I was skeptical to the point of sarcasm:
Yes, looking at sculptures that are nothing more than the figure of a nude woman has great potential for people to change attitudes about women.And to the point of feminism:
[The male artist] makes the sculpture and he talks about it, touting the meaning. [The female sculpture] expresses nothing, and that's what he likes, a woman present and saying nothing. What an immense challenge to the imagined mindset of President Trump.Now, I'm seeing (in the NYT) that the National Park Service has denied the permit:
Placing the piece on the turf for 91 days was likely to “significantly damage” the grounds, [wrote the park service’s acting regional director, Rick Obernesser]. Putting such a tall sculpture near the base of the Washington Monument, he said, was “likely to have an adverse effect on the aesthetics, including the cultural identity, of the area.”...There is a free-speech issue here. It shouldn't be viewpoint discrimination, but the aesthetics were awful.
“We received no indication of anything disqualifying in our permit application until the media began reporting on the story,” said Robert Haferd, a lawyer who sought the permit on behalf of the group.
Since you're not going to get the monumental female nude that is "R-Evolution," here's the new Taylor Swift video:
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
Don't worry, when they tear down the Washington monument (cause he was a white man owned slaves) they can put up a "I am woman, hear me roar" statue in its place.
'There is a free-speech issue here."
Is there? Why should some dumb-as-a-post "artist''s viewpoint be privileged over that of everybody who doesn't get their crap displayed on the Mall?
Surely it can't be the case that any damned fool can propose to put what he or she regards as art on the Mall, and unless it damages the turf the Government is obliged to permit it. And surely that's the case for any Government-owned property, not just the Mall.
So, which Enforcer of the Patriarchy made Taylor Swift sexually objectify her body? Was it you? Me? Someone must have. Poor Taylor. If only she were empowered. If only she were stinking rich. If only she were famous. If only the courts would protect her from the grasping hands of men. If only she could do anything she wanted. I'm sure she wouldn't parade around half naked for a camera. No woman would. Kind of nice thighs, by the way, but there's something off-putting about her. Probably I just can't deal with powerful women.
I see Meadehouse has moved on from Bob Dylan.
Kanye West must have finally gotten to her.
I watched for 15 seconds or so. Rap is obscenity set to , not music but chanting,
Lady Gaga would have done it naked.
"Probably I just can't deal with powerful women."
I do get that yur joshin'.
But--based on media type jabber--she does seem to be kicking ass re not letting dudes F w/ her on their terms while she does what the F benefits her, on her terms. Cool. IMHO.
Also, I'd like to think that her transition from country star to big time winner could flicker some light bulbs in folks' attics. I.e., get the F outa loser-central, instead play w/ the playas. And win.
Anywho, hopefully that Ironside (or some name like that) will stop by this thread to note that somethin' ain't right re the toe re the 58 second point in this video. [OTHO, I guess I just now gots that base covered.]
Carry on.
BTW Doc Mike,
It wasn't her "rap," that gots ya fussy, it was her jabbering about dudes who can't lay pipe.
Just sayin.
A woman holding the decapitated, disemboweled body of a baby. Revolutionary!
A woman deprived of agency. Pro-Choice.
A woman reenacting the Slut Walk. Social progress.
Moral, including: individual dignity, intrinsic value; natural; and personal imperatives. Go forth and reconcile.
As some wag on Twitter commented "well, at least someone liked the Ghost in the Shell" movie.
I have to say, I liked her prior video - "Look What You Made Me Do" better.
Still, she does have amazing facial bone structure. And she's not quite as skinny as she was, and it makes her look better.
I like the idea of this huge naked woman statue placed across the street from the residence of Harvey Weinstein. It would have some of the resonance of the Fearless Girl that is placed in front of Raging Bull.
she's morphed into the sameness borg. Sad.
Remember the feminist age was started with feminists wanting women to burn their bras!
Guys certainly enjoyed that.
I'd make the statue fat and ugly though. Call it Turn About Is Fair Play........Or maybe not.. No woman can be truly fat or ugly, Maybe a huge naked statue of James Toback would work better.
I'm disappointed that a hashtag has replaced topless protests.
"she's morphed into the sameness borg. Sad."
FTR, I do agree (as is obvious) that it's not impressive to be sub bil in bills, but still, her bein' around 300 mil still ain't sameness. IMHO.
It's definitely private fly zone. Which is all that matters [well, not really, but it's a noteworthy start]. IMHO.
Anywho DickBaller, do tell us more about ballin' re how Swift is sameness re you.
I saw the video. I have now listened to a Taylor Swift song in its entirety.. Little by little I'm becoming part of this new millennium......I guess she's talented. The video has lots of special effects and a kind of nude woman. Definitely worth a few minutes of your time.
Wow..check out the "hep talk".
