Discussion: Gay Rights II

[The Chairman]

Uh...have you SEEN this guy's play?
That's disturbing that making Jesus gay is automatically compared to all of these distasteful things.

I don't know, I can imagine someone doing a very tasteful portrayal of you wearing A&F clothes at a Boys' Polo Match.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

If some christians in Australia don't like the subject matter of the play, no one is forcing them to buy a ticket.

Ditto. Ya'know what I think if someone walked up to the ticket booth and told this guy "you're play is offensive, grossly historically inaccurate, and insulting to me" he'd probably respond "I know it is, and you don't have to see it".

 

[The Chairman]

And no one can stop them from protesting it and giving it more attention and media exposure than it would have normally received.

Yeah, I always found that dumb. Freedom Of Expression and Fredom Of Speech work both ways. Just as the artist has the right to offend, the offended have every right to react.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

What's the "Passion of Christ" have to do with this?

What a publicity smoree. C'mon, did the guy really need to create a play like this, he knew exactly what type of reaction it would generate and that's probably the real reason he's doing it, generate some press for himself and his work.

• Did Mel really need to create a movie like that?
• He knew exactly what kind of reaction it would generate and that's probably the real reason he's doing it. He knew it would generate some press for himself and his work.

And, I didn't use Last Temptation of Christ or the DaVinci Code, because I'm talking about Christians who create offensive art...that's why I also mentioned how offensive it is when they pray out loud, or sing Christian songs out loud, and how silly it would be to assume that ALL of them are just doing it to get attention, when, despite the fact that it's horrid and offensive, it's actually just them, living their lives, expressing themselves, etc. sometimes.

 

[The Chairman]

Maybe less people would be offend if the guy explained how the **** his life was similar to Jesus? If he's using it solely on the grounds that he was persecuted for being different, than I guess I could do a play portraying Jesus as a teenager who was constantly bullied for having ADHD and having a few social skill problems until he was in 5th grade and now spends his days arguing about religion and politics on the internet.

 

[chaseter]

Uh...no, I'm an actual human being.

I actually thought you were a cartoon

1. - All Christians are called upon to cultivate lives in mimickry of Jesus.

2. No one said "mimic". There were "parallels".
All sorts of people can find parallels.
I can find many parallels between my life and that of the Jesus who is written about in the Bible.

Christians aren't suppose to live a perfect life since it's impossible. They live by teachings. No one is supposed to drop their life, movie to Jerusalem, and become a carpenter.

Wrong. there's also the pleasure derived from aesthetics.
I can play a series of notes on a guitar in an instrumental song, and there is no message about life, society or politics at all. It's just a pleasing, beautiful exhibition of what I personally find to be beautiful, my Self Expression.

I never said they didn't get pleasure from it. I was merely expanding upon your narrow defintion. I am sure some of those whackos get pleasure from smearing human blood on the wall.

Uh...have you SEEN this guy's play?
That's disturbing that making Jesus gay is automatically compared to all of these distasteful things.

And it begs the answer as to why he did that when it has nothing to do with Jesus. Which then begs to answer why what I listed is still seen as art. Why? Because what one person sees as art not everyone else sees as art. Museums house the cherishable art of our past. Which is why you will never see my glittered poop canvas in the Louvre.

Anyway, you Art fascists who can read minds are almost scary to me.
Reminds me of when Hitler outlawed Jazz or abstract sculpture because it was base and indecent and harmful...except of course, thank God you guys don't have the power to actually force your strictures on me.

Yes, you figured out my evil plan. To steal all the art in the world and make this planet a dull, grey canvas for fascism

I need to finish writing my self expressionistic play about George Washington flying in a spacecraft to another world and having sex with green homosexual fascists...because it has to do with my experiences

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Yeah, I always found that dumb. Freedom Of Expression and Fredom Of Speech work both ways. Just as the artist has the right to offend, the offended have every right to react.

...with staunch, Christian bomb threats?

Erm...notice how the guy's play isn't, threatening to kill anyone?

 

[The Chairman]

• Did Mel really need to create a movie like that?
• He knew exactly what kind of reaction it would generate and that's probably the real reason he's doing it. He knew it would generate some press for himself and his work.

And, I didn't use Last Temptation of Christ or the DaVinci Code, because I'm talking about Christians who create offensive art...that's why I also mentioned how offensive it is when they pray out loud, or sing Christian songs out loud, and how silly it would be to assume that ALL of them are just doing it to get attention, when, despite the fact that it's horrid and offensive, it's actually just them, living their lives, expressing themselves, etc. sometimes.

Actually, those works do involve Christians as well. Tom Hanks is a Born Again, Scorsese is Catholic, Willem Dafoe's a Puritan (and has had some rather negative things to day about his portrayal of Jesus).

 

[chaseter]

• Did Mel really need to create a movie like that?
• He knew exactly what kind of reaction it would generate and that's probably the real reason he's doing it. He knew it would generate some press for himself and his work.

And, I didn't use Last Temptation of Christ or the DaVinci Code, because I'm talking about Christians who create offensive art...that's why I also mentioned how offensive it is when they pray out loud, or sing Christian songs out loud, and how silly it would be to assume that ALL of them are just doing it to get attention, when, despite the fact that it's horrid and offensive, it's actually just them, living their lives, expressing themselves, etc. sometimes.

Maybe Mel and this guy has something in common

 

[bell110]

Art can be so many different things it's rather sad. I could poop on a canvas and call it art But when someone paints a historical figure or ideal in a different light than what we are used to or what we have come to love, then it angers people. How do you think people would react if someone made a play about Mother Teresa and made her look like Hitler? What about if someone made a statue about gays being demons, or blacks being terrorists? What if someone made a painting that had all white people murdering babies? There is a point between tasteful art and distasteful art. So yes, this person is a publicity smoree. It seems the only way some of these artists can get noticed is through shock value.

