South Reinkalistan wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:We disagree as to the purpose of statues, and your attempt to act like there is an objective meaning behind a piece of art is foolhardy.
In what world is this:
Not intended to glorify?
A world where the urinal exhibit has taken place and changed peoples understanding of what art is. I suggest you learn about it. An object has no meaning outside of its contextual environment.
I also note that your position, and the far-lefts position in general, is on the face of it entirely inconsistent.
When calling for their removal it's because such statues impact popular understanding in a negative and racist way, and so removing them helps to tackle racism. (I.E, they present a message to the public you disagree with).
When it's noted you can provide context by having other exhbibits, but can't provide context by destroying historical monuments, and thus this message you are alleging is being transmitted can be changed, suddenly "Statues don't communicate messages compared to books".
In which case, what's the problem?
It seems that your understanding of statues changes based on whatever allows you to call for their removal, almost like you have a goal and are working backwards to justify it with whatever argument comes to hand. Almost like your real goal is hostility to the west, white people, and so on, and all of this is merely a series of excuses and rationalizations.