laughing at us even as we are standing over their own anthill.

Meanwhile that ant still has the option of laughing and mocking if it chooses. Freedom doesn't automatically mean doing something sensible. But I'd have to be a pretty desperate and lonely individual to be serious upset at an ant mocking me. If the faith of the plaintiffs is so weak, is that a problem with the artist or the believer?


In any event, their "art" is a deliberate insult to people who do believe them to be true - it is an assault on others, and not merely "freedom" for themselves.

And why do you assume that the things you believe to be true are not offensive to me? I find your implied notion that I am doomed to eternal misery offensive, and I find it shocking that someone who is clearly an intelligent individual can actually believe such superstitious claptrap. Moreover, you choose to rub our noses in these beliefs on this site (which probably gets more visitors than the Sakharov Centre).

If this "art" is a deliberate insult to your beliefs, and thus deserving of criminal prosecution, does it not follow that your beliefs are a deliberate insult to mine, and thus deserving of criminal prosecution? And mine to yours, and on in a grand reductio ad absurdio.

The answer, of course, is that you have the freedom to hold and share your beliefs, and I mine (and the artists theirs). And we all have the freedom to disagree - strongly, in some cases - and to take and give offence. What we don't have is the right to suppress someone's opinion because we disagree. Rather than apply censorship, try actually winning the argument in a fair fight.


As to "demanding that they be silenced", I'd ask, "Who is giving them publicity (which means public attention and de facto praise, and NEVER means de facto criticism) in the first place? And for what reasons?" Is it news if a criminal in cell scribbles the word "darkness" in his cell to deny that there is light? The answer is the same for people who are mentally ill. Why should we broadcast this stuff so that everyone MUST hear of it, unless they are to stuff their ears full of cotton and hear nothing? Sitting in my living room, if I dare turn on the TV or go online, I am NOT free to not hear of it. If I ride a commuter bus to Moscow, ditto.

Well, I read this morning that 1,020 people actually attended the exhibition in question (I doubt that figure, to be honest, but have no better one). The show came to prominence because someone complained about it and demanded that it was shut down and the perpetrators punished. More people have seen these images as a direct result of someone saying they shouldn't have been produced / displayed. Similarly, more people have read Salman Rushdie since the fatwa was declared, etc, etc. The publicity stems from the very people who claim to be offended, in a delicious irony.

And the argument about turning on the TV or going online is palpable nonsense, with respect. We both came to this debate by choosing to come to a forum where current affairs in Russia are discussed. Then we chose to look at the arts and culture thread. Then we chose to look at something called "Forbidden Art". Then we chose to engage in a debate about it. It was hardly incorporated into Microsoft's start-up chime when we turned on our machines, was it? Ditto TV. You can find out what's being shown, you can change channel and you can switch the thing off. Or you can sit and wait for something which offends you, then complain about it. And when you encounter the discussion on your commuter bus, you could try explaining why you disagree, rather than praying for silence.

[I should stress that some of this would be better written as rhetorical flourish rather than a personal assault. I don't know you personally, and don't want you to feel I'm embarking on a personal judgement of you. I merely disagree strongly with you on this point (though in reality, not to the point of being shocked and offended by your views!)]

Best wishes!

andymackem
13-07-2010, 16:00
And who can set then a boundary that one should not kill? Or may be I want to make a video installation of violent rape, to shock and critisyze, but for that I will take a video first!

Social contract. If I live in a society where I can be killed or raped with impunity, I am vulnerable. Ultimately I'm dependent on my physical strength, or wealth to protect me - and some day I'll run into someone stronger, wealthier, more influential.

If I live in a society where you, and I, and everyone else has the freedom to express an opinion I'm not vulnerable in the same way. The worst that happens is that I might see something I don't like, or hear something I don't agree with. I'm sure you can see the difference between being offended and being murdered.

andymackem
13-07-2010, 16:02
Should their art (or "art") be destroyed?

