First time visitor? Learn more.

► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Breaking News: The Met goes Dhimmi

by Rodan ( 140 Comments › )
Filed under Art, Islamic Supremacism, Islamic Terrorism at January 10th, 2010 - 1:30 pm

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY has great works of Art. It is an International destination for many who visit NY. Without any reasoning, they have decided to pull works of art depicting Muhammad. They received no threats or pressure, yet out of fear they remove the the depictions.

Is the Met afraid of Mohammed?

The Metropolitan Museum of Art quietly pulled images of the Prophet Mohammed from its Islamic collection and may not include them in a renovated exhibition area slated to open in 2011, The Post has learned.

The museum said the controversial images — objected to by conservative Muslims who say their religion forbids images of their holy founder — were “under review.”

Critics say the Met has a history of dodging criticism and likely wants to escape the kind of outcry that Danish cartoons of Mohammed caused in 2006.

This is an act of cowardice that this great institution has done. Instead of defending artistic freedom and expression, they pulled out works of art depicting Muhammad. They should not show fear to the Islamo-Imperialists. The Jihadists feed on fear. When they are resisted they crumble. The Met should be shamed of itself for this surrender of Artistic Freedom.

Update: Check out Macker’s World to see the 6 Faces of Mo!

► Hot Links

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

140 Responses to “Breaking News: The Met goes Dhimmi”
( jump to bottom )

  1. coldwarrior
    1 | January 10, 2010 13:32

    but piss christ is ok

    and so is the dung madonna.


  2. 2 | January 10, 2010 13:34

    @ coldwarrior:

    Yup, its hypocrisy!


  3. Lincolntf
    3 | January 10, 2010 13:35

    Unbelievable. As soon as my wife (Art Hist Prof) is done doing whatever it is she’s doing, I’ll get her take on this. I’m hoping she’ll be outraged, but one can never tell.


  4. Guggi
    4 | January 10, 2010 13:37

    Sad to say but the Europeans are used to such behavior.


  5. 5 | January 10, 2010 13:42

    @ Guggi:

    Now its happening here!


  6. coldwarrior
    6 | January 10, 2010 13:42

    this is amazing behavior, i mean the muzzies are so tolerant of art and things…look at the bang up job they did on those buddhas in afghanistan

    /s


  7. vagabond trader
    7 | January 10, 2010 13:46

    How long until all the beautiful sacred works of Medieval and Renaissance art found at the Met become offensive to islam.

    Heathens


  8. coldwarrior
    8 | January 10, 2010 13:47

    @ vagabond trader:

    dont give them any ideas


  9. 9 | January 10, 2010 13:49

    @ coldwarrior:

    I believe in reciprocity. They don’t reciprocate, why should we?
    I’m tired of this bowing to these Imperialists.


  10. coldwarrior
    10 | January 10, 2010 13:50

    @ Rodan:

    the art-and-croissant-crowd will be the last to understand your sentence “I’m tired of this bowing to these Imperialists.”


  11. vagabond trader
    11 | January 10, 2010 13:52

    We should also ask why now? These works are hundreds of years old. The imperialistic jihadi are bolder than ever trying to impose their sharia insanity on us. Does anyone else see parallels between the demands of the muzz and proggies?


  12. newsjunkie_ky
    12 | January 10, 2010 13:54

    vagabond trader wrote:

    How long until all the beautiful sacred works of Medieval and Renaissance art found at the Met become offensive to islam.
    Heathens

    better not find any PIGS in them there pictures/muzzie


  13. coldwarrior
    13 | January 10, 2010 13:55

    were these works done by muzzies?

    @ vagabond trader:

    totally. except this time the muzz is going against the proggies that i am sure all have *coexist* stickers on their hybrids


  14. Lincolntf
    14 | January 10, 2010 13:55

    One especially lousy aspect of this craven act of artistic cowardice is that New York remains popularly prestigious largely because of its amazing museums. Whether you hate the “Wall St. fat cats” or you see only the crime-ridden slums scattered throughout the Boroughs, everyone appreciates the Museums.
    To surrender without a fight (without even a threat) is tantamount to switching sides. The Met chooses censorship in the name of pre-emptively appeasing Religious hatred.
    They should be ashamed of themselves. I’m ashamed of them.


  15. vagabond trader
    15 | January 10, 2010 13:57

    @ newsjunkie_ky:

    LOL!


  16. wolfie
    16 | January 10, 2010 13:59

    Lincolntf wrote:

    As soon as my wife (Art Hist Prof) is done doing whatever it is she’s doing, I’ll get her take on this.

    It would be great to know what her reaction is.

    I noticed (at the very end of the Post article) an Islamic art expert with a Muslim-sounding name thought the Met was being silly. So why does the Met have to accomodate the pushy idiots?


  17. coldwarrior
    17 | January 10, 2010 14:00

    @ Lincolntf:

    why didnt they just say ‘no, go away’ ?


  18. 18 | January 10, 2010 14:01

    @ coldwarrior:

    Yup, The Imperialists can do anything to the Progs. The Progs ask how high to jump!


  19. 19 | January 10, 2010 14:01

    I dunno, sweeping islam out of a museum sounds like a good idea to me.


  20. coldwarrior
    20 | January 10, 2010 14:03

    @ teacake:

    i think i know what pieces they are talking about and they are quite nice.


  21. buzzsawmonkey
    21 | January 10, 2010 14:04

    teacake wrote:

    I dunno, sweeping islam out of a museum sounds like a good idea to me.

