funny how people's opinions change after some celebrity endorsement.
Very true, and that wasn't directed to you.
Honestly though, would some of his detractors rather he said nothing and just painted pretty pictures? Things are fucked up and sometimes people need to be reminded of it.
funny how people's opinions change in a few pages.
I'm guessing this is directed at me.
I've always seen Bansky as a shock artist and, like I've said I've enjoyed some of his work in the past. I never said the Palestinian wall was a favorite of mines, and yes the elephant was a major put off to me. It goes under the idea of those who take their anti-establishment message into a level of disrespect.
Yes I understand Bansky has a point to make, but using a live anuimal in an abusive way to push buttons and "open eyes" is bullshit beyond bullshit.
As for my comments on the Palestinan wall and Bansky, like I said I think they skew the view on an issue I've shown a lot of care and concern about for quite a long time. I'm all about exposing truth and ideas not giving them a tunnelized view.
hell no, I would never tell him to stop, its all about what his real intent is though. I appreciate what his images say whether its what he really feels or if its mroe of hi way to get on. Its sparking discussion at the very least about art which is always good IMO. Messaging aside, I really only like a few pieces and am jsut not impressed with his work overall that I would spend money on it. Like all art, its all in the eye of the beholder.
the painting on animals thing wasn't new for banksy though... he'd done that a few times in the past [someone have the picture of that cow with WILD STYLE painted on it?]...
however, his shows turning into "the place to be" for celebrity lowlifes IS new... the fact that brad pitt and angelina have his shit on their walls now is just really making his statements somewhat pointless... to me at least.
the painting on animals thing wasn't new for banksy though... he'd done that a few times in the past [someone have the picture of that cow with WILD STYLE painted on it?]...
however, his shows turning into "the place to be" for celebrity lowlifes IS new... the fact that brad pitt and angelina have his shit on their walls now is just really making his statements somewhat pointless... to me at least.
Yeah but whose fault is that? You think Banksy called up Brad and Angelina and was like, "mates, I got this show going on downtown. You should roll through." People are really getting this shit twisted, confusing an artist's INTENT with how others choose to receive him.
Banksy's not Nigo. (Not yet at least).
When he shows up at the VMAs with gigo-bling on, next to Pharrell, feel free to let loose the hate.
By this standard, any artist who actually becomes - shudder - popular enough for certain people to jock becomes lame on the basis of their audience. That, to me, is a ridiculously myopic way to judge an artist.
i'm not quite blaming banksy for the attention... although, i'm sure he would have the power to refuse certain clients if he wanted to... but i'm sure the price was right...
all i'm saying is that having celebrities suddenly support banksy [almost overnight if i may add] is about the equivalent of your parents saying that something is cool. it kinda made it lose it's original appeal. that is all.
I got no problem with criticism of the wall. I do have a problem with the skewing of the view and therefore the reason for the wall. Bansky went down there and did his shock thing by painting the wall and portraying it in such a way that it looks like the Israelis are trying to restrict the Palestinian population from ever seeing the other side. His little message on his website makes it seem like Israel is constructing this wall without reason or care for the people on the other side.
There is no definitive "view" to skew. We each have our own perspective, saying there is a "view" creates a concensus that doesn't exist in reality.
The Israelis are, in fact trying to restrict the movement and the access of the Palestinians to the other side. That's what the wall is for.
Banksy's piece on the Israeli wall is not saying much. From my perspective, as an artist, it simply says that the Palestinians would like for it not to be there, and to move unrestricted, and it idealizes Israel making it look like domestic bliss or a dream vacation. While I think the political sentiment is naive and lacks complexity, it is factual that the quality of life is much better in Israel and that they put the wall there. It is aesthetically ,as ODub said, an oppressive, totalitarian structure. He emphasizes that obvious point but otherwise he isn't in fact saying much about Israel.
all i'm saying is that having celebrities suddenly support banksy [almost overnight if i may add] is about the equivalent of your parents saying that something is cool. it kinda made it lose it's original appeal. that is all.
Ultimately, that means that it's not about the art nor even about the artist - it's about you and your self-perception. If you think liking a certain artist goes against the grain, then that makes said artist and their work cool. HOwever, if that artist gains mainstream love - even if their art has not changed fundamentally but rather, their audience has - abandoning them simply means that it was never about the art; it was what the art said about you as a fan.
Believe me, I understand that if your parents cosign on some shit, it makes it less rebellious and less interesting but the only people for whom this should matter are teenagers. At a certain point, it's not about what other people like; it's about what YOU like.