How? Aside from morality, these images are now widely available (thanks, as I mentioned, to the scandal kicked up by those who want them suppressed). Destroying the originals is possible; destroying every available representation is - I'd suggest - almost impossible.

Darya Alexandrovna
13-07-2010, 16:23
Social contract. If I live in a society where I can be killed or raped with impunity, I am vulnerable. Ultimately I'm dependent on my physical strength, or wealth to protect me - and some day I'll run into someone stronger, wealthier, more influential.

If I live in a society where you, and I, and everyone else has the freedom to express an opinion I'm not vulnerable in the same way. The worst that happens is that I might see something I don't like, or hear something I don't agree with. I'm sure you can see the difference between being offended and being murdered.

ok. but what if shock and whatever feeling you get of the exhibit affects your mind? they don't kill you at once, but they do affect you. So why a social contract on this can work as well? why then it is called boundary?

I hate those people who say, "well, you have a choice to go and see or to close your eyes and void it. go home, switch off you TV, etc..." whatever is a scandal always attracts, and social thinking too. So it's easier to say like that and get away than to realize that the whole world depends on you. on each of us. "I will do it, as I am free. And if you don't like it, just leave". Very easy and shitty way.
I prefer more the one that makes you think what can your actions cause to the world around you...

martpark
13-07-2010, 19:11
ok. but what if shock and whatever feeling you get of the exhibit affects your mind? they don't kill you at once, but they do affect you. So why a social contract on this can work as well? why then it is called boundary?

I hate those people who say, "well, you have a choice to go and see or to close your eyes and void it. go home, switch off you TV, etc..." whatever is a scandal always attracts, and social thinking too. So it's easier to say like that and get away than to realize that the whole world depends on you. on each of us. "I will do it, as I am free. And if you don't like it, just leave". Very easy and shitty way.
I prefer more the one that makes you think what can your actions cause to the world around you...

In what way did the art affect your mind? Are you permanently scarred?

All the artists there knew what their actions were. All the messages are pretty clear.Nothing earth shattering or filthy or foul, in my opinion. If the church can't handle differing opinions how does it make it different from other religions that tell you what to think and wear?

Bytovukha
13-07-2010, 19:47
Very easy and shitty way.

I consider such language in a public forum an assault on society. I did not come here to be exposed to such filth.

MickeyTong
13-07-2010, 20:36
....but what if shock and whatever feeling you get of the exhibit affects your mind? they don't kill you at once, but they do affect you...

Art is meant to affect the mind, positively or provocatively, affecting the way we think about our world to a greater or lesser degree - otherwise it fails as art......we are not supposed to come out of the Sistine Chapel thinking "that was a pretty ceiling".

Judging from some of the pics posted on this thread, some of the work in this exhibit certainly lacks the technical finesse I associate with "artistry", but still conveyed ideas worthy of consideration.

bob
13-07-2010, 20:48
Art is meant to affect the mind, positively or provocatively, affecting the way we think about our world to a greater or lesser degree - otherwise it fails as art......

:iagree:

Darya Alexandrovna
13-07-2010, 21:29
Whatever is said here is right at some points, let me be clear. But I fail to turn you to watch at this question from the other side. Now I ask myself, why should I?
But I think nobody will disagee that from technical point of view what is told to be arts is not really very skillfull and worth.
It is also a matter of time and mass thinking. O Tempora, o Mores! You know...
I had my say, I won't say anything else :)

Willy
14-07-2010, 00:14
Didn't this guy get a lot of sh!t for some of his works in the U.S.

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/biography/

martpark
14-07-2010, 01:09
Didn't this guy get a lot of sh!t for some of his works in the U.S.

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/biography/

He wasn't prosecuted by anyone and his work was exhibited albeit in a different gallery. And it was probably much more offensive than the work show here. The difference between America and Russia at the moment.

There are censorship issues in every country but what the church group here said was there is freedom of speech if you keep in your house...and don't let anyone hear it. Ridiculous when considering what's on Russian TV and what you can see on the streets of Moscow and that the church was forced to practice their 'offensive' philosophy in their houses in Soviet times.

