0
1

[–] cthulian_axioms 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Betteridge's Law of Headlines states that if a headline ends in a question mark, the question asked must be answered in the negative.

Given the question asked, general principles of reason also dictate the same answer.

So ... no.

0
1

[–] Madranon 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

They just don't see the irony in what they say.

If their brains were zippos they wouldn't be able to light a cigarette.

0
1

[–] mamwad 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Why are they attacking the NYT reporter for reporting facts without injecting his own opinion into the matter? Isn't that what a journalist is supposed to do when reporting straight news?

The NYT article leads with a photo of the work, and does contain a several paragraph response from the curators of the show about why they chose to include the painting. The article you linked to said that this response was "mealy mouthed," but it seems on point to me:

The curators said that they wanted to include the painting because many of the exhibition’s artists focus on violence — racial, economic, cultural — and they felt that the work raised important questions, especially now, in a political climate in which race, power and privilege have become ever more urgent issues.

“For us it was so much about an issue that extends across race,” said Mr. Lew, who along with his co-curator, Ms. Locks, met with Mr. Bright on Tuesday to discuss his protest. “Yes, it’s mostly black men who are being killed, but in a larger sense this is an American problem.”

Ms. Locks said: “Right now I think there are a lot of sensitivities not just to race but to questions of identities in general. We welcome these responses. We invited these conversations intentionally in the way that we thought about the show.” She added that she felt the painting was a means of “not letting Till’s death be forgotten, as Mamie, his mother so wanted.”

Clearly, this article does not endorse the censorship of art. Again, most importantly, they displayed the painting in the article.

Art thrives on controversy. Depicting a work as controversial isn't often damaging to the reputation of that work. This article probably increased the valuation of the piece.

0
1

[–] aname787 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Sure, lets wipe the slate clean so we can start all over again. Maybe this time we can finish what so many started.

1
1

[–] 8514953? 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Then we'd have no quality paintings.

2
1

[–] 8513513? 2 points 1 point (+3|-2) ago 

Will it increase the value of the artists remaining pieces for investors? All art is is an investment, no one values it intrinsically.

0
3

[–] MrPim 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

no one values it intrinsically.

What? Those who buy them for large bills may not, but I assure you there are plenty of us who value art intrinsically. Do you think we run and post to v/museum because we're paid?

0
0

[–] 8516280? ago 

Just because we only know of Vincent Van Gogh because Theo wanted to get some of the money back he had wasted keeping his psycho brother up does not mean Starry Night isn't pretty.

0
2

[–] wgtt911 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Of course.. white is evil.. /s

0
2

[–] 8513453? 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If it is an oil painting that media was popularized by Europeans. Anyone else is culturally appropriating. Art never survives long in SJW land.

load more comments ▼ (3 remaining)