    It is important to know your adversary—the good and the bad. Erasing any record of the history of Islam is a triumph of ignorance; the same ignorance that the Taliban wants to inculcate in those it oppresses, and the same ignorance that the appeasers among us wish to grow and flourish.


  22. 22 | January 10, 2010 14:04

    @ teacake:

    Didn’t look at it that way.


  23. vagabond trader
    23 | January 10, 2010 14:04

    @ teacake:

    Really, why don’t they trim some fat off their mosque projects (funded by the Sauds) and build their own museums. G-d knows what they’d put on display since nothing seems to please them.

    Hows Mz Liliy doing?


  24. yah
    24 | January 10, 2010 14:04

    But art insulting Mary or Jesus is probably just fine with them.


  25. Doppelganger
    25 | January 10, 2010 14:04

    I don’t want to look at that pedophile anyway


  26. vagabond trader
    26 | January 10, 2010 14:07

    What if the Met said eff U? Fatwa time I imagine?


  27. RIX
    27 | January 10, 2010 14:11

    Am I to assume that a fine object of art depicting the Prophet screwing a goat is now out of the question at the Met?


  28. Lincolntf
    28 | January 10, 2010 14:13

    Just mentioned it to my wife. She’s busy working, so all she said was “that doesn’t sound right”.
    I’ll have her read the whole article when she’s done.


  29. Guggi
    29 | January 10, 2010 14:15

    If Claudio Lange is right with his theory the Europeans face great problems/sarc:

    Romanesque Propaganda in Stone
    Anti-Islamic Agitprop

    Saracens in salacious poses, and beasts at prayer, facing Mecca: an exhibition of photos at Berlin’s Museum of Islamic Art follows the trail of anti-Islamic propaganda in mediaeval Christendom. Lennart Lehman reports

    Claudio Lange’s theory stands in opposition to traditional readings of art history. In the exhibition catalogue, he writes: “The usual art-historical talk of an Arabic influence on Christian art serves to mask the gulf that separates two enemy camps.” In his view, the rebirth of sculpture in the 10th century – usually denoted “The Romanesque Period” – was part of a campaign of propaganda images (using a medium that was new and revolutionary in its time) to justify calls for a Holy War against the Mohammedans.

    The core exhibits are sculptures that had previously received little attention: anti-Islamic representations designed to show how “the higher civilisation of Islam could be defeated by a triumphalist Christianity”. Therefore, says Lange, the word “Romanesque” is misleading, “for it wasn’t Rome but ‘Anti-Islam’ that inspired the rebirth of sculpture”.

    Equipped with funds from the Reemstma Foundation for Science and Culture, the 59-year-old, Chilean-born photograph visited mediaeval churches all over Europe. He was looking for anti-Islamic sculpted images on their facades and in their interiors – and he found them: copulating couples in Muslim prayer posture, turbaned men tearing their own beards out or parading their huge circumcised penises, headscarved women flaunting their vaginas, donkeys playing music on Arabic instruments while gargoyles cover their ears and grimace in protest (which Lange sees as a clear mockery of the Muezzins).

    Most of these figures are naked, and many of them greet the spectator with their hand on their breast. In Lange’s view, Biblical Babylon, the perverse but vincible adversary of Christendom, is here being projected onto Islam.

    Masturbating wildcats

    Besides holding a doctorate in Religion, Lange is himself a practising freelance artist. He discovered most of the aforementioned sculptures on the Iberian peninsula, where Catholic Spain was busy with the Reconquista until well into the 14th century. The presence of anti-Islamic images is therefore as unsurprising as is the use of Arabesque fragments in Iberian church buildings. Lange emphasises that these elements were the spoils of war, and not mere imitations arising from an admiration for Arabic culture.

    But he also found similar specimens in other parts of Europe: masturbating wildcats in Spain, monkeys playing the drums in Cologne, chained Muslims supporting the roof of a church in Prague, knights kicking Turks in Würzburg, and turbaned men dismembered by lions in Sweden.

    Claudio Lange sees these sculptures as a means of mobilising a largely illiterate population against Islam. He places the responsibility for this on the Catholic Church, which was motivated by the need to find a unifying, external enemy after having failed to establish peace within Europe. By uniting Europe, the Church hoped to strengthen and expand its power; and with this “propaganda in stone”, says Lange, the Church was laying the groundwork for the Crusades.

    Snip


  30. coldwarrior
    30 | January 10, 2010 14:15

    @ vagabond trader:

    muzzie fatwas remind me of sternly worded letters form the UN/IAEA.


  31. vagabond trader
    31 | January 10, 2010 14:15

    OT:

    Awash in oil reserves Hugo Chavez imposing energy restrictions on his serfs.I have a great idea,lets restrict coal use here. A glimpse at our future?

    Venezuela is suffering an energy crisis. Which gives Hugo another excuse to take a potshot at the shopping malls that just irritate the crap out of him.

    Chavez on Friday said his government is determined to keep Guri Dam from falling to a critical level where the turbines start to fail in the next several months. He has also imposed rationing measures that include penalty fees for energy overuse, shorter workdays for many public employees and reduced hours for shopping malls.


  32. goddessoftheclassroom
    32 | January 10, 2010 14:16

    Here’s my stand:

    If something offends me, I avoid it.

    That is all.


  33. vagabond trader
    33 | January 10, 2010 14:17

    When do the book burnings commence.


