"A big TV set is art? Come on get real. Henry Moore will be turning over in his grave."
And why not? I think it sits well in the space, and if you look at the narratives: either assumed, metaphorical, or literal there is certainly some compelling depth to explore intellectually (especially when you consider its companion piece).
Henry Moore certainly created many great sculptures, but why should his style, and the trends of that era which influenced his style, be the sole cultural reference when considering contemporary work?
I think it is more than ok for the artist's mother to "like" this article....
TruthB - They do have to pay for the shirts, plus workers who are busting their butts to make it happen. If they didn't, they'd certainly go bankrupt with a poorly thought out plan. Perhaps you should inquire as to what their expenses are before you assume "$1" is what is being donated, as well as realize that the Pikes Peak Community Foundation, one of the most respected organizations in the Pikes Peak Region, is handling their funds.
I do not understand - Wildfire Tees? No big deal 100% of profits (aka: $1 a shirt). After all the pipers are paid for it is a natural disaster commemorative T Shirt.
The "featured art" would be a lot cooler if it weren't shamelessly cribbed from LittleBigPlanet.
From the jurors mouth, "I value those pieces that I found relevant, that they somehow spoke to our traditions and culture in Colorado and Colorado Springs". Somebody please explain to me how this TV monstrosity is relevant to our traditions or culture and why Watts New, which in additional to being visually stunning clearly embodies a theme of sustainability, innovation, and environmental consciousness did not even place. It's absurd and the jurors should explain just what kind of culture they are trying to promote in this art-starved city.
A big TV set is art? Come on get real. Henry Moore will be turning over in his grave.
That's a rather ambiguously bitter comment. Would you be willing to elaborate on why you feel the way that you do?
Art on the Streets doesn't know its art from its eyesore.
Nicely done, Langdon! I love that you stick to the old school way of drawing - with pen & paper. Pure talent.
Success couldn't happen to a nicer man and I hope it's over the top viral successful for him.
Michael, see the capsule on the right side under the images.
you forgot the where and when
there isn't any info on their website about this show. Is it open Mall hours? I've gone before and it's been closed... Do you know?
No, sonnet, you are not using difficult language. And I may very well agree with your message. It is your method that offends. The problem with activists (you may or may not consider yourself in that category) is: they screech and preach instead of teach; they yell and tell instead of sell; they distort instead of report. Your cause loses its credibility out of the gate when using the aforementioned, bought and paid for, Sandra Fluke. Subterfuge? You bet. Her whole 'shtick' is a sham and a scam. Here is your problem in arguing. I'm simply passing time. You, presumably, are attempting to win hearts and minds. Or are you simply preaching to the choir?
I'm not using language that's difficult to understand. You just don't happen to agree. I wish, smartestman, that you would adopt the habit of addressing the argument presented instead of the character and intention of your opponent.
You agree that rape is unacceptable - but how does the fact that so many people who perpetrate that act aren't punished fit in with that worldview?
sonnet: unlike you, I have no compunction using clear, accurate and (hopefully) concise language. So, let me tell you where I stand. I think all rapists and child-molesters should be castrated (a suitable substitute for women molesters). No excuse, no appeal, no second chance. I have an opinion; I just don't have the need to stand on a soap box in Arcadia Park and demand people listen to it.
Seems to me, as hung up as you seem to be on "words" and "language", you would be more careful in your selection of same.
Unfortunately my language isn't deceptive or too strong. We do, in fact, have a cultural contempt for female sexuality - which is why there are so many words like 'slut' intended to demean sexual women and virtually no corresponding terms for men.
sonnet: you stated "I hardly think I'm the one being oversensitive." and yet you make silly statements like "... out cultural contempt for women's sexuality."
Now, what should we believe?
There is such inaccuracy and deceptive language in your response to gurv that you must realize this does your cause more harm than good.
You're kind of missing the point. No one's protesting criminality. If it were as easy as picketing to keep your house from being robbed, wouldn't we all do that? This is about a much larger problem, about our cultural contempt for women's sexuality. There's no other crime in which the level of temptation presented by the target mitigates the crime - but did you know that by some statistics, 97% of rapists never spend a day behind bars? Why is it that so many rapes aren't reported? Because we prosecute muggers, but we still believe that women have ASKED FOR IT if they look or act a certain way.
Of course women should, first and foremost, take responsibility for our safety - but society still teaches women not to GET raped rather than teaching men not to rape.
This isn't about the right to wander around the streets unprotected at night. It's about the language we use to describe women's sexual behavior and the deeper cultural meaning behind that language.
All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation