# Art is Pigs Too



## Peony (Jan 11, 2017)

There are the many many paintings hanging on the wall of the long tunnel that runs between the US Capital building and the House offices.  One of them has gotten quite a bit of attention lately.  Indeed, the painting has been taken off the wall and hung back on the wall at least three times since yesterday.









So annoyed about it, “ Louisiana Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, threatened the Republicans who have been taking the painting down: “We may just have to kick somebody’s ass and stop them.”[…]

Never mind that kicking ass over a painting depicting violence is sadly ironic.  Let’s talk about art and free speech and this painting.  The painting, which won first prize in a high school art contest, contains many images:  a dove, a crow, a Beauty Shop, a peace sign, the St Louis arch, to name a few.  There is a lot of symbolism to consider in this painting.

The images that stand out to the people complaining about the painting are the police officers with pig heads.  Not subtle.  No wonder it grabs the eye.  What also grabs the eye in this painting is a figure, a black man holding scales and wearing a graduation cap, suggestive of Mike Brown, hanging like Christ on a cross.

The painting has apparently been hanging on the tunnel wall for some six months.  Why no one has noticed it and complained till now is unclear.  What is clear is that we need to talk about art and free speech- again.  People are offended because depicting police officers with pig heads is disrespectful to police officers.  Is that a good enough reason to take the painting down?  Surely there are other paintings on that wall full of paintings that disrespect somebody or something else too.  Suppose there was a picture depicting cops with halos and Mike Brown with devil horns, that would be pretty offensive, wouldn’t it?  Would there be demands to take that one down?  Or would free speech in art prevail?

Even if it infuriates some people it is still free speech.  Remember Piss Christ?  That crucifix immersed in a glass of urine offered as art offended and outraged many Christians.  Did discussions that flowed from Piss Christ do anything to enhance the relationship between Christians and those that think Christ belongs in urine?

Can any good come from talking about Ferguson again?  Will cops and blacks come to understand each other better through the images in this teenager’s painting?  Maybe.  And maybe Morgan Freeman was right when he said, we can stop racism if we stop talking about it and deal with each other as fellow human beings.


Let the kid’s painting hang there.






http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cops-as-pigs-painting-stolen-returned-again/article/2611376


How do we stop racism? Actor Morgan Freeman says: "Stop talking about it"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ





Painting in Capitol depicting police as pigs becomes a political football, with California politicians among the players


----------



## OldLady (Jan 11, 2017)

When I googled it this morning, I noticed a formal complaint lodged by the police about it at the end of December.  Art is not always pleasant and that is not always what it is for.  I agree they should leave it up, once they decided it was appropriate for display to begin with.  The Repubs are just using it for a political flag.  The kid's painting deserves better than that.  I don't think the Congressman whose district it came from is on high ground, however, since he was speechifying about getting rid of the Confederate statues not long ago.  Symbols are symbols.  Are only the ones you agree with acceptable?


----------



## PredFan (Jan 11, 2017)

I hope they keep it up there. It is a constant reminder of who the left really are.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 11, 2017)

Sure it's art. But it's shitty, disrespectful art and doesn't belong in a public building. Libtards don't own public property.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 11, 2017)

Peony said:


> There are the many many paintings hanging on the wall of the long tunnel that runs between the US Capital building and the House offices.  One of them has gotten quite a bit of attention lately.  Indeed, the painting has been taken off the wall and hung back on the wall at least three times since yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Hang the kids painting of Mohammed on the wall?

Oh, that's so divisive!


----------



## JoeMoma (Jan 11, 2017)

Some "art" is not appropriate for the Capitol building.  I wouldn't want a painting of Anthony weiner's junk hanging there either even though some may consider that to be art.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jan 11, 2017)




----------



## petro (Jan 11, 2017)

Never mind that the painting is provocative with purpose. It just is simply ugly. The mention of Mohammed is a prime example. A picture even if it was flattering to Mohammed would be considered too inflammatory and offensive  to display. Funny and tragic that with the left free speech only applies when you are of a so called protected class.


----------



## Compost (Jan 11, 2017)

I hate this painting, but not as much as I believe in free speech.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 11, 2017)

Compost said:


> I hate this painting, but not as much as I believe in free speech.


I'm sure it wasn't free and the right to criticize government doesn't give you the right to take money from the citizens and place offensive materials in their house.


----------



## Compost (Jan 11, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Compost said:
> 
> 
> > I hate this painting, but not as much as I believe in free speech.
> ...


