Burned American flag = art?

[The Black Forrest]

Blaming Vietnam Veterans not just for the Vietnam War, but also for being bitter is not quite like blaming victims for being raped--but it's in the same ballpark. I think that war was wrong, but do not dishonor (let alone villify) everyone who served in it. That is both offensive and stupid.

Can we please return to the topic now?

Hey you saying we can't go off on tangents?

Meanie!

OK....

If the artist declares it art then it's art.

One man's art is another man's garbage.

The greater crime would be controlling art......

[Dyakovo]

Depending upon what is meant "involved there" you are either over by about 5 years or under by about 10 years.

We had "advisers" there since the end of WWII. First official death I believe was in 56......

Math error, I corrected my post...
We started sending advisors around 1950 if memory serves me...

Well?

I was including the OSS and the CIA guys. But people could argue their effect on the area......

Well what?

There were OSS guys there during WWII and the CIA had guys there even at Dien Bien Phu.....

If that's accurate then obviously my memory has served me poorly...
Not sure what else to say...

[The Black Forrest]

If that's accurate then obviously my memory has served me poorly...
Not sure what else to say...

The tangent has run it's course.

[The Southern Dictators]

That's not art. It's not illegal, but it's not art.

Meh, what passes for art these days would make the great masters weep. Whatevs.

Those^

[The Black Forrest]

That's not art. It's not illegal, but it's not art.

Meh, what passes for art these days would make the great masters weep. Whatevs.

Those^

People forget that even the great masters were considered trash in their day especially if they started a new style that went against the norm.....

[The Southern Dictators]

That's not art. It's not illegal, but it's not art.

Meh, what passes for art these days would make the great masters weep. Whatevs.

Those^

People forget that even the great masters were considered trash in their day especially if they started a new style that went against the norm.....

Their called great masters for a reason /playing

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That's not art. It's not illegal, but it's not art.

Meh, what passes for art these days would make the great masters weep. Whatevs.

Those^

People forget that even the great masters were considered trash in their day especially if they started a new style that went against the norm.....

I guess you missed the post where I said this.

[Trollgaard]

I believe it could be art under certain conditions.

[Dark Side Messiahs]

While I'm inclined to say its not art, there is someone skinny, bearded guy in thick black glasses and a turtleneck that thinks it is. Its all in the eye of the beholder I guess.

[Nobel Hobos]

While I'm inclined to say its not art, there is someone skinny, bearded guy in thick black glasses and a turtleneck that thinks it is. Its all in the eye of the beholder I guess.

Exactly. You do need glasses.

[Zeyad]

I'm inclined to think it's art, but also tacky and a waste of time. Mayhaps we treat it as such?

[Disco Tetris]

That's not art. It's not illegal, but it's not art.

Meh, what passes for art these days would make the great masters weep. Whatevs.

Those^

People forget that even the great masters were considered trash in their day especially if they started a new style that went against the norm.....

I understand what you're saying, but this "artwork" is trite crap.

[Novistrainia]

Art is in the eye of the beholder, so guess so, though just burning a flag completely isn't art just a form of expression. Now to say if this is good or bad art is up to the powers to be.

As to why someone was complaining I can understand it, but to me it is just a piece of cloth, or petroleum based product, with some pretty colors it doesn't really matter to me what one does to it, as I know what the symbol means, and have the image in my head, and as far as I know no one can infiltrate my mind and burn that image.

[Dyakovo]

Art is in the eye of the beholder, so guess so, though just burning a flag completely isn't art just a form of expression. Now to say if this is good or bad art is up to the powers to be.

As to why someone was complaining I can understand it, but to me it is just a piece of cloth, or petroleum based product, with some pretty colors it doesn't really matter to me what one does to it, as I know what the symbol means, and have the image in my head, and as far as I know no one can infiltrate my mind and burn that image.

*cracks open Novis's skull, pours lighter fluid in and lights it*

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Oh boo hoo. It's a burnt flag, not something to get all riled up about.

Of course this is art. A picture of a builders bum crack is art, a crushed up can with nail polish poured all over it can be art.
Anything is art if you say it is.

[Minotzia]

A friend who may or may not attend the high school depicted showed me this:

Art exhibit shows American flag with burnt edges.

Ironically the VFW sent a Vietnam vet to complain about it. Wasn't Vietnam protecting anyone but Americans, basically?

Basically, is the art disrespecting veterans, or are you inclined to side with the student who created it?

