Israeli vandalises Swedish suicide bomber art

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
What offends people here is the merest mention that there might have been a reason for what this woman did-

Funny. I thought the artists called her behavior inexplicaple.

this is why they scream that this is gloryfication: becuase we are to see her as sme animal-or better yet, some evil spirit

I see her as an individual who took it upon her self to try to murder as many innocent people as she could in cold blood, and managed to murder twenty one. No reason justifies cold bloodedly killing innocent people.

This woman did what she did for a reason, but what she did was a horrible and despicable crime. And the fact that this happened, the fact this woman, with her seemingly promising life, average life, middle class life went and did what she did is what astounds: what chalenges the "truth" we have built for ourselves, that "our" kind of people, fr she is our kind of people, did something we think simply can not be associated with us

Ooh. Oooh. Two can play at that game.

This ambassador did what he did for a reason, but what he did was a crime. And the fact that this happened, the fact this man, with his seemingly promising life went and did what he did astrounds: it challenges the "truth" the Swedes have built for themselves, that "their" kind of people, for he is their kind of people, did something that they think simply can not be associated with them.

but it insults some here for not making her a charicature of evil

Actually, I said that I didn't think an evil caricature was appropriate, either.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Agathon


We are only having a nine page thread because some people either haven't read the artists' own explanation of what the piece is about or don't believe them (despite having no good reason not to).

If it's clear, why would anyone need to read the artists explanation?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
Funny. I thought the artists called her behavior inexplicaple.

I am not one of the people arguing alongside the artist, so I could care less

I see her as an individual who took it upon her self to try to murder as many innocent people as she could in cold blood, and managed to murder twenty one. No reason justifies cold bloodedly killing innocent people.

Who ever brough up "justification"- you simply continue the great mistake of making "explination" or "examination" into "justification"

Ooh. Oooh. Two can play at that game.

This ambassador did what he did for a reason, but what he did was a crime. And the fact that this happened, the fact this man, with his seemingly promising life went and did what he did astrounds: it challenges the "truth" the Swedes have built for themselves, that "their" kind of people, for she is their kind of people, did something that they think simply can not be associated with them.

First of all, the whole "promising life" part is utterly out of place- second, he is a diplomat- that is a job description, not a life description, class distinction. Swedes is a nationality, not a word for members of the diplomatic corp. Overall, a sad attempt at a response. care to make a thoughtfull one?

Actually, I said that I didn't think an evil caricature was appropriate, either.

NOtice how I did not address my post to you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


If it's clear, why would anyone need to read the artists explanation?

You could read the words that go with the exhibit, or perhaps you could notice how you hardly surround people you apporve of with a pool of blood.

Or you could ignore that and fixate on the image of Disney's snow white, though of course, the actual fairy tale is not as whishy washy as the Disney version anyway.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

You could read the words that go with the exhibit

Which I did, unlike some of the people who asked where I was getting my quotes from.

It is those words that try to excuse her as a "poor girl" being "devored by wild beasts" who must "let the whole world be erased"

I am not one of the people arguing alongside the artist, so I could care less

So then the artwork isn't clear, if you disagree with their explanation.

NOtice how I did not address my post to you.

I didn't see anyone else calling for her to be an evil carricature, either.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Edan

If it's clear, why would anyone need to read the artists explanation?

Because most art is ambiguous and can be interpreted in various ways. Some people claim that is what makes art worthwhile.

However, if we want to get the "real meaning" of such a work then we have to ask the artist what his intention was. This is the same for any communicative act characterised by ambiguity. The intention of the creator always has authority. It's no different in this case.

In this case the artists were clear that the work is not meant to glorify suicide bombing and no one has any good (read: non paranoid) reason to disbelieve them. Thus the people who insist that it does glorify suicide bombing are about as wrong as it's possible to be.

[Agathon]

When I looked at it for the first time I thought it was meant to pose the question of how a young attractive relatively successful woman could end up committing such an insane act. That is IMHO a question worth asking.

In this sense the exhibit transcends the particular conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to make a point about the dark side of human nature - apparently normal people can commit horrific acts in the right (or wrong) circumstances.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone have a link to the Israeli admission that the action of the Ambassador was planned? My posts were premised on the notion that he reacted viscerally to the exhibit.

I haven't been able to dig it up, there's no mention of it in today's edition of Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper of which yesterday's edition was originally quoted as the source for the ambassador's comment. I saw it in a Danish paper's coverage of the story yesterday, the story was focusing on the confusion as to wheter it was an impulse reaction or planned in advance.