Not sure what you mean about taking money from the citizens.  The painting is among a bunch of paintings in that hallway.  Free speech includes speech or art that is offensive.  Like I said.  I hate this painting.  Pig heads on cops is damned offensive.  That's not a good enough reason to remove it.  Free speech isn't just for stuff I like or you like, Iceweasel.


----------



## 12icer (Jan 11, 2017)

Then A painting of a REBEL FLAG is protected, as is the right to hang the flag in the hallway Also we can depict the KKK burning blacks on a cross We can depict OSHITASS and THE SHITBITCH on the phone while the ambassador and three others are murdered in BENGHAZI and it will be free speech too, So lets get at the paintings We have a lot of work to do and a lot of FREE SPEECH to protect, Lets all say N oh I forgot that gets cut in the forum because OF something, not free speech though. I guess it really only applies if it doesn't offend a LIBERAL It is okay to offend Christians, conservatives decent people Policemen, the military and anyone not a liberal project. You can't decide what is free speech if it is, Otherwise it is not, if anything is everything IS. You can't have BOTH.


----------



## Compost (Jan 12, 2017)

12icer said:


> Then A painting of a REBEL FLAG is protected, as is the right to hang the flag in the hallway Also we can depict the KKK burning blacks on a cross We can depict OSHITASS and THE SHITBITCH on the phone while the ambassador and three others are murdered in BENGHAZI and it will be free speech too, So lets get at the paintings We have a lot of work to do and a lot of FREE SPEECH to protect, Lets all say N oh I forgot that gets cut in the forum because OF something, not free speech though. I guess it really only applies if it doesn't offend a LIBERAL It is okay to offend Christians, conservatives decent people Policemen, the military and anyone not a liberal project. You can't decide what is free speech if it is, Otherwise it is not, if anything is everything IS. You can't have BOTH.


True.  There is a double standard about free speech that is difficult to ignore.  Somebody is offended by a confederate flag.  It is removed.  That's wrong. Free speech is for everybody.   I don't believe the answer is to remove more stuff that somebody is offended by.  That's why I think this pig head painting should stay up.  I'm not willing to engage in tit for tat over something as important as a First Amendment right.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 12, 2017)

JoeMoma said:


> Some "art" is not appropriate for the Capitol building.  I wouldn't want a painting of Anthony weiner's junk hanging there either even though some may consider that to be art.


I agree.  Fox showed guidelines for the contest that said no paintings would be accepted that contained current controversial political subjects, so to me it seems clear it should not have been hung to begin with.  But maybe the guidelines have changed?  Who knows.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 12, 2017)

We have the right to free speech, but was this the appropriate place for a protest picture?  It was thoughtful and took a lot of work; I give kudos to the high school artist, but but but but ..... I can't put my finger on it, but it seems out of place in the place where ALL people are represented.  Cops are people.


----------



## Compost (Jan 12, 2017)

OldLady said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Some "art" is not appropriate for the Capitol building.  I wouldn't want a painting of Anthony weiner's junk hanging there either even though some may consider that to be art.
> ...


The guidelines were missing from the links I read (unless I missed it).  If the pig painting didn't fall into the guidelines you have to wonder why it was hung.  Why have guidelines at all if they are ignored.  It is curious that those guys taking the painting down and the guys putting the painting up again didn't mention those guidelines. (Again, unless I missed it.)


----------



## OldLady (Jan 12, 2017)

Compost said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...


That's why I wonder if the guidelines weren't made clear in the contest rules this year, or were eliminated.  Fox said in passing that they had found guidelines that have been "used in previous competitions" and they've put them on the evening news shows twice.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jan 12, 2017)

Was part of the prize of winning the contest having the picture hung at the capitol building?


----------



## SeaGal (Jan 12, 2017)

Lots of good points being made here.

The focus of 1A is to forbid the government from making laws to suppress freedom of expression (which actually they have in some instances) - but_ not_ to forbid 'public' consequences of exercising free speech. 

A few points re irony are worth repeating, ie - threatening physical harm by officials defending a painting decrying violence by officials...the apparent hypocrisy by the defenders when it comes to removing other symbols of art or history from the public square that_ they_ deem offensive...the censorship regarding (some) religious subjects depicted in painting or other forms of art. 

As for the painting itself?  If it fits within the parameters of the guidelines for being displayed then leave it - but I sure would loudly challenge those who defend it with regards to their reactions to other works of art, or free expression in the public square.


----------



## OldLady (Jan 12, 2017)

JoeMoma said:


> Was part of the prize of winning the contest having the picture hung at the capitol building?