  34. coldwarrior
    34 | January 10, 2010 14:19

    add this to the chavez file:

    devalue currency

    seize businesses

    have las guardas national enforce the price fix


  35. coldwarrior
    35 | January 10, 2010 14:20

    @ vagabond trader:

    chavez needs $90 dollar oil minimum to maintian his grip on power.

    we have been under that for enough time that the cracks in venezuela are showing


  36. coldwarrior
    36 | January 10, 2010 14:21

    @ goddessoftheclassroom:

    well, that’s too simple.

    you should threaten a little and then seethe and then protest most loudly!


  37. 37 | January 10, 2010 14:22

    @ Guggi:

    That will be their next target! Thanks for that info.


  38. RIX
    38 | January 10, 2010 14:24

    @ vagabond trader:

    Yes & Chavz hates golf courses, he views golf as a bourgeois pass time. I bet that the oaf is just a bad golfer.


  39. coldwarrior
    39 | January 10, 2010 14:25

    RIX wrote:

    @ vagabond trader:
    Yes & Chavz hates golf courses, he views golf as a bourgeois pass time. I bet that the oaf is just a bad golfer.

    he hooks it…left.


  40. vagabond trader
    40 | January 10, 2010 14:26

    @ Guggi:

    Interesting,there are similar depictions of Jews.The horned Moses comes to mind.


  41. coldwarrior
    41 | January 10, 2010 14:27

    devalue currency–>inflation–>uncertainty–>price fix–>no incentive for production–>empty shelves–>rationing and crackdowns–>further uncertainty–>

    revolucion?


  42. Lincolntf
    42 | January 10, 2010 14:28

    “Why didn’t you come to me like a fucking man and tell me that your Prophet was fucking camera shy?”

    -The Met


  43. RIX
    43 | January 10, 2010 14:31

    he hooks it…left.

    Yeah & I bet that he is one of those guys that six putts the green & says “Gimme a five.”


  44. 44 | January 10, 2010 14:32

    @ coldwarrior:

    That’s the result of Progressismo!


  45. Guggi
    45 | January 10, 2010 14:33

    @ Rodan:

    Did you notice that there is a lot of leftwing idiology in this argument?

    He places the responsibility for this on the Catholic Church, which was motivated by the need to find a unifying, external enemy after having failed to establish peace within Europe. By uniting Europe, the Church hoped to strengthen and expand its power; and with this “propaganda in stone”, says Lange, the Church was laying the groundwork for the Crusades.


  46. vagabond trader
    46 | January 10, 2010 14:33

    @ RIX:

    Probably hates the golf because Barry has a more elegant swing.


  47. 47 | January 10, 2010 14:33

    Anybody still believe violence never solves anything?


  48. buzzsawmonkey
    48 | January 10, 2010 14:34

    vagabond trader wrote:

    Interesting,there are similar depictions of Jews.The horned Moses comes to mind.

    The “horned Moses” is ascribed to a Latin mistranslation of the Hebrew describing the radiance which shone from Moses’ face when he came down from Sinai.

    That may be true. However, the one and only work of art which is used in support of this is Michelangelo’s famous statue—and I, for one, believe that Michelangelo has gotten a bad rap.

    Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling is, famously, entirely Torah (“Old Testament”) characters; it shows no scenes from the New Testament. There was, further, a thriving Jewish community in Italy when Michelangelo was alive, and there is every likelihood that he was acquainted with Jews, and therefore not entirely dependent on one mistranslation for his understanding of the Biblical text. More to the point, Michelangelo was a true artist who sought to reach new heights of expression.

    Taking these together, I believe that the “horns” on Michelangelo’s statue of Moses are an attempt, by the most talented sculptor of his era, to reproduce the evanescent radiance of light in the medium of stone. That this effort to make the solidity of marble depict the insubstantiality of light was misinterpreted, and conflated with ignorant and bigoted comparisons of Jews with the Devil, I do not doubt. But I do not believe that that was Michelangelo’s intention.


  49. Guggi
    49 | January 10, 2010 14:35

    @ vagabond trader:

    Interesting,there are similar depictions of Jews.The horned Moses comes to mind.

    Yep, anti-semitism went hand in hand with the fight against Islam.


  50. NoThreat2U
    50 | January 10, 2010 14:37

    My favorite: Mo having his head crushed by an angel.

    http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj288/teebowne67/mohammed-dendermonde-1.jpg


  51. Lincolntf
    51 | January 10, 2010 14:37

    @ RIX:

    Remember that story about how Obama had been golfing three times as many times as Bush in the first 9 (or so) months of their respective terms? That must’ve blown the Libs little minds. Though I’m sure they quickly came up with some internal justification to ignore the obvious implication.
    Spoiled rich kid on the golf course blaming the world for his bad mood.


  52. vagabond trader
    52 | January 10, 2010 14:38

    @ vagabond trader:

    Well, yeah, Islam was the enemy back then and the Catholic Church the unifying authority in Europe. Makes sense that to inform a widely illiterate society they would forego cute little jihadis dancing around their church facades and go for the Medieval Alinsky ridicule method.


  53. 53 | January 10, 2010 14:38

    @ Lincolntf:

    Hey, he may have golfed more than Bush, but at least he didn’t fuck more than Tiger Woods!


  54. Lincolntf
    54 | January 10, 2010 14:39

    @ Iron Fist:

    That’s not what “the chicken” said…


  55. wolfie
    55 | January 10, 2010 14:39

    @ Guggi:

    ROFL.

    There is so much stupidity and ignorance in that short clip that it makes my head spin.


  56. 56 | January 10, 2010 14:40

    @ Guggi:

    Yup typical Progressive propaganda.