BTW, on the subject of the impartiality and trustworthyness of Dror Feiler, the "artist", today's Haaretz has this little gem to offer: Feiler's initial reaction Friday night when the ambassador pulled the plugs was to approach the ambassador angrily, shouting in Hebrew: "You're doing exactly what you're doing in Nablus. This is a free country and I can say what I want to say here, not like you in your apartheid country."

Hmm, why is it I trust the artist's intentions even less after reading that statement.

[Winston]

The link to Haaretz, which by the way seems a good source of Israeli news and politcs.

[Arrian]

Hrm. I think I can understand the artist's anger. I know American Jews who are seriously pissed at Sharon and, though they probably wouldn't go as far as calling Israel an "apartheid country," are generally displeased with Israeli policy. Now if I imagine one of them as the artist, and imagine their reaction to the ambassador... yeah, it might be kinda heated.

This is a terrible PR situation for Israel. The Israeli government seriously ****ed up by backing this guy. It's just not how an ambassador should act. If he felt the artwork was in poor taste, he should have complained in a calm, reasoned manner. He would still be wrong, but he wouldn't be an embarassment to his nation.

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Edan


So twenty one innocent people in a restuant eating their meals are a bunch of wild beasts trying to devour her?

I can't believe you wrote that.

I wasn't calling the resturaunt patrons beasts.

The beasts that I was refering to where ones of hatred and murder, that caused her to blow herself up, ie. a metaphore.

You're taking everythign much more litteraly than yous hould when talking about art...

Or, maybe you don't care about the art at all and just want to twist everythind said, seen, and done around your political views and create a spectical and controversy around it. Like the ambassador. That certainly seems to be the case, with the way you're posting.

[Ned]

Thanks for the link. The article ends with the following:

"Despite the blunt statements of support from the prime minister and foreign minister, diplomatic sources in Jerusalem on Sunday were not happy with what they called "the festival of support" for Mazel and his action.

The sources said they worried Israeli diplomatic efforts to defend the government's policies toward the Palestinians and territories were adopting a strategy of "losing control," with diplomats dropping diplomatic niceties to adopt unusual and unconventional methods of protest that could harm the reputations of Israeli diplomats."

It appears that this may be part of a larger pattern that is actually planned in Israel.

[jdd2007]

I think he is crazy.

[Snotty]

Yes, that is an interesting site. They also said:-

''Both the Israeli and Swedish governments appear anxious to put the incident behind them. The Swedish government is considering issuing a conciliatory note, according to sources in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, as well as hints offered by Swedish Ambassador Robert Rydberg.

The Swedish foreign ministry said Sunday it still expects Mazel to participate in a symposium on genocide to be held Monday at the Stockholm museum where he vandalized the artwork.

Officials in Jerusalem said they would be be satisfied with an appropriately conciliatory statement by Sweden, and that this would enable the Israeli delegation to attend the conference as planned.''

So it looks like Israel will be going to the conference now?

Ned,

It appears that this may be part of a larger pattern that is actually planned in Israel.

Im not sure I follow you. Are you saying this is more evidence that the incident was pre-planned, or masterminded by the Israeli government?

[Mercator]

An artist makes a work of art that might be open for interpretation. He then accompanies it with a piece of text that describes the horrific acts commited by this "Snow White". Upon further asking, the person continues to explain it is in no way trying to glorify or condone the suicide bomber's actions.

In what way can this possibly be explained as being anti-semitic? If the artist actually was lying and being an anti-semitic um... Israeli Jew, the only bad thing that could imply is that he's going to bed with a smirk on his face, thinking about how he fooled the world, while the rest of the world would consider it a sad reminder of the tragic ME situation.


A little boy tries to hit a few nails in a plank of wood, but eh doesn't have anything to hit them with. I present him with a screwdriver and a hammer. Unaware of their practical intention, the boy picks the screwdriver and hits a nail in. I then explain to him that it's easier and more practical to use the hammer. If the boy then continues to use the screwdriver he's either stupid or stubborn.

If the boy had picked the hammer and I tried to convince him the screwdriver was better, I'd just be stupid. Doing that wouldn't be beneficial to either of us, except perhaps give me the satisfaction of laughing at the boy behind his back.

In other words, it might be understandable for people to interpret it as being anti-semitic. But once you've heard the artists intentions, the only logical thing to do is accept and respect them.

If the artist was being deceitful, it would only lead to misunderstanding and disrespect. Since expressing an opinion or provoking thoughts from the on-lookers is an integral part of art, doing this would be counter-productive for and artist. At worst it would give him some twisted personal pleasure.