Darya Alexandrovna
14-07-2010, 11:39
I like some of his works a lot!

MickeyTong
14-07-2010, 13:24
I like some of his works a lot!

Mapplethorpe? Hmmmm.....I wonder why?

rusmeister
15-07-2010, 07:41
Except that no matter how comprehensively a myth is debunked and forgotten, it still persists (and I'm talking about things far more comprehensively debunked than Christianity). You'll have encountered, for example, holocaust deniers? A survey conducted among Russian football fans last month revealed that 8 per cent of them thought Russia would win the World Cup this year (Russia had not even qualified for the finals; a further 2 per cent backed Turkey who were similarly absent). No matter what information people have, some will believe anything. I'm an atheist, and consider myself rational. But if God came to Earth tomorrow and told me I was wrong, I'm pretty sure I'd spend a good chunk of time seeking to demonstrate that He'd done no such thing because it would undermine my whole belief system. And I doubt that I'm unique.

Hi Andy!
First of all, it is a rather grandiose thing to suggest that Christianity (or Islam or Judaism, etc) has been debunked on more than a personal level (ie, you may be thoroughly convinced, but you certainly can't prove it to others).
Secondly, I think it a good first step that you recognize your own bias. That's something that my faith predicts, anyway. Once you realize that there is something you can be unreasonable on, it gives you the ability to think about whether it is really reasonable to hold that stance.



Meanwhile that ant still has the option of laughing and mocking if it chooses. Freedom doesn't automatically mean doing something sensible. But I'd have to be a pretty desperate and lonely individual to be serious upset at an ant mocking me. If the faith of the plaintiffs is so weak, is that a problem with the artist or the believer?
Analogies are imperfect things that are only meant to demonstrate an idea, not be an absolute proof of the idea.
My point is that it would be a foolish ant that did laugh, even though it "had a choice". We should want to be sensible and reasonable, or as G.K. Chesterton put it, "To have a right to do something does not mean that one is right in doing it."


And why do you assume that the things you believe to be true are not offensive to me? I find your implied notion that I am doomed to eternal misery offensive, and I find it shocking that someone who is clearly an intelligent individual can actually believe such superstitious claptrap. Moreover, you choose to rub our noses in these beliefs on this site (which probably gets more visitors than the Sakharov Centre).
This is where you should really get to know what it is that you are objecting to. Orthodoxy is not evangelical Protestantism. It appears that you are operating on assumptions from American televangelists. Being able to distinguish between the differences - most especially history and doctrine - within what are known as Christian denominations, and being able to distinguish superstition from belief rationally held are a result of mental clarity and genuine inquiry.


If this "art" is a deliberate insult to your beliefs, and thus deserving of criminal prosecution, does it not follow that your beliefs are a deliberate insult to mine, and thus deserving of criminal prosecution? And mine to yours, and on in a grand reductio ad absurdio.

The answer, of course, is that you have the freedom to hold and share your beliefs, and I mine (and the artists theirs). And we all have the freedom to disagree - strongly, in some cases - and to take and give offence. What we don't have is the right to suppress someone's opinion because we disagree. Rather than apply censorship, try actually winning the argument in a fair fight.
Well, I read this morning that 1,020 people actually attended the exhibition in question (I doubt that figure, to be honest, but have no better one). The show came to prominence because someone complained about it and demanded that it was shut down and the perpetrators punished. More people have seen these images as a direct result of someone saying they shouldn't have been produced / displayed. Similarly, more people have read Salman Rushdie since the fatwa was declared, etc, etc. The publicity stems from the very people who claim to be offended, in a delicious irony.