  57. coldwarrior
    57 | January 10, 2010 14:44

    RIX wrote:

    he hooks it…left.
    Yeah & I bet that he is one of those guys that six putts the green & says “Gimme a five.”

    and doesnt count shots that dont go real far


  58. buzzsawmonkey
    58 | January 10, 2010 14:45

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I would add to my post above that I believe Michelangelo’s statue of Moses is constantly used as the example of “Jews with horns” in part as a way of whacking the Catholic Church for antisemitism. Not that there isn’t a history of the Church being brutally oppressive to Jews, but it certainly fits with the modern program of slamming the Church on any grounds, justified or not.


  59. coldwarrior
    60 | January 10, 2010 14:47

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    my history of art prof made the same argument that u did about the moses statue…so the aura theory is being taught


  60. Guggi
    61 | January 10, 2010 14:47

    @ Rodan:

    More from Lange with a lot of photos (pdf-file)


  61. vagabond trader
    62 | January 10, 2010 14:47

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Be that as it may there are many lesser examples in Medieval art and ornamentation and that is what I was referencing.Once helped a friend with a geneaology search and one of her ancestors used the horned Moses on his battle helm. No idea what he thought it meant.


  62. coldwarrior
    63 | January 10, 2010 14:48

    @ Rodan:

    maybe the yemenies can open one of those art re-education camps that worked so well in saudi arabia


  63. chickadee
    64 | January 10, 2010 14:48

    vagabond trader wrote:

    How long until all the beautiful sacred works of Medieval and Renaissance art found at the Met become offensive to islam.

    Heathens

    i have often wondered that myself. Once the muzz get the west on the run, they won’t stop. And Art Museums are perfect hunting grounds for them to start taking down our culture. They can complain out the form of the body used in paintings and sculpture. This is outlawed in Islam. No depiction of the human form. They can complain abt. nudity. So many of the great masterpieces have something for them to voice their displeasure with.
    This is really pathetic that the Met is preemptively capitulating. It is so wrong to allow these backward savages to direct what we show in museums in our own country. This is inviting more aggression from Islam. More pushing for control. What is the Met willing to give up next to placate these animals?
    What is any one willing to give up next to make peace with the ROP that will not be stop jihading until they dominate all civilized places in the world and bring their darkness.


  64. 65 | January 10, 2010 14:50

    @ wolfie:

    Before setting off for the Holy Land, to make it safe for pilgrims, the locals first cast their eye around for any defenseless Jews to practice on, at the behest of the local religious leader, before goose stepping to Jerusalem.


  65. NoThreat2U
    66 | January 10, 2010 14:51

    @ Rodan:
    And all it is gonna take is a bazillion dollars from the US to do it! Peace in our time!!!! yay!!!!!


  66. vagabond trader
    67 | January 10, 2010 14:51

    @ chickadee:

    They are like the commies,demand push get and start the cycle again. You are correct, they will never stop and that is why we should never give in.


  67. NoThreat2U
    68 | January 10, 2010 14:52

    @ Rodan:
    Motards cringe at the thought of killing fellow motards. This. Will. Not. End. Well.


  68. buzzsawmonkey
    69 | January 10, 2010 14:56

    vagabond trader wrote:

    Be that as it may there are many lesser examples in Medieval art and ornamentation and that is what I was referencing.Once helped a friend with a geneaology search and one of her ancestors used the horned Moses on his battle helm. No idea what he thought it meant.

    Are those “lesser examples” of a horned Moses or of Jews with horns? Do they pre- or do they post-date Michelangelo’s statue? If there is one thing that we know, it is that anything can be misinterpreted, or can be badly copied by lesser talents; one need only compare the original works by the Cubists to those who sought to climb onto the bandwagon later and whose works are clunky compared to those of the movement’s originators.

    I would in no way be surprised if copies of Michelangelo’s work were to have spawned a later crop of “horned Moses” by lesser artists using Michelangelo as a springboard. I would in no way be surprised if there were independent depictions of horned Jews. But I increasingly suspect that there has been a sort of urban legend concocted about this.

    By the way, I read recently somewhere that there is a connection in the Hebrew between the term for “radiance” and the term for “renewal”—that the “horns” and any confusion regarding it refers, in fact to the radiance of the moon, and the horns it shows when the moon is new—which, not coincidentally, happens to be when the new months of the Jewish lunar calendar begin.

    In other words, Moses was radiant because his contact with G-d had left him renewed—and radiance and renewal are tied up intimately with the “horns” of the New Moon at Rosh Hodesh.


  69. vagabond trader
    70 | January 10, 2010 14:58

    @ Rodan:

    Heh, wonder if there was covert participation of the US involved here.Would not put it past our “warrior” potus.Cash for bombs, more jihadi art classes, subsidized healthcare. Kind of goes along with the thread.


  70. Doppelganger
    71 | January 10, 2010 15:00

    An Inconvenient Ice Age starts here

    But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise

    heh


  71. buzzsawmonkey
    72 | January 10, 2010 15:00

    @ Rodan:

    Oh, well, if we’re going to have dialog everything will be all right in short order. What could possibly go wrong?


  72. yah
    73 | January 10, 2010 15:01

    @ Guggi:
    Romanesque Propaganda in Stone
    Anti-Islamic Agitprop

    Don’t send to Oliver Stone…he’ll make a mini series for PBS.


  73. wolfie
    74 | January 10, 2010 15:02

    @ Guggi:

    I noticed that. The whole thesis is entirely anachronistic. He is transporting his own modern, progressive views into a very different era.

