how did you find out about this protest?

I live in London and want to go ... is there a website I can enter to be included in email info.

Interesting to read. I don't know why but I do find his colours very engaging and the painting is probably more alluring because of its vibrancy ... interesting theory about a storm. You may have a point, I just find the sky a bit perplexing. all those greens ...

thank you for commenting :)

So you think it was a bit random?

Yeah, I understand. It's probably just your anger speakin in that moment.

But it's that compassion that separates us from the maniacs. It's what separates Israel from Hamas. It's why Israel will give 100 prisoners in exchange for a single Israeli soldier. While Hamas glorify the martyrdom.

I see what you mean.

I'm in half minds though. I can see your point, but I honestly think people are looking for anything to get offended by to disparage Israel. It's always going to be something. I think most of it is in bad faith too & I feel Israel shouldn't be too concerned about it.

But I see your point, and I don't think your wrong.

Perhaps I'm not suited for the diplomatic service !! 😅

Can I ask you a question. Did you really have no compassion for people getting killed in the Gaza side? I find it hard to believe that you needed your bf to tell you that seeing people suffering should bring a sense of compassion.

Those Gaza citizens are the victims of Hamas. Although a significant majority support Hamas in polls, a serious minority say "no". And that shouldn't be forgotten.

Hamas is a true fascist force and a threat to all civilised societies.

Do you have an example. Are you referring to the slat with Lord Cameron? Because I think I disagree with you, with all due respect.

Tact in time of peace ... Fine. But during a war, I think It behooves Israel to speak its mind. Otherwise, the country tiptoeing around in case some diplomat is upset. In Lord Cameron's case, I'm glad it was said.

I don't have criticisms of the Israeli side , or if any, they are trivial in comparison.

Most of the pro-israeli protests have been peaceful, respectful and dignified and the complete opposite of the conspicuous hate-filled protests on the streets of London.

Edit: I thought those points were your bf talking to you. Oops.

I love this subreddit.

Just the right tone.

What does she mean? I don't get it buddy Sorry for v. Late question. :)

You keep calling it a work of art. I don't know if you fully understand how many rich assholes had a portrait made of them for money. A handful of those are worth preserving.

You keep replying to me but never responding to my arguments.

Whether or not it counts as art is not your call to make - irrespective of any inherent artistic value. That's the point I keep making.

And honestly, you only confirm your Balfour-like arrogance the more you post. I don't know what you mean by "putting their bad opinions on display". The measure of worthy art is, presumably, the measure of what your solipsism deigns to regard as a "good" subject for us all.

You should look up the Bonfire of Vanities. So much early renaissance art was burnt by people with your kind of intolerant and absolutist attitude. Back then, art was condemned as too secular, that didn't sufficiently exalt God etc. That was regarded as - like you said - "bad opinions". In so doing, they robbed us & posterity of a great collection of art that we will never know or see.

I read Lolita by Nabokov years ago. That too was banned by ultra-conservatives in his day as being off "bad opinion". Turns out, it's probably one of the most incredible and skillful literary works I've read.

I can't say I care much for this portrait. But I hate the Balfour-arrogance and conceit of deciding for humanity and posterity what qualifies as art and what you think should be cut and destroyed.

I'm going to bid you farewell. Because the more you post, the more I think you're being disingenuous or just don't get a word I'm saying.

Yes, I did. I also feel you're being disingenuous.

I'm not being disingenuous at all.

In short, as I see it, as a matter of principle, if you accept a premise which involves "art as a valid target of political protest" then it's quite arbitrary as to what counts as (1) art and then (2) political protest. Then, who is to say whether Van Gogh isn't a legit target? Your opinion to the contrary (I assume) probably doesn't amount to much to someone who feels so strongly that any Van Gogh is warranted for destruction merely to raise awareness of X.

Anyway, I see this thread is getting a bit old now & I'm a bit late noticing it. And, I assume you probably tired of this discussion. If so, I'll bid you farwell.

Yup.

But you said you're an artist and a lover of art?

I do if I'm the guy cutting it up more than if I'm the redditor crying and shitting their pants over it. It's an uninteresting portrait of a terrible man, get over yourself.

I asked you what right you had to tear works of art, and you told me because "I'm the guy cutting it up" ... Then, you say Lord Balfour was a terrible guy; and yet confirm that you've got a similar strange arrogant mentality.

The British empire went around tearing up places. I see not much has really changed !

This is not art, it's a rich guy taking a selfie via the only extremely expensive means available to him. There's no artistic merit to it.

You've not addressed my comment.

It's not your decision. You have no right to decide for others what is and what is not art - based entirely on your own prejudices informed by a good dose of presentism (aka ignorance of history).

There's also the fact that any guy's portrait does not necessarily cement itself as art worth preserving, some people and their influence should be forgotten and are worth disrespecting.

We can decide for yourself what you may disrespect -- but you have no right to rob future progeny of art.

History is full thugs who started burning objects and art that didn't fit into their worldview. So many statutes of Akhenaten were destroyed by future generations. There would have been people like you - at their time - urging them to destroy works of art. And, in so doing, rob us and all of humanity of our common property.

It’s not your place to say your art is more important than my art and therefore my art gets destroyed

I think this user genuinely thinks he/she is the ultimate arbiter of what counts as "art". Terrifying mentality.

As an artist and a lover of art, I also recognise the value of political protest. I also see art as a valid target of political protest, because I understand and appreciate its power.

So, are people entitled - according to your logic - to go to their nearest art gallery and museum and destroy whatever they fancy as a form of political protest?

Why can't I go to a Van Gogh and rip it in half? And, let's say, I do that in protest over the many more millions of modern day slaves today - a much higher figure than during the transatlantic slave trade.

Presumably you would appreciate the power of a Van Gogh and that power would help alleviate the modern rise of human slavery.

She's frustrated with her own powerlessness in this situation. We're all complicit in the Palestinian genocide because our government keeps sending our tax money to the people currently trying to eradicate Palestinians in Gaza.

Should everyone who feels - justifiably or unjustifiably - "frustrated" go to their local art gallery or museum and destroy something?

What is your geographical definition of Palestine?

Lol. no answer to your question!

We all know why.

I like option 2.

I also think it might be helpful for mods to consider removing thumbs up and thumbs down buttons. I think they discourage free discussion and incentivise herd mentality and stuff like that which is replete throughtout the reddit forum.

Because they wanted rid of him anyway and pounced on the opportunity. That's it, it's just a bullshit pretext like "The Pincher Affair" was (lol). Frankly he probably wanted out too, the next election is going to be a bloodbath.

Hmm. I wondered if this is the reason ... just a pre-text.

It would be quite sad because it means that words and ideas don't mean much other than convenient political weapons.

He's clearly a deeply contentious person who appears extremely bigoted at worst & simply cold at best. His latest comments are completely in line with that.

In short Mr Anderson has had many opportunities in his career to show compassion or sympathy but at every opportunity he chooses to instead attack whomever is suffering.

With respect, you must appreciate that it is possible to indict the man on the grounds that you have cited (and I may be inclined to agree with some of them - not politics in sport); but that does not perforce establish his anti-Muslim or islamophobic nature with respect to his comments.

If the charge of being islamophobic is adulterated to being merely question of that sort of person we don't like; then it robs the term of its inherent ugliness, thoughtlessness and sheer force.

Don't you think? :)