I'm not actually advocating criminal prosecution for people who hate something without understanding it. I advocate cutting off the publicity for it. I'd muzzle the media, and let them draw or scribble whatever they want. If it's not newsworthy, stop pretending that it is.
In connection with that, one of my biggest objections to media coverage is how they take a very small number of messed-up people who call themselves Orthodox, and paint them as representing the Orthodox Church (in order to create news). Yes, there can be messed-up Christians, even Christian leaders - witness the case of former bishop Diomede a couple of years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Diomid_of_Anadyr_and_Chukotka

And what argument are we speaking of? Are you suggesting that these "artists" are offering rational argument?



And the argument about turning on the TV or going online is palpable nonsense, with respect. We both came to this debate by choosing to come to a forum where current affairs in Russia are discussed. Then we chose to look at the arts and culture thread. Then we chose to look at something called "Forbidden Art". Then we chose to engage in a debate about it. It was hardly incorporated into Microsoft's start-up chime when we turned on our machines, was it? Ditto TV. You can find out what's being shown, you can change channel and you can switch the thing off. Or you can sit and wait for something which offends you, then complain about it. And when you encounter the discussion on your commuter bus, you could try explaining why you disagree, rather than praying for silence.

The charge of palpable nonsense (why "palpable"?) is unfair. It is true that we can isolate ourselves and expose ourselves to no news whatsoever - and I do recommend this. However, it takes a special effort, as I said, especially when one is in a lobby, or riding a bus, or whatever, and winds up being a captive audience of a TV or radio blaring such "news" , it really IS unavoidable.

In any event, if I turn on the TV news, or go online, or pick up a newspaper (not that I do) hoping to hear some real news and I get this media-created non-news, then it is a fact, not nonsense, that I have this blaring among the headlines.


[I should stress that some of this would be better written as rhetorical flourish rather than a personal assault. I don't know you personally, and don't want you to feel I'm embarking on a personal judgement of you. I merely disagree strongly with you on this point (though in reality, not to the point of being shocked and offended by your views!)]

Best wishes!

Thanks! I'll say that courtesy is like a drink from a mountain spring! :)

Jack17
15-07-2010, 08:35
Whatever is said here is right at some points, let me be clear. But I fail to turn you to watch at this question from the other side. Now I ask myself, why should I?
But I think nobody will disagee that from technical point of view what is told to be arts is not really very skillfull and worth.
It is also a matter of time and mass thinking. O Tempora, o Mores! You know...
I had my say, I won't say anything else :)
In America you cannot violate the Constitution; in Russia, you cannot violate the taste and judgment of the Babushki!

Whether a gay rights parade or controversial art, ever notice, if the Babushki don't like it, they send out the police right away.

People think Putin rules Russia; no, the Babushki do! Beware the staring glare of the Babushka - it sees and knows all!

Willy
15-07-2010, 13:18
In America you cannot violate the Constitution; in Russia, you cannot violate the taste and judgment of the Babushki!

Whether a gay rights parade or controversial art, ever notice, if the Babushki don't like it, they send out the police right away.

People think Putin rules Russia; no, the Babushki do! Beware the staring glare of the Babushka - it sees and knows all!



Stop slamming Russia Jack!

Russia is not the only place with problems with old women.

YouTube- Monty Python--- Grannie Gang

Swordfish90293
15-07-2010, 13:44
Art is meant to affect the mind, positively or provocatively, affecting the way we think about our world to a greater or lesser degree - otherwise it fails as art......we are not supposed to come out of the Sistine Chapel thinking "that was a pretty ceiling".

Judging from some of the pics posted on this thread, some of the work in this exhibit certainly lacks the technical finesse I associate with "artistry", but still conveyed ideas worthy of consideration.

I think that while an innate purpose of art is to affect one's mental processes, how, is the question...whether it evokes an emotion, or opens one's life up to the issue that art itself reflects.

Film is an example of this. Presuming that everything has been done before in real life, the story in a film will open or explain an emotion or life circumstance in a stylized way to open the audience eyes to an experience that've already had or observed.

These pictures seem to want to convey messages using shock as the value.

