Personally I think that it’s going for the cheap reaction. Some people think that art is supposed to evoke emotional responses. The easiest, the cop-out, is to evoke offense.

Second theory… it’s supposed to repel the masses. Some people think that art that is too accessible isn’t really art. Vastly popular artists such as Kincade (?) get categorized as not creating *real* art. (Sort of how vastly popular genre fiction isn’t considered literature.) So “art” is in some respects exclusive by definition (if you go in for that sort of thing.) By repelling the masses, by offending them, exclusivity (art) is created in the cheapest way possible.

It lets some people think that they are better than other people who don’t “get” what the artist was trying to do. If poor people put their noses up at velvet Elvises we’d see them displayed in trendy galleries.

In short, you made your comment to accuse us of misogyny; now, in order to not look like a complete idiot, you’re denying that making a statue of someone dressed like a prostitute and naming it after a prostitute doesn’t mean that they’re representing a prostitute.

Unfortunately, your avoidance is doing the exact opposite of what you intended.

F**k the Ayatollah.

Which one?

“Ayatollah” is a generic title in Shi’a Islam, and in fact refers to numerous scholars who have reached a certain level.

In short, your insult is meaningless; it doesn’t refer to a specific person, and the title it references could be numerous people. What’s your point?

And while I can only speak for myself, I’m hardly sensitive to Muslim piety. Which is why I’ll say it: F**k the Ayatollah. He’s a conservative lunatic. (a bit of redundancy there)

1) Susan B. Anthony depicted in leather, chaps, tattoes and piercings as if she were that type of prostitute for men;

2) Mohammed or some other key Muslim figure, say Ayatollah Khomeini, depicted in leather, tattoes in piercings as if he were that type of gay male prostitute.

Artists and lefties: Until you are brave enough to bash everyone equally, your posturing is meaningless. We, the people (if I may be so bold) know that you are gutless, because you only ever bash the safe targets.

It says that “misogyny” is a meaningless charge when liberals throw it, given that they see it everywhere — except in themselves.

A mere glance at the details of the exhibit makes that obvious.

The sculpture, titled “Miss Kitty,” shows the Pope in a blond bob wig wearing nothing but a stole, a pair of panties and thigh-high stockings.

In other words, the Pope is being portrayed as a prostitute in clothing, posture, and title (remember “Gunsmoke”).

Now, Chase, to demonstrate your position, please state clearly here that you would have no trouble whatsoever or not be in the least offended if a woman who you held in high regard being portrayed as a prostitute in a sculpture named after a famous madam.

But, then again, since leftist Democrat gays see no problem with calling successful women names like “Pouty Brown Sugar”, it should not be surprising if you aren’t.

Arteests are the stupidest of the stupid.

Would it be similarly offensive if a woman were depicted as a man?

I don’t think this sort of display should be illegal, but I do think that the people who do such things should ask themselves why they *don’t* do something similar with the Prophet.

Presumably because the Pope is an important figure in their culture and in their lives, while Islam does not have any immediate impact on them. It’s the same reason writers write about their relationship with their parents, and not about their impression of the relationships in other people’s families. It’s not because they’re scared of criticizing one target — it’s because one target means something to them and another doesn’t.

I’d think I’d prefer the first one. But either way, things are clearly out of balance. There is ONE religion today where some of the major branches solicit actual violence and the others are too scared to object: Islam.

jimmy’s comments, meanwhile, are just Theater of the Absurd. Clearly, jimmy kint reed.

Like the Islamists that balked at cartoons of The Prophet, you are balking at a piece of art critiquing the Pope. And, yet, you do not see the similarity. Fascinating.

There is a similarity. Average Gay Joe finds the concept of the piece distasteful, and so do I. And Muslims find negative portrayals of Mohammad distasteful.

And that is where the similarities of your asinine comparison end. because, as you see, all Joe, or I, or the residents of Milan have done is to voice our objections.

Muslims on the other hand have rioted, destroyed property, committed arson, and injured and killed people.

The fact that you even compared the two shows an astounding level of ignorance.

Then they should get an NEA grant and show it off in a major city museum.

Then we’ll see how “tolerant” these Islamists are.

Also - if CAIR demands that this “exhibit” be removed, will the ACLU oppose them?

Just askin’…

Regards,
Peter H.

I don’t think this sort of display should be illegal, but I do think that the people who do such things should ask themselves why they *don’t* do something similar with the Prophet.

If they want to make a statement that matters, they really ought to make one about a religious figure that isn’t *safe*.

Jimmy, you’ll have to pardon my myopia. I fail to see the similarity.

Or did I miss the part where Catholic mobs riot worlwide and threaten beheadings?

Furthermore, jimmy, your moral relativism in trying to equate what the CADL is doing with the riots, destruction of property, death threats, and violence practiced by the Islamists you support indicates the highest level of myopia.

In your case, jimmy, the Pope is absolutely correct; you are inherently disordered and evil, as is demonstrated by your attempt to hide your irrational antireligious bigotry behind your sexual orientation and you insistence that all gay people must agree with you.

And, by the way, one does not need to be “left wing” to critique the Pope. One just needs to be Catholic. And why you would ask Catholics to demean important religious figures from other faith traditions is certainly not beyond me. In fact, it shows that you are akin to the Pope, whose honor you weakly attempt to protect and who has called you intrinsically disordered and evil, the latter also being a claim of the Islamists. Oh, and some important GOP folks, to boot. (Gotta raise those funds after all….)