Sometimes the truth can offend people yes. But fabricating it is worse.

I'm going to make a play on each one of those subjects.

 

[The Chairman]

...with staunch, Christian bomb threats?

Erm...notice how the guy's play isn't, threatening to kill anyone?

Oh, I completely disagree with the bomb threat part, but they still have the right to protest.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Maybe less people would be offend if the guy explained how the **** his life was similar to Jesus? If he's using it solely on the grounds that he was persecuted for being different, than I guess I could do a play portraying Jesus as a teenager who was constantly bullied for having ADHD and having a few social skill problems until he was in 5th grade and now spends his days arguing about religion and politics on the internet.

Well I guess you could. That's part of what me and Jag said though. Sometimes the artists knows or even wants his piece to be offensive or over the top. Maybe it's about the sheer publicity, but maybe too it's because that reaction is part of the artwork itself.

 

[chaseter]

I'm going to make a play on each one of those subjects.

I actually think the white people murdering babies painting has already been done

 

[bell110]

Maybe less people would be offend if the guy explained how the **** his life was similar to Jesus? If he's using it solely on the grounds that he was persecuted for being different, than I guess I could do a play portraying Jesus as a teenager who was constantly bullied for having ADHD and having a few social skill problems until he was in 5th grade and now spends his days arguing about religion and politics on the internet.

Because they were both gay. I thought that was obvious from the article.

I actually think the white people murdering babies painting has already been done

But, has it been done in play form?

 

[The Chairman]

Actually, upon rereading the article, the article never imples the play portrays Jesus as gay. It just says Judas attempts to seduce Jesus, and that there is a gay marriage ceremony, but Jesus himself is never said to be gay in the play.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I need to finish writing my self expressionistic play about George Washington flying in a spacecraft to another world and having sex with green homosexual fascists...because it has to do with my experiences

Dude, that would make an awesome comic book or movie.

My question is...are you saying that if a dude wrote a fictional story about George Washington getting on a rocket ship and going to Mars to spread democracy to the Martians, that it COULDN'T be legitimately motivated artistic expression?!

That's crazy.

So what would make it no longer "art"? Oh, if it involves anything "offensive".

That's scary.


You, the "We" that was mentioned, decide for the rest of us what is and what isn't "offensive".

Write historically non accurate speculative fiction that doesn't offend you, it's art.
When it offends you, well, it was just done for shock value.


tsk

 

[rdh007]

Crikey! Did you see the size of that big, gay Jesus!? He was GORGEOUS!!!!

jag

RIP
*crosses self*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hey, wait a tick; does that make me gay by association???

 

[Addendum]

And no one can stop them from protesting it and giving it more attention and media exposure than it would have normally received.

And I never said they had the right to protest. They can march, picket, or do whatever legally under the law.

What they don't have the right to do is make bomb threats at the location where the play will be performed, or issue death threats at the writer of the play.

But it's not like their protests will people from seeing the play. And those involved in making the play are thinking "hey, free publicity. Thanks!"

 

[jaguarr]

Just because you find something offensive, distasteful or taboo doesn't mean it's not art.

jag

 

[rdh007]

Actually, upon rereading the article, the article never imples the play portrays Jesus as gay. It just says Judas attempts to seduce Jesus, and that there is a gay marriage ceremony, but Jesus himself is never said to be gay in the play.

A good Christian doesn't have time for those messy details when one is being deeply offended and using that ever powerful persecution-complex to re-strengthen one's faith.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Actually, those works do involve Christians as well. Tom Hanks is a Born Again, Scorsese is Catholic, Willem Dafoe's a Puritan (and has had some rather negative things to day about his portrayal of Jesus).

They didn't write those projects. Someone else created them and they joined up. ( in Tom's case, I guess mainly because he's a "money-smoree", since DaVinci code was such a financial success. )

This guy wanted to create a play, and he wrote it.
Mel wanted to create a movie and he co-wrote it.

 

[The Chairman]

A good Christian doesn't have time for those messy details when one is being deeply offended and using that ever powerful persecution-complex to re-strengthen one's faith.

Eh? I'm a bit confused. Chances are this will wind up like The Virgin Mary Cow**** Sculpture and The Chocolate Jesus thing in that it will offend a few extremists than quickly be forgotten.

I'm not so much as offended as I am confused by the project.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Eh? I'm a bit confused. I'm not that offended. Chances are this will wind up like The Virgin Mary Cow**** Sculpture and The Chocolate Jesus thing in that it will offend a few extremists than quickly be forgotten.

Well according to af15, the guy wrote it because he wanted to get bomb threats, so maybe, if it's a smash success, he can actually get stabbed to death by a religious fundamentalist, like Theo Van Gogh, (who was clearly just making art about how Muslims mistreat women for the shock value. ...and to get his head nearly severed from his body.)

 

[The Chairman]

They didn't write those projects. Someone else created them and they joined up. ( in Tom's case, I guess mainly because he's a "money-smoree", since DaVinci code was such a financial success. )

Well, it was Scorsese's idea to adapt The Last Temptation Of Christ.

 

[Motown Marvel]

What a publicity smoree. C'mon, did the guy really need to create a play like this, he knew exactly what type of reaction it would generate and that's probably the real reason he's doing it, generate some press for himself and his work.

oh noes! god forbid he publicize his work! thats terrible! next time martin scorsese goes on letterman to publicize his new movie im gonna be pissed about it! especially if its a piece of art that purposely provokes a variety of reactions from its viewers! because art should be bland and boring and meaningless!