MickeyTong
15-07-2010, 15:19
These pictures seem to want to convey messages using shock as the value.

Yep, they do. Not being familiar with Russian culture and society, I cannot say whether or not shock has any value in evoking the emotions/thoughts intended by the artist. (Something well-received in Greenwich Village, New York may be boycotted in Smalltown, Idaho.)


My wife prevented me from buying a particular T-shirt in Amsterdam. It had the slogan "**** War" with a picture of a soldier holding a rifle in one hand and half a baby in the other. Shocking.....but what part is shocking, and why?

Jack17
15-07-2010, 19:05
Stop slamming Russia Jack!

Russia is not the only place with problems with old women.

YouTube- Monty Python--- Grannie Gang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFiN7Zsz2zM)
No, but Russia is the place where they rule.

Darya Alexandrovna
15-07-2010, 19:52
In America you cannot violate the Constitution; in Russia, you cannot violate the taste and judgment of the Babushki!

Whether a gay rights parade or controversial art, ever notice, if the Babushki don't like it, they send out the police right away.

People think Putin rules Russia; no, the Babushki do! Beware the staring glare of the Babushka - it sees and knows all!

I ain't savvy?
're you pointing me to be a Babushka? :eh:

Jack17
15-07-2010, 20:09
I ain't savvy?
're you pointing me to be a Babushka? :eh:
Izveniti pashaulsta!! My deepest apologies Darya. I just QR'ed any post to lodge my general opinion. Believe me, it was not directed at you. Though I hope to have the pleasure of meeting you some day, I am certain you are a young, bright and beautiful deyvushka! No, I don't think you will ever be a babushka, at least not in spirit.

Jack17
15-07-2010, 22:51
Stop slamming Russia Jack!

Russia is not the only place with problems with old women.

YouTube- Monty Python--- Grannie Gang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFiN7Zsz2zM)
Have you gone Indian Willy? You can't hang that rap on me - "Russian basher." In about a 4 to 1 ratio, most of my criticisms are directed at my own country, not Russia. I just tell it like it is. There's a standard in most societies by which right and wrong are decided. In ancient Israel, it was the high priests in the first and second temples; in the US, it's a piece of paper, the Constitution and in Russia - it's each and every Babushka. For the most part, they're a pretty good barometer of what is right and wrong; but their views of life are pretty narrow. For example: gays are not manly, anything unmanly is un-Russian QED we don't like gays or even acknowledge there are any in Russia. You get the idea. In my experience, I have a higher view of Russia than most Russians; but, of course, it's never a problem if you're criticising your own. In the US, we just use the Yiddish word and refer to them as Yentas. But in Russia, none of the oligarchs, not Lushkov, not Putin will take on the views of the Babushki. It would be like Ceasar taking on the high priests - ain't gonna happen.

andymackem
16-07-2010, 17:22
Hi Andy!
First of all, it is a rather grandiose thing to suggest that Christianity (or Islam or Judaism, etc) has been debunked on more than a personal level (ie, you may be thoroughly convinced, but you certainly can't prove it to others).
Secondly, I think it a good first step that you recognize your own bias. That's something that my faith predicts, anyway. Once you realize that there is something you can be unreasonable on, it gives you the ability to think about whether it is really reasonable to hold that stance.

My point was not so much that any religious belief (including atheism) has been debunked (comprehensively or otherwise), but that there are other myths which have been - and that there are still subscribers to these ideas, and always will be.



Analogies are imperfect things that are only meant to demonstrate an idea, not be an absolute proof of the idea.
My point is that it would be a foolish ant that did laugh, even though it "had a choice". We should want to be sensible and reasonable, or as G.K. Chesterton put it, "To have a right to do something does not mean that one is right in doing it."

But would you agree that it was a rather feeble creator who stamped on the ant because it was laughing (or church which took a museum to court because it thumbed its nose at religion)? Foolishness is many things, but rarely deserving of harsh punishment.


