All genocides are executed with the fig leaf of legality. It is genocide because it results in White people intentionally being made a minority in historically White nations.
If one opposes the anti-White policy of mass immigration and force-assimilation, you could be fired, threatened, beaten up, or imprisoned! That's genocide as defined by section (c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Uh, wasn't the Milk Bar decorated with chairs like that? Except, white.
"'The erotic impulse transcends cerebral barriers and demands a direct emotional response. Confronted with an abstract statement people readily defer to an expert; but confronted with an erotic statement everyone is an expert. It seems to me a democratic idea that art should be accessible to everyone on some level, and eroticism in[sic?] one such level’."
Plagiarism! Or perhaps an attempt to make art more democratic aka "inclusive"? Eh, no, it's 2014, so even arty farty bullshit has gotta be all about the racism.
As much aI like to see members of the left host on their own petard, it bears repeating: Not every depiction of racism our even racial subservience is a favorable comment on racism.
Thanks Angelyne for a timely posting. I think if they were really going for the outrage they should have used a blonde woman holding a Ukranian flag......Back in Cold War days, progressives thought that Soviet Communists didn't harbor any racial prejudices, but that was largely because the Soviet Union didn't harbor any blacks. Other minorities didn't fare so well, but they were white and probably deserved it.
I thought we were supposed to respect cultures different from our own. Russians do what Russians do. It is not correct to criticize people for doing what is absolutely normal in their cultural context.
Displaced outrage. Certain viewers find it offensive because they're in denial - they already view blacks as subhuman, which is why they are always compensating with "white guilt". So their reaction to the piece says more about their own (hidden) bigotry than that of the designer.
I saw the comments over there claiming "no, its portrayal of human as object is what offends us". I don't believe that. I think that if the initial story had used a white woman as a chair, these same people would have been all "oooh edgy! subversive!"
The chair pictured in the Buro 24/7 website interview is an artwork created by Norwegian artist Bjarne Melgaard
Now that I took the time to actually watch the video, there's a side to this that all the ladies in fashion are missing. Look at the photo of the black chick --- bare, large, compressed breasts, hair frizzed out big on the floor, leather short shorts with a strap around her.
Hello?! A guy put this "chair" together! This isn't about race. It's bondage & discipline.
That follows. If we make a black man the villian of a movie, the Left freaks. So I guess black women are not allowed to be submissives either. Maybe it reminds Democrats of their KKK days?
"Although the chair also comes in 'white woman,' we can't help but be filled with anger and frustration over the onslaught of negative imagery...."
I share the anger and frustration. This is outrageously racist. How can they exclude yellow women, when everyone knows they make the most comfortable and submissive chairs?
While I don't see how anyone could deny that the optics are awful, it is amusing to see a Russian sitting on a chair designed by a Norweigen being criticized for offending American sensibilities.
@freeman That's why I said "effect" and not "intent."
To pose as a recognizable individual as a way to say, perhaps, "all white people enjoy white privilege that they are frequently not conscious of" tends not to work. An unnamed and unknown model might work better.
Reminds me of Jimmy Carter making the perfectly ordinary "we're all sinners" observation by saying I have looked at women with lust in my heart.
Althouse wrote: "The point of the original art isn't the same as the effect of a specific editor sitting on it."
why not? And the effect, for who? It seems to be a completely subjective thing, both for the person sitting on the chair and the people witnessing the person sitting on the chair. And the people commenting on the people commenting on the person sitting on the chair.
Click here to enter Amazon through the Althouse Portal.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
52 comments:
Cue the faux outrage.
I'm sorry to read that it struck a deeper cord. The only thing to do is get it out of my site.
What Joe said.
But is it art?
And Obama tells me not to be cynical.
All genocides are executed with the fig leaf of legality.
It is genocide because it results in White people intentionally being made a minority in historically White nations.
If one opposes the anti-White policy of mass immigration and force-assimilation, you could be fired, threatened, beaten up, or imprisoned! That's genocide as defined by section (c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.
Can I get one in redhead? I like pink.
So which came first, the white lady or the black lady? Nevermind . . . do not answer the double-entendre.
@garage mahal said...
And Obama tells me not to be cynical
So garage will obey our fearless leader! Proof, of course, will come when his posts disappear from the Althouse comments.
Sorry about that - I didn't want to appear to be cynical.
You can't truly understand the repression of black womyn until you buy one of these chairs.
It's racist to think any other way.
If you're neither white nor black, which chair is acceptable to own?
What about the S&M crowd?
Uh, wasn't the Milk Bar decorated with chairs like that? Except, white.
"'The erotic impulse transcends cerebral barriers and demands a direct emotional response. Confronted with an abstract statement people readily defer to an expert; but confronted with an erotic statement everyone is an expert. It seems to me a democratic idea that art should be accessible to everyone on some level, and eroticism in[sic?] one such level’."
Plagiarism! Or perhaps an attempt to make art more democratic aka "inclusive"? Eh, no, it's 2014, so even arty farty bullshit has gotta be all about the racism.
Eyelids getting so very heavy....
Garage Magazine? Never heard of it.