It's Blondie! Call out to Debbie Harry.
As for permits, how about permitting R-Evolution for the top of Mount Rushmore? Then Cary Grant could run between her legs chased by a crop duster.*
*Yes I know. Don't correct me.
"The video has lots of special effects and a kind of nude woman. Definitely worth a few minutes of your time."
Pretty sad excuse for a naked lady. You would think that "Naked Lady" would be kind of a dry well by now anyway. I mean, if you really like photos of naked ladies, and the ones you've seen already don't fill the bill, I expect that on the internets, you could look at a new one every ten seconds for the rest of your life and not exhaust the supply. But women keep taking their clothes off in front of cameras, and I guess someone must be paying them to do it. Yesterday's naked lady just isn't naked enough. Or something.
the song is horrid. Pure facts.
Video imagery was cool, song bored me.
"R-Evolution" And here I thought that was changing the "R" movie rating to where you could do more than one F-bomb before automatically getting an "R" rating...
Miss Swift is a bit underdressed.
But if that actually is her body and not all CGI, she is very healthy.
"the song is horrid. Pure facts."
And yet it's millions times less horrid (re 'Murica capitalism score keepin') than ya.
Ya might think that that may make ya think.
JK.
PB&J,
The song is horrid, the singer is much better than the material. When she was much younger my daughter used to wander around the house making up songs as she went, accompanying herself on the ukulele or mandolin, and they were all much better than that.
Buw,
Does your daughter have around three hundred mil?
Sheesh.
The government has the right to speak, and it is not obliged to be neutral as a speaker. I see no First Amendment problem with the government saying that this proposed sculpture is not appropriate for the Mall. Now if the government were to set aside an area on the Mall for the purpose of allowing sculptors to display their works then, yes, the government could not exclude a particular statue because of the sculptor's viewpoint. But that does not seem to be the case here.
Yesterday's naked lady just isn't naked enough. Or something.
Naked ladies are like snowflakes..no two are alike.
This thread is scary
re yous so-called cons who fall for job-creator Laugher Curve jabber, but ya don't get what that means re winners. I.e. actual winners, i.e, the Laffer-job-creators.
Why is that hard to figure?
Ok..the song itself is basic enough (reminds me a little of Stefani going "Urban"). How is the video remotely relevant?
Yes desitter, she is single-handedly stimulating that GDP.
I mean, the cosmetics industry alone...
PB&J,
I think I would value my brilliant, charming kids (well, rather less charming, a bit, from ages 14-17) at a $billion easy. Granted, it is a purely personal, sentimental value.
Walt,
She's definitely doin' better now that she ditched the shit-kickin' country scene.
Maybe ya noticed that she wasn't the only Amazoninian killin' today.
Or, maybe coal is the future.
I dunno.
It's above my paygrade.
Coal has a longer future than Swift.
"That I can tell you"
Yes Bob,
Her "face" after a 5 star MUAH gets done creating it.
"you're not going to get the monumental female nude"
Ok..that's good...
Actual Van de Graaff machines had cooler effects.
Honestly,
It looks more like a demo reel for an SFX house.
"Yeah, yeah..the song is about a girl and a guy but..look what WE can do!"
So Taylor thinks she's Scarlett Johansson or something? Confusing.
Simon - Van de Graaf machines are fun but Tesla coils are even funner.
Modern artists seem to want always to "start a conversation" about something. It goes back at least three decades.
Let's not. If you want to be heard, speak through your art.
Just more stupid from the Left. Phaser set to "ignore".
"Phaser set to "ignore"."
Is this nerd code for sucking at slinging dick?
'Idiot,
"Start a conversation" and "Raise Awareness" are proxies for #mememememe..
'Sitter,
Get those glow sticks in yer ears and hit the floor..wow 'em good.
"Liberals" (and by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-fellators") love to talk about "starting conversations." Me, I'm always leery about conversing with people who want to put guns to my head.
Taylor Swift says she wasn't naked in video..
At the link are photos of her in her bodysuit, and the suit WRINKLES. That means it is NOT SKIN TIGHT. THIS IS BULLSHIT.
In another example of CGI on a woman in a 'skin tight' costume, this from the movie "Suicide Squad": New footage shows how the 24-year-old's appearance changed after digital effects were added, and reveals that she shot her scenes as the evil Enchantress in the 2016 blockbuster wearing a flesh-colored outfit.
Yes: they used CGI to make a skinny model look skinnier. THIS IS BULLSHIT.
And they didn't stop there in 'Suicide Squad': They used CGI to cover more of Margot Robbie's ass. THIS IS BULLSHIT.
Might as well Photoshop tits onto a toaster.
THIS IS BULLSHIT, PEOPLE.
I am Laslo.
Tits on a toaster?