This is where you should really get to know what it is that you are objecting to. Orthodoxy is not evangelical Protestantism. It appears that you are operating on assumptions from American televangelists. Being able to distinguish between the differences - most especially history and doctrine - within what are known as Christian denominations, and being able to distinguish superstition from belief rationally held are a result of mental clarity and genuine inquiry.

Does Orthodoxy believe in heaven and hell? Is a key part of getting to the right side of pearly gates believing in and worshipping God? If I don't believe and worship am I, according to the beliefs of the Orthodox church, heading for an interesting eternity on the end of a pitchfork (metaphorically speaking)? A fundamental tenet of every Christian church I've encountered is that you have to believe and worship. The implication is that if one doesn't, bad things ensue. Philosophically, it's a bit like the guy who offers to 'protect' your car from vandals if you park it on his street, isn't it? It's also not saying a lot for the esteem of the guy standing over our giggling ant, is it?




I'm not actually advocating criminal prosecution for people who hate something without understanding it. I advocate cutting off the publicity for it. I'd muzzle the media, and let them draw or scribble whatever they want. If it's not newsworthy, stop pretending that it is.

But the exhibition was not, in itself, newsworthy. The story was the court case, not the show. And the court case was initiated by people who believe that this type of thing shouldn't get publicity. Do you see the irony in this? Rightly or wrongly, nobody gives a monkey's about contemporary art until there's a complaint about it (from church, state, society in general). Shock tactics only work when people look for things to shock them, then complain about being shocked by what they looked for.


In connection with that, one of my biggest objections to media coverage is how they take a very small number of messed-up people who call themselves Orthodox, and paint them as representing the Orthodox Church (in order to create news). Yes, there can be messed-up Christians, even Christian leaders - witness the case of former bishop Diomede a couple of years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Diomid_of_Anadyr_and_Chukotka


'a small number of people who call themselves Orthodox' is not exactly the same as an ordained bishop, though. I assume to become a bishop, Diomede had to win the confidence of a significant chunk of the church's hierarchy at various levels during his career. That's not the same as a lone voice in a cave in Penza, is it? (and no, I don't think that particular sect did claim to be Orthodox, but I hope you see the difference between an individual charlatan and a man appointed and promoted by the church).


And what argument are we speaking of? Are you suggesting that these "artists" are offering rational argument?

No less rational than "I don't like this, it must be illegal", which was pretty much the case against them. Taken to a logical conclusion, since nothing is universally liked, everything becomes illegal. :)


The charge of palpable nonsense (why "palpable"?) is unfair. It is true that we can isolate ourselves and expose ourselves to no news whatsoever - and I do recommend this. However, it takes a special effort, as I said, especially when one is in a lobby, or riding a bus, or whatever, and winds up being a captive audience of a TV or radio blaring such "news" , it really IS unavoidable.

But as I mentioned above, this case only reached the media because of the decision of group of the outraged launching a legal action. If those offended had simply turned the other cheek, shrugged and got on with their lives, the news story and this discussion would never have happened. That's why I'd suggest your complaint about media coverage is unreasonable (in this instance); without the complaint, there's no coverage. Ignoring it actually would have made it go away.


In any event, if I turn on the TV news, or go online, or pick up a newspaper (not that I do) hoping to hear some real news and I get this media-created non-news, then it is a fact, not nonsense, that I have this blaring among the headlines.

So you're going to debate the state of the media from a position of deliberate non-consumption of the media? There could be a flaw in that :)

I'm not going to pretend that the media is perfect, and it's all too true that we get the media we deserve (perhaps the price of apathy is reflected in the anodyne, state-sponsored TV served up here?).



Thanks! I'll say that courtesy is like a drink from a mountain spring! :)

Well, my mum always told me to be polite :) And there's not much point in turning a debate into a slanging match.