Yes.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jan 12, 2017)

I say leave it up, but publicize the group(s) that hate cops that support the message of the painting.


----------



## Compost (Jan 14, 2017)

The painting is coming down because it violated the rules.  AP News - GOP lawmaker says Capitol pig painting coming down


----------



## OldLady (Jan 14, 2017)

Eric Bolling, a Fox news commentator, apparently brought this to the media's attention on Dec. 30.  A couple nights ago on The Five, he offered to buy the painting from the kid if it comes down.
Doubt he'll sell, but that was damned White of Bolling.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 14, 2017)

The picture does do a good job of insulting pigs, by associating them with cops...


----------



## Alex. (Jan 14, 2017)

The painting celebrates free speech and expression. These freedoms are what the US id built upon.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jan 14, 2017)

I want to have it be required that my painting of twenty year olds sculpting play doh and crayoning coloring books for their graduate studies be posted in the entrance of every college union hall.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## MaryL (Jan 14, 2017)

Peony said:


> There are the many many paintings hanging on the wall of the long tunnel that runs between the US Capital building and the House offices.  One of them has gotten quite a bit of attention lately.  Indeed, the painting has been taken off the wall and hung back on the wall at least three times since yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am an artist, I have drawing of a blind deaf and dumb monkey with his hands up, with a knife in his back I call it  "Black on black crime, or political correctness". Nobody wants to see it.


----------



## Spare_change (Jan 14, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> The picture does do a good job of insulting pigs, by associating them with cops...



Why am I not surprised by such a vindictive, insulting, and childish comment from you?


----------



## SeaGal (Jan 15, 2017)

Alex. said:


> The painting celebrates free speech and expression. These freedoms are what the US id built upon.



I can agree with that.  As are 100+ year old statues displayed in public places throughout the country that are busily being removed...in many cases by the same folks vigorously to-the-point-of-threatening-violence insisting that the painting must stay.  So let the painting stay - as well as the statues.  Problem solved.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 15, 2017)

the painting violates the rules 

it is officially coming down 

whether the *Fuck the Police (D) democrats *

like it or not


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 15, 2017)

SeaGal said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> > The painting celebrates free speech and expression. These freedoms are what the US id built upon.
> ...




--LOL

actually the supporters of keeping it hanging on the wall 

attempted to use the cops to force it back on the wall 

--LOL


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 15, 2017)

SeaGal said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> > The painting celebrates free speech and expression. These freedoms are what the US id built upon.
> ...


Free speech isn't a ticket to having your work displayed on public property. It is NOT a free speech issue. The left uses the term loosely to define and protect anything they want. Publicly owned includes people that don't want to see your stupid shit and they have rights too.


----------



## 12icer (Jan 15, 2017)

I don't mind the painting as much as I mind the problem that produced it. The indoctrination of another generation of young blacks to get them killed for assaulting police officers, and instilling in them an idea they have the right to assault, attack, kill, or destroy or take anything they wish to.


----------



## Alex. (Jan 15, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> SeaGal said:
> 
> 
> > Alex. said:
> ...


I agree,  it is just a guaranty that your speech will not be censored in public places in this context.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 15, 2017)

Alex. said:


> Correct it is just a guaranty that your speech will not be censored in public places.


It says no such thing. Feedom of speech doesn't guarantee the right to be heard.


----------



## petro (Jan 15, 2017)

Funny how the left cries freedom of speech when that speech offends others. Again, free speech with the left is selective. The media and left failed this issue during the Charlie Hebdo attack in France. Most media outlets wouldn't publish picture of Mohammed and some even suggested that attack was warranted since picture was offensive. The whole art and media world will sidestep any imagery that Islam finds offensive, but everyone else is fair game.


----------



## SeaGal (Jan 15, 2017)

e[/QUOTE iceweasel]It says no such thing. Feedom of speech doesn't guarantee the right to be heard.[/QUOTE]

...or to be seen.  Though it does guarantee the right to be uncensored by the federal government. (mostly) However - in this case, those using the 'freedom of speech' argument to defend an offensive-to-some painting hanging in a public place should be _challenged_ to apply the same argument against the removal of General Robert E. Lee from Lee Circle in New Orleans to changing the name of Old Dixie Highway to President Barack Obama Highway in Riviera Bch.

Because all the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over accusations of 'whiteness' we allow hypocrisy to thrive.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 15, 2017)

Well the standard was non-controversial, which this clearly did not meet. Left or right it should find a private venue.