    One of many errors he makes is to inject the concept of “propaganda” into the Middle Ages. Propaganda, the attempt to move the masses to action, is a modern phenomenon. With neither a democracy nor a plebeian army, the medieval state frankly didn’t give a damn what the masses thought about wars or much of anything else.

    But of course, the biggest offense in the thesis is the insinuation that all of those images on the frontier with Islam were simply a product of a Catholic plot to smear their peaceful Muslim neighbors. As if the people living on the frontier weren’t constant victims of aggressive Muslim brutality.

    Aaaaaauuuuuuuuughhhhh!


  74. chickadee
    75 | January 10, 2010 15:03

    vagabond trader wrote:

    @ chickadee:

    They are like the commies,demand push get and start the cycle again. You are correct, they will never stop and that is why we should never give in.

    This is considered a win for Islam in their war against us. They are fighting on all fronts. They seek to undermine and destroy as the opportunities present themselves. Once we are weakened and robbed of our culture sufficiently, our identity becomes obscured. We have nothing of value we can point to and say this is worth believing in, worth fighting for. These paintings are being removed because of fear and cowardice. The muzz smell blood. There will be more demands. I despise the weaklings who made this decision.


  75. 76 | January 10, 2010 15:05

    Is the point of “terrorism” not “terror”?

    The Met, the United States, and much of the world is terrified of offending Islam and the fear is so thick you can cut it with a knife. This is their weapon, and it’s working like a charm.

    Until the West grows a pair and admits what the Muslims have been clearly stating – that this is a religious war, we will continue to be cowed into submission. We must either win the war that they have started, or be resigned to the fate of other great civilizations; total and permanant extinction.

    ISLAM DELENDA EST


  76. chickadee
    77 | January 10, 2010 15:08

    I’m going to go to the Met and demand to see that mo art.
    It’s for public viewing.


  77. 78 | January 10, 2010 15:10

    @ Rodan:

    Fuck. I’d negiotiate with them from 100,000 feet at Mach 10, followed by intense light and shattering overpressure…


  78. coldwarrior
    79 | January 10, 2010 15:11

    @ MacDuff:

    at some point there is going to be a knockdown dragout violent religious war between us and the muzz…its only a matter of time.

    islam delenda est indeed


  79. wolfie
    80 | January 10, 2010 15:11

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    @ vagabond trader:

    Depicting a person as horned is not necessarily negative. The horn is a classic symbol of strength and the call to war, found in cultures world-wide. You will remember the use of horned helmets by many Germanic tribes— and not just in Wagner’s operas!
    Medievals often depicted Moses as a great military leader.


  80. coldwarrior
    81 | January 10, 2010 15:14

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Fuck. I’d negiotiate with them from 100,000 feet at Mach 10, followed by intense light and shattering overpressure…

    you need this book:

    the effects of nuclear weapons

    i have a copy, its a great read and comes with a wiz-wheel to calculate the proper use of nukes.


  81. buzzsawmonkey
    82 | January 10, 2010 15:14

    wolfie wrote:

    Depicting a person as horned is not necessarily negative. The horn is a classic symbol of strength and the call to war, found in cultures world-wide. You will remember the use of horned helmets by many Germanic tribes— and not just in Wagner’s operas!
    Medievals often depicted Moses as a great military leader.

    Horns were also used as drinking vessels in medieval times.

    It ain’t the mead, it’s the Moses, as I always say.


  82. vagabond trader
    83 | January 10, 2010 15:15

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Wish I could locate those files,probably deleted them.Here is an interesting reprint of Surtees Visitation, a gathering of pedigree information, in the late 16th century, the earliest mention of the curious facade of the late 14th century Hilton Castle, which is now in a very degraded condition.Not even certain the devices shown are extant.


  83. 85 | January 10, 2010 15:16

    @ coldwarrior:

    Cool! But did you check the price? That’s a little steep for light entertainment :-)


  84. 86 | January 10, 2010 15:16

    NoThreat2U wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    Motards cringe at the thought of killing fellow motards. This. Will. Not. End. Well.

    Trusting in Yemen was a fool’s errand; they are a failed state and so infested with terrorists that it’s hard to tell where Yemen ends and al Qaida begins.

    Obama thinks he has chosen “prudently”. He has not. He’s the fool on the fool’s errand, and a lot of Americans will die as a result.


  85. coldwarrior
    87 | January 10, 2010 15:16

    @ wolfie:

    this does seem odd…why would the medievals go after moses? he’s heroic in the bible. this horned moses thing makes very little sense.


  86. yah
    88 | January 10, 2010 15:18

    Horns are also a symbol of fertility. (back in those times)


  87. Guggi
    89 | January 10, 2010 15:18

    @ yah:

    Don’t send to Oliver Stone…he’ll make a mini series for PBS.

    promised ;-)


  88. wolfie
    90 | January 10, 2010 15:18

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    the “horns” of the New Moon

    I suspect a connection there. (Another classic use of the horn is in connection with the moon.) The OT was often compared to the moon— God reflected through the history of the Jews— while Chrsit would be compared to the sun. That sort of thing.


  89. coldwarrior
    91 | January 10, 2010 15:19

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ coldwarrior:
    Cool! But did you check the price? That’s a little steep for light entertainment

    its not light reading. its the real thing. its THE manual for use and effect. each chapter is divided into layman part and then engineer part.

    get a copy from your local library then see if you want to buy it.

    i highly recommend it


  90. vagabond trader
    92 | January 10, 2010 15:19

    @ wolfie:

    That makes sense, my friends ancestors were definitely azz kickers, then they came home and dressed up in effeminate skirts and tunics. :mrgreen:


  91. 93 | January 10, 2010 15:20

    @ coldwarrior:

    K.