Really stupid art, but art nonetheless. The school allowing it to be displayed on the other hand seems like a pretty poor decision. Freedom of speech is thrown out of the window when you're talking about schools, and this is most certainly obscene based on the community it happened in, so doing this was most likely against their state policy. In Kansas, my home state, people would get upset, but our school system isn't bound by the obscenity clauses of most other state regulations on freedom of speech in schools.

[Consaria]

Art is different to everyone. An empty soda bottle could be art to someone. She may of thought that a burnt American flag was art.

[The Black Forrest]

Art is in the eye of the beholder, so guess so, though just burning a flag completely isn't art just a form of expression. Now to say if this is good or bad art is up to the powers to be.

As to why someone was complaining I can understand it, but to me it is just a piece of cloth, or petroleum based product, with some pretty colors it doesn't really matter to me what one does to it, as I know what the symbol means, and have the image in my head, and as far as I know no one can infiltrate my mind and burn that image.

*cracks open Novis's skull, pours lighter fluid in and lights it*

Brains Flambe?????

ZOMBIE!!!!!!!!

*runs looking for a gun*

[The Cat-Tribe]

A friend who may or may not attend the high school depicted showed me this:

Art exhibit shows American flag with burnt edges.

Ironically the VFW sent a Vietnam vet to complain about it. Wasn't Vietnam protecting anyone but Americans, basically?

Basically, is the art disrespecting veterans, or are you inclined to side with the student who created it?

Really stupid art, but art nonetheless. The school allowing it to be displayed on the other hand seems like a pretty poor decision. Freedom of speech is thrown out of the window when you're talking about schools, and this is most certainly obscene based on the community it happened in, so doing this was most likely against their state policy. In Kansas, my home state, people would get upset, but our school system isn't bound by the obscenity clauses of most other state regulations on freedom of speech in schools.

Um. No. In its landmark 1969 ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court found that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Although the Court has subsequently made some decisions qualifying the boundaries of student free speech, the essential rule of Tinker still stands:

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years. ...

In West Virginia v. Barnette, supra, this Court held that under the First Amendment, the student in public school may not be compelled to salute the flag. Speaking through Mr. Justice Jackson, the Court said:

"The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures - Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." 319 U.S., at 637

...

In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint. Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

...

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend." Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

...

This principle has been repeated by this Court on numerous occasions during the intervening years. In Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 , MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, speaking for the Court, said:

"`The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.' Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. at 487. The classroom is peculiarly the `marketplace of ideas.' The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth `out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.'"

[Blouman Empire]

*snip*

A question Cat-Tribe, if the school decided to put on an exhibition of students art do they get a say on what art piece go into that exhibition or do that have to put all of them in?

[Buffett and Colbert]

*snip*

A question Cat-Tribe, if the school decided to put on an exhibition of students art do they get a say on what art piece go into that exhibition or do that have to put all of them in?

What kind of a question is that?

EDIT-- Of course they do. That's been done... since the beginning of time.

[Blouman Empire]

*snip*

A question Cat-Tribe, if the school decided to put on an exhibition of students art do they get a say on what art piece go into that exhibition or do that have to put all of them in?

What kind of a question is that?

EDIT-- Of course they do. That's been done... since the beginning of time.

Que? I was wondering if the school had any say on what artworks they wanted representing them or not.

[Buffett and Colbert]

*snip*

A question Cat-Tribe, if the school decided to put on an exhibition of students art do they get a say on what art piece go into that exhibition or do that have to put all of them in?

What kind of a question is that?

EDIT-- Of course they do. That's been done... since the beginning of time.

Que? I was wondering if the school had any say on what artworks they wanted representing them or not.

My answer still stands.

I mean, don't schools often exhibit the best artwork that is submitted? Sometimes, they include everything, but sometimes they don't...

[Blouman Empire]

*snip*

A question Cat-Tribe, if the school decided to put on an exhibition of students art do they get a say on what art piece go into that exhibition or do that have to put all of them in?

What kind of a question is that?

EDIT-- Of course they do. That's been done... since the beginning of time.

Que? I was wondering if the school had any say on what artworks they wanted representing them or not.

My answer still stands.

I mean, don't schools often exhibit the best artwork that is submitted? Sometimes, they include everything, but sometimes they don't...

Well that's what I was wondering, could an argument be made that omission of a piece of artwork being the school infringing on the rights of the student.

It was just a thought.

[Acycia]

For the sake of art it is okay to damage a flag, It was not damaging in a disrespectful manner.
The sake was for art, she wanted to depict it as being war-torn, more realistic, basically she was making the flag more epic, for the sake of art.
And i respect that, it gives the flag a lot more emotion, it can almost show how flag looked after battling beside it.
If I was a veteran I would feel honored.

It was'nt cut to shreds, or painted or or defaced in any way.