----------



## Alex. (Jan 15, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> > Correct it is just a guaranty that your speech will not be censored in public places.
> ...


The right say what you need to..the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint....


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 15, 2017)

Alex. said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Alex. said:
> ...


There's no right to cry fire in a crowded theater. Your rights stop where the other guy's begins.


----------



## SeaGal (Jan 15, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Well the standard was non-controversial, which this clearly did not meet. Left or right it should find a private venue.



If the subject matter violated the standard then it should be removed.  My question would be - if the standard was relaxed, what was the justification?

The argument surrounding the 'should it stay or should it go' is useful in highlighting the problem with censorship if the rules are applied unevenly - either emotionally or politically.  The opportunity should be taken to_ confront_ the defenders with demands _they've_ made, or support they've given, to remove items or language that _they_ deem offensive.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 15, 2017)

SeaGal said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Well the standard was non-controversial, which this clearly did not meet. Left or right it should find a private venue.
> ...


The lefties put it up and the righties took it down three times. Libs believe they have the right to offend since they are seeing life from a higher state of being. But in reality, they are just high.


----------



## 12icer (Jan 15, 2017)

Liberals have no problem infringing on others rights, it is just theirs and their pets they want protected. Your rights are not important unless you agree with them. The entire basis of any of their ideals is that ONLY the people they choose have ANY rights and that ANY means to achieve their idea is acceptable mass assault, mass destruction even mass murder and genocide. Just ask a Branch Davidian.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jan 15, 2017)

12icer said:


> Liberals have no problem infringing on others rights, it is just theirs and their pets they want protected. Your rights are not important unless you agree with them. The entire basis of any of their ideals is that ONLY the people they choose have ANY rights and that ANY means to achieve their idea is acceptable mass assault, mass destruction even mass murder and genocide. Just ask a Branch Davidian.




...or the bakers who were given a $135,000 fine and a gag order for not baking a cake.


----------



## Alex. (Jan 15, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


That is bullshit.....the fire in a theater is another issue, not what you cited.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 15, 2017)

Alex. said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Alex. said:
> ...


You said speech will not be censored in public and I gave an example of how it censored in public.


----------



## Alex. (Jan 15, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Keep up with your argument I have sent a warning


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 15, 2017)

Alex. said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Alex. said:
> ...


LOL, how old are you? You are wrong and I proved it.


----------



## Alex. (Jan 15, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


Nope you are just a desperate person who needs to feel like they have a won their argument. I am not here to assuage your fragile ego.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jan 15, 2017)

Alex. said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Alex. said:
> ...


Ego has nothing to do with it. If you were right the painting would still be there.


----------



## Alex. (Jan 15, 2017)

Iceweasel said:


> Alex. said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


You are a total jackass who has cognitive problems. Please ask someone else to play or explain things to you.


----------



## 12icer (Jan 15, 2017)

ALEX posted>>>>> "You are a total jackass who has cognitive problems. Please ask someone else to play or explain things to you."    
 SO How about?
First off YOU are the jackass, because it seems liberals like you have a problem with actual FACTS and secondly the fact is a white person has no freedom of speech otherwise he would not be able to be fired by his employer for using ONE word that is in the dictionary, no matter how he used it that word can l get him or her fired from many jobs. I would not fire a person for using any word, but I would fire someone for causing a problem by saying they were offended by anything said EXCEPT for actual sexual harassment by either sex. That is a prime example Now what?


----------



## Alex. (Jan 15, 2017)

12icer said:


> ALEX posted>>>>> "You are a total jackass who has cognitive problems. Please ask someone else to play or explain things to you."
> SO How about?
> First off YOU are the jackass, because it seems liberals like you have a problem with actual FACTS and secondly the fact is a white person has no freedom of speech otherwise he would not be able to be fired by his employer for using ONE word that is in the dictionary, no matter how he used it that word can l get him or her fired from many jobs. I would not fire a person for using any word, but I would fire someone for causing a problem by saying they were offended by anything said EXCEPT for actual sexual harassment by either sex. That is a prime example Now what?


I am not a liberal...now talk to Iceweasel.


----------



## oldsoul (Jan 16, 2017)

MaryL said:


> Peony said:
> 
> 
> > There are the many many paintings hanging on the wall of the long tunnel that runs between the US Capital building and the House offices.  One of them has gotten quite a bit of attention lately.  Indeed, the painting has been taken off the wall and hung back on the wall at least three times since yesterday.
> ...


Guess I'm "nobody" then. LOL


----------