I just subscribed though. Anything to help drive the outrage-addicts over the edge. Remind me again why we let these folks breed.
Ooohhh! Look at us! We are scandalous.
As much aI like to see members of the left host on their own petard, it bears repeating: Not every depiction of racism our even racial subservience is a favorable comment on racism.
Thanks Angelyne for a timely posting. I think if they were really going for the outrage they should have used a blonde woman holding a Ukranian flag......Back in Cold War days, progressives thought that Soviet Communists didn't harbor any racial prejudices, but that was largely because the Soviet Union didn't harbor any blacks. Other minorities didn't fare so well, but they were white and probably deserved it.
¿Quién es más víctima?
La mujer o el negro?
...the Russian editor-in-chief of Garage magazine, which shows the editrix perched atop a chair designed to look like a half-naked black woman.
"Well, or...or is the black woman on the editrix? Is what Kierkegaard would say."
Was the anger over the imagery because it was a woman or a black woman?
I thought we were supposed to respect cultures different from our own. Russians do what Russians do. It is not correct to criticize people for doing what is absolutely normal in their cultural context.
Something like that.
I assume the point of the chair art is to make visible the oppression that is invisible.
We need to stop talking about "race". It's exploitation for profit has delayed integration of people from different tribes.
Wimpy white woman supported by strong black woman?
If it's gas operated, I am not interested - no matter the color.
Political art. Making for bad politics and bad art.
Q: Is there one in Asian? Indian?
The Stupid is strong in this one.
What difference does it make? At least in this case, no one died or was hurt.
I don't think one can understand the travails of a black woman until one has sat a while in her seat. Especially if she is the seat.
From an art standpoint, I think the cushion really detracts from the aesthetic balance of the piece.
Although it is hard to believe, there IS one more thing to not give a shit about.
Although it is hard to believe, there IS one more thing to not give a shit about.
Wear it as a hat. Then eveything's хорошо.
"Cue the faux outrage."
Displaced outrage. Certain viewers find it offensive because they're in denial - they already view blacks as subhuman, which is why they are always compensating with "white guilt". So their reaction to the piece says more about their own (hidden) bigotry than that of the designer.
I saw the comments over there claiming "no, its portrayal of human as object is what offends us". I don't believe that. I think that if the initial story had used a white woman as a chair, these same people would have been all "oooh edgy! subversive!"
It's hilarious on a number of counts. These people are idiots.
Freeman Hunt said...
I assume the point of the chair art is to make visible the oppression that is invisible.
The chair also cushions potential confusion with surrealistic frottage.
"I assume the point of the chair art is to make visible the oppression that is invisible."
See? Freeman gets it. Because she's not predisposed to get hung up on race (or gender).
Whereas liberals aren't sure what to be outraged about until they get their talking points.
Be-Zar!
@freeman
The point of the original art isn't the same as the effect of a specific editor sitting on it.
The editor is stunningly beautiful, especially juxtaposed with an object so uncomfortable to view.
@althouse
Maybe the editor was owning up to her white privilege.
The chair art only works with someone in it. A specific person sitting in it is declaring that he sees that he is, indeed, guilty.
The chair pictured in the Buro 24/7 website interview is an artwork created by Norwegian artist Bjarne Melgaard
Now that I took the time to actually watch the video, there's a side to this that all the ladies in fashion are missing. Look at the photo of the black chick --- bare, large, compressed breasts, hair frizzed out big on the floor, leather short shorts with a strap around her.
Hello?! A guy put this "chair" together! This isn't about race. It's bondage & discipline.
Wouldn't it have worked better with Maria Conchita Alonzo as the model?
That follows. If we make a black man the villian of a movie, the Left freaks. So I guess black women are not allowed to be submissives either. Maybe it reminds Democrats of their KKK days?
"Although the chair also comes in 'white woman,' we can't help but be filled with anger and frustration over the onslaught of negative imagery...."
I share the anger and frustration. This is outrageously racist. How can they exclude yellow women, when everyone knows they make the most comfortable and submissive chairs?
While I don't see how anyone could deny that the optics are awful, it is amusing to see a Russian sitting on a chair designed by a Norweigen being criticized for offending American sensibilities.
@freeman That's why I said "effect" and not "intent."
To pose as a recognizable individual as a way to say, perhaps, "all white people enjoy white privilege that they are frequently not conscious of" tends not to work. An unnamed and unknown model might work better.
Reminds me of Jimmy Carter making the perfectly ordinary "we're all sinners" observation by saying I have looked at women with lust in my heart.
I refuse, refuse to buy one until they are available in peach and pink woman. White women come in shades too.
Actually, after holding that position for a while, perhaps it should be available in purple or blue woman.
And as far as oppression goes, indentured servitude and slavery had a curious coexistence.
Althouse wrote:
"The point of the original art isn't the same as the effect of a specific editor sitting on it."
why not? And the effect, for who?
It seems to be a completely subjective thing, both for the person sitting on the chair and the people witnessing the person sitting on the chair. And the people commenting on the people commenting on the person sitting on the chair.
The photo is a good illustration of how white women benefit most from affirmative action programs.
Post a Comment