  92. taxfreekiller
    94 | January 10, 2010 15:23

    ms tfk and mr tfk have spent the weekend making calls to Mass. to get out the vote for the R there, took a break a bit ago, took a look at the .00001 lgf’s,, Thanos posted first on the latest thread, when I quit watching just now it had been 12 min between post, how he gets it to 2400 per day is odd, yesterday 2,020 or so,,,,

    flat line


  93. Doppelganger
    95 | January 10, 2010 15:26

    taxfreekiller wrote:

    ms tfk and mr tfk have spent the weekend making calls to Mass. to get out the vote for the R there, took a break a bit ago, took a look at the .00001 lgf’s,, Thanos posted first on the latest thread, when I quit watching just now it had been 12 min between post, how he gets it to 2400 per day is odd, yesterday 2,020 or so,,,,
    flat line

    20 people make 100 each.
    then a few stragglers chime in


  94. vagabond trader
    96 | January 10, 2010 15:26

    @ vagabond trader:

    Gah, that is one long link. Wish I could do that shortcut thingee.


  95. buzzsawmonkey
    97 | January 10, 2010 15:28

    @ coldwarrior:

    See my ##48 and 58 above. To which I would add, to
    @ vagabond trader, that the “horned Moses” in that example looks to me like a crude effort at rays of light rather than horns.

    One of the things I have increasingly noticed about art historians and critics, and museum curators, is that they are not only often astonishingly ignorant in their chosen fields, but that they are prone—as we all are, but as they should be on guard against—to putting a modern interpretation on something which is hundreds or thousands of years old, and coming up with howlingly incorrect interpretations as a result.

    Two examples:

    1) The Art Institute of Chicago has a medieval majolica plate on permanent display, which shows a woman with a sword in one hand and the head of a man in the other. The curator has mistakenly labeled this a depiction of Salome with the head of John the Baptist. This is clearly wrong; Salome did not sever the head of John the Baptist, and is usually depicted with his head on platter, as it was brought to her. This plate clearly shows Judith with the head of Holofernes; Judith is invariably depicted with a sword. The curator, clearly, was Biblically ignorant, and there was nobody with sufficient knowledge on staff to make the necessary correction.

    2) The Brooklyn Museum has frieze in black basalt from Nineveh, which depicts a series of men with the heads of birds and with wings, picking fruit from trees. The bird heads and wings are rendered accurately, as is the human anatomy (with allowance for stylization); so are the trees and the fruit. But the curator has decreed the fruit to be “mythical,” clearly not recognizing that from the representation of the leaves and the fruit that these are citrons—etrogs, in Judaism. What the significance of the etrog in Assyrian iconography is I do not know, but the point is that the curator could not be bothered to check for cross-references in other Middle East cultures to figure out what was depicted. This is of a piece with other non-Jewish antiquarians who, in my experience, will go through endless backflips rather than look for illuminating references from the Torah or Talmud.


  96. wolfie
    98 | January 10, 2010 15:29

    coldwarrior wrote:

    this does seem odd…why would the medievals go after moses? he’s heroic in the bible. this horned moses thing makes very little sense.

    The horns do not have a negative significance in this case.

    (I just e-mailed a medieval-art scholar who could probably tell me whether the horned Moses refers to war, the moon, or what.)


  97. Speranza
    99 | January 10, 2010 15:29

    The Met’s Impressionist and Dutch Art collections are unsurpassed in my opinion.


  98. 100 | January 10, 2010 15:29

    Disappointing but not surprising.

    So if these images are so forbidden, why where they created in the first place?


  99. Macker
    101 | January 10, 2010 15:30

    They want art? Well, I’ll give them art!


  100. 102 | January 10, 2010 15:31

    @ Speranza:

    Yup.


  101. 103 | January 10, 2010 15:31

    @ taxfreekiller:

    The traffic from watching the train wreck is about over. He’s had his little tantrum, stamped his little foot, and banned all of the best posters who didn’t leave on their own. Those that are left are either Kos Kidz in their own right or LGFers whose positions are so malleable and inconstant as to be totally uninteresting. It is done, and sooner or later his ad revenue is going to catch up with him.


  102. Speranza
    104 | January 10, 2010 15:31

    wolfie wrote:

    The horns do not have a negative significance in this case.

    (I just e-mailed a medieval-art scholar who could probably tell me whether the horned Moses refers to war, the moon, or what.)

    There is a famous statue of Moses in a church in Rome (St. Peter in Chains I believe) near the Colosseum where Moses has horns.


  103. wolfie
    105 | January 10, 2010 15:32

    @ yah:

    Yes. Now that we are all thinking of it, the symbolism of the horn is a regular horn-of-plenty!


  104. buzzsawmonkey
    106 | January 10, 2010 15:32

    Speranza wrote:

    There is a famous statue of Moses in a church in Rome (St. Peter in Chains I believe) near the Colosseum where Moses has horns.

    That’s the one I was discussing in ##48 and 58, et. seq.


  105. vagabond trader
    107 | January 10, 2010 15:32

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Very sloppy indeed. Like I said the ancestors were of the warrior class so I am inclined to accept Wolfies suggestion that the horned figure represents this.


  106. 108 | January 10, 2010 15:34

    @ Macker:

    You left out the Piss Mo :mrgreen:


  107. 109 | January 10, 2010 15:35

    @ Iron Fist:

    He’s just a washed up Jazz Artist.


