Submitted by admin on Thu, 2007-04-05 08:00. ::
The complaint by the Atlanta police officers regarding the work of art "Formula for Hate" states that the "offensive" artwork creates "a hostile work environment."
Aside from the fact that these two officers have every right to be offended by whatever they don't like, it is ironic that these two policemen, who most likely encounter hostility while doing their job every day, find 33 pieces of paper on a wall with an ambiguous political message as "hostile." It is also interesting that two policemen whose job is to protect laws from being broken would want to infringe on another individual's (the artist's) First Amendment rights. Should these two policemen pursue their grievances in court, they will have to prove that their workplace was so hostile to them that any "reasonable" person would want to quit their job.
I suspect there is a lot more to this complaint than what we, the public, have been told. But, should some legal action be brought against the gallery or should the artwork be taken down, I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU wouldn't be on this case, like white on rice.
I'm a taxpayer in the city of Atlanta. The only thing that shocks and angers me more than the decision by the city to display racist art in a public building is the lack of public protest of that decision. If that painting had displayed the text "Politically it's OK to hate the black man," the painting would never have been displayed. If it had, the Rev. Al Sharpton and other black leaders would be on CNN in less than a day to decry such a racist statement in a government building.
The artist's intent is irrelevant. The text on the painting speaks for itself. I guess you can make inflammatory statements about white people and get away with it.
Fear no art. The stories about the artwork of Alvaro Alvillar (on view as part of the Pin-Up Show at City Gallery East) have certainly stirred interest in the exhibition —- at least on the surface. In actuality, the articles have simply focused on creating a sense of controversy.
It's interesting that the few individuals who registered complaints about the artwork have responded only to the words contained within the painting. It is ultimately the design, color and content as well as the technical and aesthetic attributes that merge to generate a sense of presence in the artwork.
One need not fear that sense of presence. One does not need to remove it from view. Do not blame the artwork for creating "a hostile work environment." Do not fear art. The worse or best that the artwork can do is invite personal contemplation and/or inspire healthy dialogue.
In response to "Bloggers eager to see Iraq war firsthand" (@issue, April 2): By their own admission, the writers of this opinion piece are part of a cottage industry devoted to undermining just about everything written in what they derisively call the "MSM" (mainstream media).
We're told they have spent a great deal of time and ink criticizing both the content and quality of media coverage on the Iraq war, finding abundant evidence of anti-war bias and the promotion of a "vicious and escalating cycle of defeatism." Then, in a sudden fit of unintended honesty, they turn right around and wonder aloud if they are seeing the situation clearly.
To answer that question —- for themselves, and presumably for everyone they view as deluded by the claim of journalistic impartiality, which is just about everyone —- they'll go to Iraq and with "patriotism" over "impartiality," bring us all the "real truth" of things.
Kudos to the Atlanta Police Department for using "discreet peeks through the crack in closed restroom stall doors" in its effort to wipe out public indecency in our city ("New tactics produce more airport arrests," Metro, April 2).
Is it a really a crime against society when two willing adults perform an immoral sex act behind closed doors, even if it is in a public restroom? It is time for our Legislature to re-examine the laws that were established strictly on the basis of religion.
A free-trade agreement between Taiwan and the United States would offer the same benefits. Trade flows between the two in 2006 equaled $61 billion. Economic analysis of a U.S.-Taiwan pact shows that U.S. exports could grow by as much as $6.6 billion annually.
Because South Korea and Taiwan produce many similar products, the U.S.-South Korea agreement could result in trade diversion from Taiwan to South Korea. A Taiwan-U.S. pact would help level the playing field and contribute to Taiwan's ongoing economic prosperity, crucial to maintaining stability between Taiwan and mainland China.
A U.S.-Taiwan pact would offer clear economic benefits for both parties and would have impact locally, since Taiwan has important trade ties in Georgia.
This is cache, read story here
