Capitol Hill Displays Painting of Cops as Animals

[Route 45]

Painting depicting cops as animals displayed on Capitol Hill | Fox News

Democrat approved, and sure to improve police/community relations in our great nation.
I am betting that Michelle wants it for her new living room.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The manboobs are worse than the warthog head...

 

[Twangbanger]

The manboobs are worse than the warthog head...

The more you look, the more you see. Like Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg, getting ready to run over the cop with the car.

For an old lady who sleeps a lot, she just can't seem to avoid controversy...

 

[Leadeye]

What's with the guy holding up the Mercedes Benz emblem, or is that just another example of a sloppy artist confusing it with a peace symbol.

 

[phylodog]

Enjoy it while it lasts, heathens.

 

[OkieGirl]

The things that are coming out of this nation's highest office are an embarrassment to those who love this country.

"Dogs look up to you, cats look down on you. Give me a pig! He looks you in the eye and treats you as an equal."
Winston Churchill, c 1952, as relayed by Sir Anthony Montague Browne to Richard (cited in Langworth, Churchill: In His Own Words)

 

[Route 45]

Enjoy it while it lasts, heathens.

The pendulum is about to swing the other way, and a lot of snowflakes are going to get hit upside the head with it.

 

[printcraft]

I am betting that Michelle wants it for her new living room.

The manboobs are worse than the warthog head...

Ironic as michelle knows a thing or two about manboobs.

 

[MCgrease08]

What's with the guy holding up the Mercedes Benz emblem, or is that just another example of a sloppy artist confusing it with a peace symbol.

Ha ha.

 

[Twangbanger]

What's with the guy holding up the Mercedes Benz emblem, or is that just another example of a sloppy artist confusing it with a peace symbol.

They even got a Formula One fan in there. I did not notice that! Damn, art never ceases to amaze me.

 

[indiucky]

The manboobs are worse than the warthog head...

Jealous?

 

[NyleRN]

Jealous?

 

[Ddillard]

Immorality and the libbie-left cronies are the true detriment to these united States.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

People do this sort of thing to **** their ideological opponents off and gain attention of their admirers. You can't keep their fawning admirers from fawning but you can stop rising to the bait. It's a crap painting anyway. Ridicule and indifference are the antidote, anger and outrage only feeds them.

 

[Twangbanger]

...Ridicule and indifference are the antidote, anger and outrage only feeds them.

For a high-school artist (did everyone read the article?), I'm pretty sure that what "feeds them" is being awarded winner of an art competition, and being displayed prominently on Capitol Hill. Anger and outrage are just a bonus. I'm not sure the antidote is to sit idly by while public spaces are filled with crap. I think if there is enough anger and outrage, future attempts to display artistic statements which play upon stereotypes like these might be considered more reasonably. (For those "open-minded" folks who enjoy staying up late to bark at passing cars in INGO political threads: how about a painting portraying black subjects as carjackers? Would that be acceptable in the U.S. capitol? No; you'd have the CBC up in arms about it).

GF, if you would placidly envisage the notorious statue of Christ in a jar of urine being put on public display in the Capitol, I might at least say you're consistent. But somehow, from your tag lines, I kinda doubt that (and for purposes of this example, public funding of the artist is irrelevant here; it's the display in a public building that's at issue).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For a high-school artist (did everyone read the article?), I'm pretty sure that what "feeds them" is being awarded winner of an art competition, and being displayed prominently on Capitol Hill. Anger and outrage are just a bonus. I'm not sure the antidote is to sit idly by while public spaces are filled with crap. I think if there is enough anger and outrage, future attempts to display artistic statements which play upon stereotypes like these might be considered more reasonably. (For those "open-minded" folks who enjoy staying up late to bark at passing cars in INGO political threads: how about a painting portraying black subjects as carjackers? Would that be acceptable in the U.S. capitol? No; you'd have the CBC up in arms about it).

GF, if you would placidly envisage the notorious statue of Christ in a jar of urine being put on public display in the Capitol, I might at least say you're consistent. But somehow, from your tag lines, I kinda doubt that (and for purposes of this example, public funding of the artist is irrelevant here; it's the display in a public building that's at issue).

Don't give them what they want. Don't give them the positive feedback they're craving. Don't enter their silly, politically slanted "art" exhibits. They like to be patted on the head by their admirers and love to be criticized by their enemies. I don't pay money to go to their exhibits. I do what I can to avoid giving them ratings on TV. Many of them view themselves as rebels, pushing the envelope of people that hold to "normal" values and beliefs. When they see your buttons successfully pressed, you make their day.

