...I know...It's really about vandalism...(arson I guess in this case)...At least on the surface.
I grow impatient with those who clearly conceal their real agenda behind a façade of contrived "art" works...Such "art" is clearly (and solely) designed to either provoke (Koons/Hurst/Mapplethorpe, etcetera), or is created out of a simple naiveté, or created by those with little talent.
I vote naiveté in this instance.
The naïve and talentless don't bother me that much and I certainly do not advocate censorship or destroying their...uh..."art".
In fact I happen to enjoy/collect the long tradition of "Naïve"/"Folk"/"Outsider" art.
But the untold cultural damage and aesthetic subterfuge accomplished by pranksters like a Koons/Hurst or a Pollock "dripper" should not be given a free pass, simply because they profess to "originality", or "something different".
My oily rag hanging on the wall at the Guggenheim is "original"...It is "different"...
“Stunning? Pedestrian Recycled Feminist Simplicity. Nothing new here. Give me more!”
nevitta357 on Dec 7, 2013 at 09:01:13
“I'm guessing that the person who wrote this article is a woman. I'm also guessing that if she received invitations to dinner from a guy who looked like the sole male in these pictures and one from a guy who looked like the actor who was just killed in an automobile accident, knowing nothing else about either of her mysterious new suitors, it would take her less than ten minutes to decide which one of them she was going to accept. Less than thirty seconds if she was only given 30 seconds to respond.”
appeaser on Dec 7, 2013 at 08:07:07
“The only one stunning was the young girl with her rib cage showing.
Somebody needs to give her a cheeseburger!”
“Khat is not coffee. Do some field study regarding khat users. It ain't Starbucks.”
garybridgeman on Nov 30, 2013 at 11:00:09
“I am not saying that it is coffee. I am saying that the harm it does isn't worth the ban. And that it is less harmful than alcohol and other already legal drugs. And on a scale of effects it is more stimulating than coffee but less than cocaine.
Banning it doesn't address the social harm and other harm it has. Much better to have an rational debate about the harm and use other ways to mitigate and reduce that harm.
If people want to use Khat, illegal or legal, it will still be bought and consumed. You will still have the social issues that are in place now, but along with that have the criminal justice system
We all preach moderate use of alcohol. So why can't we legalize it, tax it, educate people on the harms. And use the money to improve their social problems. Then it won't be a social problem for everyone else.”
“Khat is not always so harmless, that's a naive view.”
garybridgeman on Nov 29, 2013 at 06:40:27
“No one has ever said that drugs are not harmless. But there are different scales of harm. Coffee is a drug, the lethal dose of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be about 150 to 200 milligrams per kilogram of body mass or roughly 80 to 100 cups of coffee for an average adult.
That is difficult to drink but you can easily buy 200mg caffeine tablets and reach a lethal dose if you wanted to.
A much better way to control the harm from drugs, is to first see how harmful it is. And then decide, in relation to other things that we consume, what the controls should be.
One of them may well be to ban it, but another may be to take no action at all. With a range of options in between. We know that banning a substance in many cases doesn't reduce the consumption of that substance. Alcohol prohibition taught us that, once you ban something you have no means other than criminal actions to reduce the use of that substance.
If the harm and effects are far less than Alcohol? Why should it be banned, it would increase criminality, we would lose tax revenues.”