re: #544 Walter L. Newton

So, art should not elicit response from the viewer? It’s exists simply to be? I don’t think so. Lawhawk has an opinion about certain art. He never implied it should be censored. It was his personal opinion as to what he merits as art.

That’s the wonderful thing about art.

I write plays. I have had major productions of my works done, I have been reviewed a number of times in Weekly Variety. The reviews have been positive and sometimes instructive.

I had a play about suicide, where a Denver critic who didn’t like the message in the piece, tell me in his review that I shoudl “get down on my hands and knees and pray to G-d I never have a suicide happen in my family.” Other critics praised the piece.

It didn’t make the critic more right or more wrong because he didn’t like the material, the subject. And I don’t call this critic a art hater because he had an opinion.

Sorry, if you don’t want art talked about, hide it. Otherwise, it’s open season.

I’m on your side here. I do want art talked about. Like I keep saying, Lawhawk wans’t criticizing the work, he was saying “that guy’s a bad person for daring to paint that.” if someone calls Warhol’s morals and sensibilites into question just for his subject matter, I’m going to find that ridiculous. All opinions are not created equal. I’m not going to give some yokel who points at a Rothko and says “my kid coulda painted that” my respect.

When I say “enemy of art”, what brings those words to my head are people who believe that people should be smeared and attacked and compared to VLAMMS BELANG (!?!?!?!?) because of what they paint.

An artist. being compared to a racist political group. For painting a picture.

Do you see where I could perhaps become exasperated with the tone floating around here?