Willy
16-07-2010, 18:26
Have you gone Indian Willy? You can't hang that rap on me - "Russian basher." In about a 4 to 1 ratio, most of my criticisms are directed at my own country, not Russia. I just tell it like it is. There's a standard in most societies by which right and wrong are decided. In ancient Israel, it was the high priests in the first and second temples; in the US, it's a piece of paper, the Constitution and in Russia - it's each and every Babushka. For the most part, they're a pretty good barometer of what is right and wrong; but their views of life are pretty narrow. For example: gays are not manly, anything unmanly is un-Russian QED we don't like gays or even acknowledge there are any in Russia. You get the idea. In my experience, I have a higher view of Russia than most Russians; but, of course, it's never a problem if you're criticising your own. In the US, we just use the Yiddish word and refer to them as Yentas. But in Russia, none of the oligarchs, not Lushkov, not Putin will take on the views of the Babushki. It would be like Ceasar taking on the high priests - ain't gonna happen.



I didn't even read your post Jack, I thought you would understand I was joking with the stupid video I put up. I know your the last guy that would bash Russia, to many hot women here for you to do that.

rusmeister
24-07-2010, 15:05
But would you agree that it was a rather feeble creator who stamped on the ant because it was laughing (or church which took a museum to court because it thumbed its nose at religion)? Foolishness is many things, but rarely deserving of harsh punishment.

Foolishness is often quite deserving of harsh punishment. A person who plays with electricity and water may get capital punishment - with the important point that it would not be through anyone's vindictiveness but through the natural laws of physics. And that's the beginning of understanding the Eastern Christian view of God (as opposed to the Western Catholic/Protestant view of crime and punishment, Orthodoxy sees it as illness and healing). But here it might suffice to say that the point is not the wisdom or mercy of the Creator in refraining from stamping out the ant, but the foolishness of the ant for laughing in the first place.


Does Orthodoxy believe in heaven and hell? Is a key part of getting to the right side of pearly gates believing in and worshipping God? If I don't believe and worship am I, according to the beliefs of the Orthodox church, heading for an interesting eternity on the end of a pitchfork (metaphorically speaking)? A fundamental tenet of every Christian church I've encountered is that you have to believe and worship. The implication is that if one doesn't, bad things ensue. Philosophically, it's a bit like the guy who offers to 'protect' your car from vandals if you park it on his street, isn't it? It's also not saying a lot for the esteem of the guy standing over our giggling ant, is it?

Again, once you understand the huge difference between eastern Orthodoxy and western Catholicism/Protestantism, you'll see that we do not teach the ideas of heaven and hell most commonly propagated in the west. I was raised as a fundamental Baptist (and spent 20 years after that as a lazy agnostic), and the difference is enormous.

To try to answer your question, I'll say in brief that salvation (eternal life) is not something that we can do for ourselves. Sure, you can refuse the source of eternal life, but would you be sane in doing so? Once you accept the easily demonstrable premise that we are all sinners (that is, we all sin - understood not as "breaking laws" but as "injuring ourselves or others" (whether we are aware of the injury or not), and that we all die and death is permanent, you can begin to consider the question of meaning, and the the religious and non-religious responses. If you haven't considered any of that - if you haven't thought hard on the meaning of your life and what it will mean to whom when you're dead (imagining one's death as already having happened is difficult for many) - then you're not going to be ready to consider the Christian claims, not even the Orthodox claims. It will make no sense to "believe and worship" for no apparent reason.


But the exhibition was not, in itself, newsworthy. The story was the court case, not the show. And the court case was initiated by people who believe that this type of thing shouldn't get publicity. Do you see the irony in this? Rightly or wrongly, nobody gives a monkey's about contemporary art until there's a complaint about it (from church, state, society in general). Shock tactics only work when people look for things to shock them, then complain about being shocked by what they looked for.

