Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Mise, Jan 14, 2009.
So they're not unhappy with the content, then?
I don't know, but at first they said that they liked it. I have no idea if this changed
Is the original article lying then? I've read in a number of places, including the PDF somebody posted, that each country had their own artist contributing the art?
I dunno... sounds like a rather accurate description to me.
Anyway, I happen to like it in a way. Kind of cheap humour and putting it in front of the EC HQ is probably a bit over the top, but it´s nice that such things are possible at all. I would´ve thought that it would not be allowed.
a lot of money for a bad right wing cartoon.
bulgaria as toilet. how creative.
the netherlands sinking in a flood of failed multiculturalism. give the guy some art award.
entertainment != beauty
National stereotypes are in their nature... well nationalistic. That's why it may appear right wing.
so why wasnt holland depicted as the free sex and drug paradise it is mostly viewed as?
It's amazing that poking fun at stereotypes can bring european relations to its knees
They should have had an american do it though the Dutch one is the only one any good.
There were several good ones, but I think some of them could be a bit more harsh. Or you know, racist.
Just because one newspaper talked about it doesn't mean WWIII is upon us.
i demand world war iii over this!
What do you think of annexing *us* this time?
( or else Merkel would be supreme commander... do we want that? )
and then start everything by invading hungary? i'm in!
We will fight right after the strike.
All it takes is one shot.
Isn't that more the American image of the Netherlands? It's certainly not my first thought when I think about them.
To be fair, most americans would not immediately associate the netherlands with amsterdam, cause they've no idea where it is.
But I think amsterdam is Holland's most famous city and its image is pretty uniform across cultures.
No really? I didn't realise. After all, I only suggested that art might be expected to entertain primarily through beauty.
So clearly mixing the two up then.
Art is associated with aesthetic value, and I was pointing this out. In case you might want to try to misinterpret me again, I'll let the OED explain:
Art: Any of various pursuits or occupations in which creative or imaginative skill is applied according to aesthetic principles
Aesthetic: Of or pertaining to the appreciation or criticism of the beautiful.
Am I clear enough now?
Pretending that this sculpture is art because it criticises the EU is vacuous. Don't try.
Separate names with a comma.