Weinstein's listening.
The best part of waking up...
Lucky for the video auteurs, the trending issue seems to surround the authenticity of the faux nudity.
'shitter space will appreciate how such questions preserve her ability to trans-ition back to shit kickin' Country when the urban sexpot thang wanes.
So when is the Mens.. M-Revolution statue coming. Swinging balls and all.
"And they didn't stop there in 'Suicide Squad': They used CGI to cover more of Margot Robbie's ass. THIS IS BULLSHIT. '
No, it's a Goddam war crime!
"preserve her ability to trans-ition back to shit kickin' Country when the urban sexpot thang wanes."
Ha!
I agree: she'll go back to selling to hicks if that's what it takes for her to stay in an NY penthouse and CA mansion (and, of course, flying private). IOW, sell to dolts so as to avoid them, i.e. the DJT model.
You sure showed me.
Truuuuummmpp!
"William said...
"No woman can be truly fat or ugly . . ."
How delightfully feminist of you. But see:
https://www.google.com/search?q=fat+chicks&tbm=isch
"There is a free-speech issue here."
Is there?
As long as he doesn't put frosting on it.
I made it 18 seconds into my first ever Taylor Swift song.
No Linda Ronstadt she.
sell to dolts so as to avoid them
hey any ah'y'all countrified-talkin' yet-o-sew-sew-fisticated fellers hear if'n Obama's back from 'is travellin' with Richard Branson 'n' stayin' on Marlon Brando's old Pacific island hideaway'n'such?
Looks like Taylor is gunning for a part in the next Tron sequel.
"The government has the right to speak, and it is not obliged to be neutral as a speaker. I see no First Amendment problem with the government saying that this proposed sculpture is not appropriate for the Mall. Now if the government were to set aside an area on the Mall for the purpose of allowing sculptors to display their works then, yes, the government could not exclude a particular statue because of the sculptor's viewpoint. But that does not seem to be the case here."
You may be painting with too broad of a brush here, but the Nall is unique in this country, as are the monuments there. They are asking to be able to diminish maybe the most iconic of our national monuments for three months. What about the sensibilities, the wishes, of the other 330 or so million of us? Can we each put up whatever we want there, regardless of scale?
But the reason that I am suggesting too broad of a brush is because you can, in essence, rent the Mall for an afternoon for almost whatever sort of protest or march that you may wish. People do it all the time. No doubt there are going to be Million Women marches against Trump there over the next couple years. Etc. Plus, there are plenty of places on federal land where this sort of thing would be just fine. For example, I don't know the ownership of the land used for Burning Man in NV. Expect it is mostly private. But if it is, there is still plenty of BLM land around there that is indistinguishable, that the agency would very likely lease for just this sort of thing. Much of that land is too arid for cattle, and is really only good for solar panels and wind farms, from a federal leasing point of view. But then, while NV advertises itself as the most mountainous state, after living there, I would consider it one of the ugliest, mostly because it is one of the driest.
I've designed a sculpture that depicts a gender-less figure with 535 anuses aimed at congress.
If congress critters gaze upon it they will know what many citizens think of them.
To deny my speech violates my rights, right?
"'There is a free-speech issue here."
It appears to invite worship as a goddess-figure, and once there's one religious representation on the Mall, there will be unable to refuse other religious figures, and there's no way to accommodate all of these (at comparable size) at this site?
“We received no indication of anything disqualifying in our permit application until the media began reporting on the story,” said Robert Haferd, a lawyer who sought the permit on behalf of the group." LOL Right, unfortunately when people heard about this project they expressed their overwhelming rejection and then an excuse had to be found to deny the permit, and it was found. The truth is it's bad art. I never believed the intended worthy goal, "start a conversation about violence against women," had anything to do with the sculpture. Or to change Trump's perception of women, which is what exactly?
Like a lot of conceptual art, the meaning of that sculpture doesn't exist unless someone explains it. The work was not successful or worthy of the Mall. Was the intended response a discussion of male lust and frustration from seeing so much female nudity, or the objectification of women? That women should be covered up? I don't know. Even if women are objectified, what does that have to do with violence? Men like their treasured objects, e.g., boats, cars, lawns, etc. Men are careful and proud of their possessions. I think the problem is that some men don't like objects who talk back, who have minds and wills of their own. In the age of robots, female robots will have a sassy dial, depending on the taste of the owner. Some men will choose the submissive setting only.
I did not know that freedom of speech means that anyone can petition to put up art work, or whatever, in public spaces. Is that true?
I thought about the icon of Taylor Swift. People commenting here don't know her at all, or don't realize who her audience is and what she represents to them. Red gives a better picture of who she is as a public figure and the people who adore her. It's another generation and "... their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams ... For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday." "The Prophet," Kahil Gibran
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा