You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

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

I understand that. I'm just saying this piece of art is simply depicting a soldier at a grave. How else are you going to depict a grave as an artist? I simply don't put this display in the same category as a nativity scene, 10 commandments, or bible display. To say the piece is endorsing religion and excluding others is a real stretch of the imagination imho. Clearly the plaintiffs need a good pussy grabbin'.

0
1

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

I know you are focused on the art, where I am focused on the law, both positions have merit, sure.

I guess, to me, focusing on the art, is more seeing the bee to spite the hive.

On that topic, don't you think a tomb stone, which predates a cross on a grave (started around the 19th century), be just as effective? Halloween decorations use them quite effectively. I know it is silly and fairly pedantic, just was wondering if you would be just as OK with such a change?

0
1

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

Looks like he's tired from shooting mortars all day.

I appreciate the points you make. I'm just saying for a simple silhouette, a cross stuck in the ground makes it immediately recognizable as a grave. Could the artist have used a headstone, cairn, burial urn, or the like? Sure!

Here's the way I see it though. It's a given that a cross in the ground marks a grave. What isn't a given is the beliefs of the soldier mourning the loss of his fallen companion. I would think the point of the work is a soldier grieving the loss of a friend. The piece conveys that message. I don't see it as a nod to state sponsored religion.