It seems that a Gauguin painting exhibited at the National Gallery of Art of in Washington, D.C. was attacked Friday. Good News first: the painting was unharmed (which is good, as it's valued at $80 million!) due to a Plexiglas shield. Only the frame and wall fixture was broken, less than $200 bucks in damage.
The woman who did it, who already has a history of past changes, seemed to be deranged, claiming that she was a member of "the American CIA" (as opposed to that Mongolian CIA you hear so much about), that she has a radio in her head, and that she was going to kill the investigator that questioned her later. So, I guess that's Good News number 2: isolated crazy attack, not motivated sane individual.
However, it's the rest of her comments that lead me to the Bad News. Why did she do it? Quote: "I feel that Gauguin is evil. He has nudity and is bad for the children. He has two women in the painting and it’s very homosexual. I was trying to remove it. I think it should be burned." Now, we may have established that this person is, say, a little off the side of sane, but this is the kind of sentiment shared by a huge load of people, people who are making policy and dictating what you can and cannot see, do, and experience. True, the painting (Two Tahitian Women, feel free to Google it, the breasts make it NSFW, but the fact that it's fine art might get you off the hook as long as you don't start drooling) depicts two women; one is bare-breasted, the other has a blue cloth covering one breast. That's it. Two women, standing there, and you can see breasts.
Some people might say that there are two figures there, with no depiction of attraction, action, or implication. Others might see it as a big flashing billboard saying "YOU SHOULD BE GAY. EVERYONE SHOULD BE GAY. GAY IS THE BEST." Which is right? That is a matter of opinion, based on your feeling towards skin/nudity, your own social mores and upbringing, etc. How exactly can you make your opinion, though, if you have been left out of the loop of experience? Also, is your experience any more valid than anyone else's? The answer is that you can't, and it isn't. I know I could get some flack here from a section of people that will say "So, are you saying you should just let the children see/do whatever they want? Think of the children!" I am. It is a parent's job to teach a child, give them direction, but you can help them be intelligent and make informed decisions based on rational thinking, or you can raise them to be drones who either never question or feel they have the right to tell everyone else what to do.
Just keep that in mind, both when you decide on something and when you elect those that make decisions for you. Grow the fuck up.
The woman who did it, who already has a history of past changes, seemed to be deranged, claiming that she was a member of "the American CIA" (as opposed to that Mongolian CIA you hear so much about), that she has a radio in her head, and that she was going to kill the investigator that questioned her later. So, I guess that's Good News number 2: isolated crazy attack, not motivated sane individual.
However, it's the rest of her comments that lead me to the Bad News. Why did she do it? Quote: "I feel that Gauguin is evil. He has nudity and is bad for the children. He has two women in the painting and it’s very homosexual. I was trying to remove it. I think it should be burned." Now, we may have established that this person is, say, a little off the side of sane, but this is the kind of sentiment shared by a huge load of people, people who are making policy and dictating what you can and cannot see, do, and experience. True, the painting (Two Tahitian Women, feel free to Google it, the breasts make it NSFW, but the fact that it's fine art might get you off the hook as long as you don't start drooling) depicts two women; one is bare-breasted, the other has a blue cloth covering one breast. That's it. Two women, standing there, and you can see breasts.
Some people might say that there are two figures there, with no depiction of attraction, action, or implication. Others might see it as a big flashing billboard saying "YOU SHOULD BE GAY. EVERYONE SHOULD BE GAY. GAY IS THE BEST." Which is right? That is a matter of opinion, based on your feeling towards skin/nudity, your own social mores and upbringing, etc. How exactly can you make your opinion, though, if you have been left out of the loop of experience? Also, is your experience any more valid than anyone else's? The answer is that you can't, and it isn't. I know I could get some flack here from a section of people that will say "So, are you saying you should just let the children see/do whatever they want? Think of the children!" I am. It is a parent's job to teach a child, give them direction, but you can help them be intelligent and make informed decisions based on rational thinking, or you can raise them to be drones who either never question or feel they have the right to tell everyone else what to do.
Just keep that in mind, both when you decide on something and when you elect those that make decisions for you. Grow the fuck up.
9 comments | Leave a comment