I agree. You’ll notice that in the news they always cite “ultra-Orthodox nationalists” and almost never ask the leadership of the Orthodox Church for comment. It is much easier to ask some person who is nominally Orthodox but doesn’t actually do what serious Orthodox Christians will do – consult with their spiritual father/advisor on whether and how they should react to such things – then to trouble to find out what the Church tells people to do. This way you can get some left-field weirdoes that make good copy. What the Church actually tells people to do doesn’t make for an exciting story.
Also, I believe that the media are by and large, owned and controlled by people who are enemies of both the Faith and faith in general. I would make large holdings illegal. No entity of any kind holding more than one channel, one newspaper and one magazine, period. THAT would do much for a free press.
I also recommend reading this short 40 (or so)-pg work by Hilaire Belloc – he sucked at predicting the future, but his layout of history is the best in the world:
http://www.onread.com/reader/11237 for comfy online reading
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18018/18018-h/18018-h.htm (for copying from a single html page)
You may never want to pick up a newspaper again…
(The convincing thing is when he talks about what we do know. If he was talking conspiracy theories, we’d have a sense he was making it up. But when most of what he refers to is stuff we’ve been exposed to before and accept as true, it’s pretty convincing.)



'a small number of people who call themselves Orthodox' is not exactly the same as an ordained bishop, though. I assume to become a bishop, Diomede had to win the confidence of a significant chunk of the church's hierarchy at various levels during his career. That's not the same as a lone voice in a cave in Penza, is it? (and no, I don't think that particular sect did claim to be Orthodox, but I hope you see the difference between an individual charlatan and a man appointed and promoted by the church).

It actually is the same. Sure, he got a fair ways along – in one of the most isolated and far-off dioceses that there is. And as long as he did not challenge Church teaching and authority there was no conflict – but when he challenged the Church leadership, and set himself above them, it was anti-Christian and anti-episcopal, much like a policeman sworn to protect and defend caught in a violent criminal act.


No less rational than "I don't like this, it must be illegal", which was pretty much the case against them. Taken to a logical conclusion, since nothing is universally liked, everything becomes illegal. :)

Actually, their argument is “This takes something that ought to be held as holy and spits on it – we ought to prevent this because it IS holy.” (Not as “in our opinion it is holy”, but as “as a matter of fact it is holy”)

This comes down to the question of what believers should do. The shortest way of putting it is that in a society where faith predominates, or at least where believers have political power, they should (like everyone else) attempt to use that political power to support what they believe to be good and true. In a society where they do not – where they are, in effect, persecuted, or prevented from enacting what they see to be good and true, then they must go underground.


But as I mentioned above, this case only reached the media because of the decision of group of the outraged launching a legal action. If those offended had simply turned the other cheek, shrugged and got on with their lives, the news story and this discussion would never have happened. That's why I'd suggest your complaint about media coverage is unreasonable (in this instance); without the complaint, there's no coverage. Ignoring it actually would have made it go away.

I almost think so too – except I don’t. When there is no protest, I STILL see this stuff advertised – in the Moscow or New York Times “Style” or “Fashion” sections, or whatever – because anything that busts on Christianity is fair game for the ultimate owners of the media – it just appears in a different section of the paper with a different accent on what is “newsworthy”.


So you're going to debate the state of the media from a position of deliberate non-consumption of the media? There could be a flaw in that :)

I'm not going to pretend that the media is perfect, and it's all too true that we get the media we deserve (perhaps the price of apathy is reflected in the anodyne, state-sponsored TV served up here?).

Only I don’t think we “get the media we deserve”. I think we get the media that is foisted on us, just like we get the schooling that is foisted on us, and they happen to be solidly opposed to the beliefs held in Europe and America as recently as 100-150 years ago. Since we are indoctrinated, er, raised bathed in those twin towers as children, we have no chance of developing countering thought and certainly do not “deserve” it.



Well, my mum always told me to be polite :) And there's not much point in turning a debate into a slanging match.


On this we have 100% agreement! 

shurale
12-08-2010, 13:35
Are Le déjeuner sur l'herbe and Olympia by Manet bad?
How about Venus of Urbino by Titian?
La Maya desnuda by Goya?
Nascita di Venere by Botticelli?