  108. vagabond trader
    110 | January 10, 2010 15:35

    @ wolfie:

    Hey wolfie could you ask this scholar if they are familiar with the Hilton family of Hilton Castle in Northeastern England? They seemed particularly fond of the horned Moses/whoever symbol.


  109. 111 | January 10, 2010 15:36

    @ Iron Fist:

    He’s ranting about Danish Nazis now. He’s just a deranged washed up Jazz Artist.


  110. Macker
    112 | January 10, 2010 15:37

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Macker:

    You left out the Piss Mo

    I was going for the “fire” effect….


  111. vagabond trader
    113 | January 10, 2010 15:37

    @ Urban Infidel:

    Muzz Pron.


  112. Doppelganger
    114 | January 10, 2010 15:37

    Speranza wrote:

    wolfie wrote:
    The horns do not have a negative significance in this case.
    (I just e-mailed a medieval-art scholar who could probably tell me whether the horned Moses refers to war, the moon, or what.)
    There is a famous statue of Moses in a church in Rome (St. Peter in Chains I believe) near the Colosseum where Moses has horns.

    I was just there in October


  113. NoThreat2U
    115 | January 10, 2010 15:38

    @ MacDuff:
    He is so confident in himself that he will not acknowledge that fact though. Dumbass is gonna get a lot of people killed and a lot of money is going to be pissed away. Who will come to OUR aid when we need it??????


  114. coldwarrior
    116 | January 10, 2010 15:39

    @ wolfie:

    i’m getting that…interesting topic.

    a day where i dont learn something is like a day without sunshine


  115. Empire1
    117 | January 10, 2010 15:40

    coldwarrior wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    at some point there is going to be a knockdown dragout violent religious war between us and the muzz…its only a matter of time.
    islam delenda est indeed

    Agreed. I doubt very much that I’m the only one angry instead of cowed, and when they can get this easy-going old broad angry … well, it’s not a good omen for them!

    Islamo devas esti detruonta!


  116. buzzsawmonkey
    118 | January 10, 2010 15:41

    @ vagabond trader:

    We tend to forget that different times had different conventions of representation. In ancient Egyptian art, the important people were depicted as large, the people of lesser importance—vassals, slaves and such—when depicted at all were depicted much smaller. A similar convention existed for a time in early medieval art.

    Early medieval art had some portrayal of depth—not so much perspective, but more like the schematic angles that are still used in technical drawing, with proportion done very differently from the way it is done in perspective. There is some element of this in traditional Asian brush painting too; when the modern West encountered Japan in the mid-19th century, they were agog at the different artistic conventions, but to the Japanese that was “just the way things looked.”

    Byzantine icons do not have depth; they are intentionally very flat. The primitive portraiture of early-19th century America has some almost-Byzantine elements in its flatness.

    For us to sail in after 500, or 800, or 1000, or 1500 years and decree that some artist of unknown name and unknown quality, acting according to the conventions of his time, was depicting “horns” instead of “light” according to his own lights is a very time- and culture-centric assumption.


  117. coldwarrior
    119 | January 10, 2010 15:42

    @ Macker:

    ohhh man….


  118. wolfie
    120 | January 10, 2010 15:45

    @ vagabond trader:

    Will do, although his expertise is more continental.


  119. Guggi
    121 | January 10, 2010 15:45

    @ wolfie:

    I noticed that. The whole thesis is entirely anachronistic. He is transporting his own modern, progressive views into a very different era.

    His thesis is very interesting if you leave aside his ideology and would explain a lot what couldn’t be satisfactorily explained yet. That he uses modern language doesn’t matter.

    One of many errors he makes is to inject the concept of “propaganda” into the Middle Ages. Propaganda, the attempt to move the masses to action, is a modern phenomenon. With neither a democracy nor a plebeian army, the medieval state frankly didn’t give a damn what the masses thought about wars or much of anything else.

    Sorry to disagree. The concept of propaganda is very old and you will find it even in Aristotle’s rhetoric. The word itself was introduced by pope Gregor XV with the congegration “Sancta congregatio de propaganda fide” in 1622.

    But of course, the biggest offense in the thesis is the insinuation that all of those images on the frontier with Islam were simply a product of a Catholic plot to smear their peaceful Muslim neighbors. As if the people living on the frontier weren’t constant victims of aggressive Muslim brutality.

    Yes, I read in another interview with him that he calls Europe of that time a “third world continent” – seen from the Muslim perspective – without any culture. But again if you take in account other sources about and from Cluny, this monestary was indeed the “propaganda center” of its time against Islam. And there is nothing wrong with it.


  120. vagabond trader
    122 | January 10, 2010 15:48

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    A lot of the interpretation is subjective isn’t it? I always look at Medieval images as folk art of the time, much as the naive portraits of our early 19th century are classified as Americana/folkart.


  121. Macker
    123 | January 10, 2010 15:49

    @ coldwarrior:

    You’re welcome. zombie liked it too!


  122. coldwarrior
    124 | January 10, 2010 15:51

    @ Macker:

    :cool:


  123. vagabond trader
    125 | January 10, 2010 15:51

    @ wolfie:

    Thanks,no biggie,your interpretation seems the most likely. We also suspected a few of the family had been to the Crusades so the “horns of the moon” are intriguing.


  124. buzzsawmonkey
    126 | January 10, 2010 15:52

    vagabond trader wrote:

    A lot of the interpretation is subjective isn’t it? I always look at Medieval images as folk art of the time, much as the naive portraits of our early 19th century are classified as Americana/folkart.

    Yes.