Having said all of that, I don't disagree with your assessment of that piece of "art". I find many such "socially" provocative pieces of "art" distasteful, like it sounds you do. I'm not going to play their game. I'm all for presenting the counter argument (art in this case, if their are any traditional artists anymore) and letting people decide which is better. To me, it is better to win the argument by presenting a better picture (pun intended ) of our side than mire down in the tit-for-tat, partisan crap.

 

[Twangbanger]

Don't give them what they want. Don't give them the positive feedback they're craving. Don't enter their silly, politically slanted "art" exhibits. They like to be patted on the head by their admirers and love to be criticized by their enemies. I don't pay money to go to their exhibits. I do what I can to avoid giving them ratings on TV. Many of them view themselves as rebels, pushing the envelope of people that hold to "normal" values and beliefs. When they see your buttons successfully pressed, you make their day.

Having said all of that, I don't disagree with your assessment of that piece of "art". I find many such "socially" provocative pieces of "art" distasteful, like it sounds you do. I'm not going to play their game. I'm all for presenting the counter argument (art in this case, if their are any traditional artists anymore) and letting people decide which is better. To me, it is better to win the argument by presenting a better picture (pun intended ) of our side than mire down in the tit-for-tat, partisan crap.

It sounds like we're in agreement on the major points. I just don't understand what you mean by getting "mired down in tit-for-tit partisan crap." This is not a "pop culture" war, and we are not talking about clutch-the-pearls conservative reaction to (for example) "gay viewpoints" on a TV sitcom. This is public property, and what is displayed there places the imprimatur of public approval on a viewpoint - in this case a nihilist one employing stereotypes to vilify, not just government employees, but individual members of a profession. How do you suggest we "present a better picture (pun intended)" to counter that? Put a blue sticker on the back of your (privately-owned) car? Have a conservative legislator from Montana sponsor his own art contest, and award the top prize to a painting that depicts people burning down a city block, with an artist portrayal of a "BLM" sign over their heads? Do you even think such a painting could be displayed? The fact that it couldn't, helps illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

I believe that displaying disagreement / criticism / outrage in response to this painting is one component of what you refer to as "presenting the counter argument." I agree that you cannot win the war on pop-culture things like TV shows, etc., by showing outrage, but only by refusing to support them with your dollars / eyeballs / patronage. But I just don't think you're grasping that this is not pop-culture. We're on the other side of a public / private line here. You don't have a choice on whether to support art in the U.S. Capitol. If we turn the other cheek in response to Police being portrayed as Pigs in the U.S. Capitol (a loaded term which should be regarded on the same level as Ni--er in polite conversation), that, to me, is just capitulation.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It sounds like we're in agreement on the major points. I just don't understand what you mean by getting "mired down in tit-for-tit partisan crap." This is not a "pop culture" war, and we are not talking about clutch-the-pearls conservative reaction to (for example) "gay viewpoints" on a TV sitcom. This is public property, and what is displayed there places the imprimatur of public approval on a viewpoint - in this case a nihilist one employing stereotypes to vilify, not just government employees, but individual members of a profession. How do you suggest we "present a better picture (pun intended)" to counter that? Put a blue sticker on the back of your (privately-owned) car? Have a conservative legislator from Montana sponsor his own art contest, and award the top prize to a painting that depicts people burning down a city block, with an artist portrayal of a "BLM" sign over their heads? Do you even think such a painting could be displayed? The fact that it couldn't, helps illustrate the point I'm trying to make.

I believe that displaying disagreement / criticism / outrage in response to this painting is one component of what you refer to as "presenting the counter argument." I agree that you cannot win the war on pop-culture things like TV shows, etc., by showing outrage, but only by refusing to support them with your dollars / eyeballs / patronage. But I just don't think you're grasping that this is not pop-culture. We're on the other side of a public / private line here. You don't have a choice on whether to support art in the U.S. Capitol. If we turn the other cheek in response to Police being portrayed as Pigs in the U.S. Capitol (a loaded term which should be regarded on the same level as Ni--er in polite conversation), that, to me, is just capitulation.

Like it or not, it's (what we typically refer to as) speech. Your opponents get to state their opinions too, even in Congress. They put up something "we" don't like, we have a hissy; "we" put up something "they" don't like, they have a hissy. You certainly have a right to complain. They have a right to complain if I were to put up what I'd consider a really beautiful painting of the manger scene, of Christ's birth. Demanding somebody stop the other guy from doing what we object to gets us no where...even if it is happening on public property. In this case, it's an ugly painting; its premises are faulty and erroneous. Blanket representation of all LEOs as wildebeests (or whatever that's supposed to be) is ignorant...but ugly and erroneous is not particularly sound grounds to demand its removal.

 

[Route 45]

Ooops....posted in wrong place!

 

[Route 45]

Deleted