    A late friend of mine once said, apropos “folk” and “outsider” art—the latter being big stuff at the time—”Nobody tries to make bad art; whether or not they succeed is another matter. It’s either art, or it’s not.” Point being that not all naive craftsmanship rises to the level of art, but that each would-be artist is limited by knowledge, skill, and the conventions the artist accepts. If we are not familiar with the conventions, or do not make allowances for the artist’s possible lack of skill, it is easy to come to an incorrect interpretation.


  125. 127 | January 10, 2010 15:57

    vagabond trader wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    A lot of the interpretation is subjective isn’t it? I always look at Medieval images as folk art of the time, much as the naive portraits of our early 19th century are classified as Americana/folkart.

    Medieval art, particularly in churches was the high art of the day. Folk art implies self-taught with no formal training, or outsider art. The art of the Medieval times reflected not only the lack of anatomical study and but also the religious strictness of the times. I have always liked this period for its strange and strained images. Giotto, I think was the turning point for that style to change.


  126. vagabond trader
    128 | January 10, 2010 15:58

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    and some of that “outsider art” was created by certifiable loonies, of the snakes in the head variety.Don’t want to venture into what they were trying to communicate.

    :mrgreen:


  127. 129 | January 10, 2010 16:00

    @ vagabond trader:
    I love outsider art. Especially when it ceases to be art and becomes something else.


  128. buzzsawmonkey
    130 | January 10, 2010 16:02

    vagabond trader wrote:

    and some of that “outsider art” was created by certifiable loonies, of the snakes in the head variety.Don’t want to venture into what they were trying to communicate.

    The Henry Darger stuff, which the art world has been drooling over for years, is an extended mythic fantasy in which kiddieporn melds with The Water Babies. Yes, it’s astounding that a Chicago janitor spent his spare time producing this. But it is still the ravings of very disturbed person.


  129. Speranza
    131 | January 10, 2010 16:03

    Rodan wrote:

    He’s ranting about Danish Nazis now. He’s just a deranged washed up Jazz Artist.

    Nazi, Nazis, everywhere!


  130. vagabond trader
    132 | January 10, 2010 16:05

    @ Urban Infidel:

    I love it too, Hans Memling is a favorite. Some of the illuminated manuscripts are masterpieces, they remind me of folk art The architecture and rare wood carvings. Are you familiar with this website? Fantastic resolution.

    http://www.wga.hu/index1.html


  131. Speranza
    133 | January 10, 2010 16:10

    Iron Fist wrote:

    The traffic from watching the train wreck is about over. He’s had his little tantrum, stamped his little foot, and banned all of the best posters who didn’t leave on their own. Those that are left are either Kos Kidz in their own right or LGFers whose positions are so malleable and inconstant as to be totally uninteresting. It is done, and sooner or later his ad revenue is going to catch up with him.

    Quite concur – particularly about his malleable minions who are still left.


  132. 134 | January 10, 2010 16:12

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Darger. Thank you for reminding me of his name. I saw a Darger show a few years back at P.S.1 or maybe it was the American Folk Art Museum in Manhattan–can’t remember for sure. The epic drawings of the child wars. I tell you, I have never seen anything like that in my life. It was wildly disturbing and fascinating.

    It was precisely what I was referring to in my above comment about outsider art becoming something else.


  133. 135 | January 10, 2010 16:15

    @ vagabond trader:
    I know Melming. I also love Bosch.


  134. vagabond trader
    136 | January 10, 2010 16:16

    @ Urban Infidel:

    I wonder if Kevin Jennings is a Sunday painter.

    :twisted:


  135. vagabond trader
    137 | January 10, 2010 16:17

    @ Urban Infidel:

    Him too!But wth was he chowing on,moldy bread? Wild stuff for those times.


  136. 138 | January 10, 2010 16:32

    @ vagabond trader:
    I love all that stuff, always have. Love van Eyck too!


  137. 139 | January 10, 2010 16:38

    @ Macker:

    Check the update.


  138. wolfie
    140 | January 10, 2010 16:48

    Guggi wrote:

    The concept of propaganda is very old and you will find it even in Aristotle’s rhetoric. The word itself was introduced by pope Gregor XV with the congegration “Sancta congregatio de propaganda fide” in 1622.

    I think we just have a semantic disagreement here. The concept of persuasion of an audience, whether big or small, undoubtedly goes back to the beginnings of speech itself. Likewise the propagation of beliefs and ideas.

    But I maintain we are talking about something special when we use the word “propaganda” today. (Gregory, of course, did not introduce the word iself, which had been used for centuries in many contexts, including that of “propagation of the faith.”) Rather, his Protestant opponents seized upon its use in the title of the Sacred Congress to denote sustained, deceitful persuasion in pursuit of or for the maintenance of power. The word has had a negative connotation ever since.

    The point that I wanted to make is that the need to persuade the masses (for good or for ill) in order to get or keep power does not exist wherever the masses themselves have no effective power to express their displeasure. In Ancient Rome, the plebes had some power even before the tribunes because they formed the bulk of the infantry. In cities the masses have always had at the very least the power to riot. In democracies, bamboozling the masses by controlling the message is crucial. Without a plebeian infantry, cities, or democracy, the need to propagandize the riff-raff is absent.

    The need for propaganda (and counter-propaganda— and censorship)in Western Europe grew with the ‘commercial revolution’ and increasing urbanization of the High Middle Ages. But it isn’t really until the early modern period, with the printing press and the revival of infantries, that mass propaganda became a necessary element in the securing of power.


back to the top
The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David