Believe me, I understand that if your parents cosign on some shit, it makes it less rebellious and less interesting but the only people for whom this should matter are teenagers. At a certain point, it's not about what other people like; it's about what YOU like.
if you can't see the irony in brad pitt buying up stuff by an artist that gets off on mocking pop icons, then i don't know what to say... but to take it as far as saying that i must be like a teenager and i must only care about his artwork to be rebellious is just retarded... yeah you can dissect my last comment and turn it into that if you want, but that wasn't the point. and with all due respect, people who act like teenagers and who don't know what to think on their own are probably your most loyal readers over at URB... don't see why you would have issues with that crowd in the first place.
if you can't see the irony in brad pitt buying up stuff by an artist that gets off on mocking pop icons, then i don't know what to say... but to take it as far as saying that i must be like a teenager and i must only care about his artwork to be rebellious is just retarded... yeah you can dissect my last comment and turn it into that if you want, but that wasn't the point. and with all due respect, people who act like teenagers and who don't know what to think on their own are probably your most loyal readers over at URB... don't see why you would have issues with that crowd in the first place.
Not to speak for O-Dub, but I think you missed his point. I don't think he was attacking you.
I would argue that the majority of Bansky's work is more social commentary than mocking pop icons. Something Brad Pitt's wife (?) is pretty heavily into. So I can see why they would be into his work.
I got no problem with criticism of the wall. I do have a problem with the skewing of the view and therefore the reason for the wall. Bansky went down there and did his shock thing by painting the wall and portraying it in such a way that it looks like the Israelis are trying to restrict the Palestinian population from ever seeing the other side. His little message on his website makes it seem like Israel is constructing this wall without reason or care for the people on the other side.
There is no definitive "view" to skew. We each have our own perspective, saying there is a "view" creates a concensus that doesn't exist in reality.
Bansky does have a definitive view, beyond his artwork on the wall he even wrote a short statemtn, making it so obvious that there really is no argument as to what he's trying to say.
The Israelis are, in fact trying to restrict the movement and the access of the Palestinians to the other side. That's what the wall is for.
no, the wwall is not to restrict Palestinians movement, it is to protect Israelis from the terrors of suicide bombers and others that wish to create harm and destructino within Israels recognized borders. You're statement is the exact reason why I think Bansky's propagandic artwork is wrong and generates hate. Like I said if he created something that may make discussino as opposed to single minded thought I'd be more into it.
Banksy's piece on the Israeli wall is not saying much.
this contradicts what you just wrote one paragraph ago
From my perspective, as an artist, it simply says that the Palestinians would like for it not to be there, and to move unrestricted, and it idealizes Israel making it look like domestic bliss or a dream vacation. While I think the political sentiment is naive and lacks complexity, it is factual that the quality of life is much better in Israel and that they put the wall there.
The wall has nothing to do with lowering the Palestinian quality of life, at least not expressly. There is a border there, the border itself was rather open for quite sometime. I've taken the bus between Palestine and Israel in the past without problems. The wall was proposed and built after a long period of terrorist suicide bombings inside of Israel. This is a major point that is looked over far too often, not once in your retort do you mention this or even acknowlege that I've mentioned it in several posts within this thread.
It is aesthetically ,as ODub said, an oppressive, totalitarian structure. He emphasizes that obvious point but otherwise he isn't in fact saying much about Israel.
this is similar to saying he called your mama a whore, but he didn't say too much about your family. The view is still skewed and intent is still to show the wall as evil without explaining whyt the evil wall is there.
If someone wants to come in your house and kill your family wouldn't you want to lock him out?
Adam... I think you are the one being closed minded... if you can't see how both things are true of the wall (that it protects israel, that it also cheapens palestinian quality of life and restricts movement) then you are just another part of the problem... people who refuse to see the others' side and therefore can never reach compromise.
I've never thought much of Banksy's work... it's visually attractive, his statements are sometimes wonderfully witty and sometimes terribly heavy-handed.
It is of course inevitable that he would become a hipster favorite. How he treats his newfound celebrity will be interesting.
Adam... I think you are the one being closed minded... if you can't see how both things are true of the wall (that it protects israel, that it also cheapens palestinian quality of life and restricts movement) then you are just another part of the problem... people who refuse to see the others' side and therefore can never reach compromise.
I've never thought much of Banksy's work... it's visually attractive, his statements are sometimes wonderfully witty and sometimes terribly heavy-handed.
It is of course inevitable that he would become a hipster favorite. How he treats his newfound celebrity will be interesting.
Patrick is like the angriest suburbanite I know
I wholeheartedly agree with all the above statements.
Adam... I think you are the one being closed minded... if you can't see how both things are true of the wall (that it protects israel, that it also cheapens palestinian quality of life and restricts movement) then you are just another part of the problem... people who refuse to see the others' side and therefore can never reach compromise.
I've never thought much of Banksy's work... it's visually attractive, his statements are sometimes wonderfully witty and sometimes terribly heavy-handed.
It is of course inevitable that he would become a hipster favorite. How he treats his newfound celebrity will be interesting.
Patrick is like the angriest suburbanite I know
I wholeheartedly agree with all the above statements.
I'm sorry both of you feel I am being closed minded in this. I feel however that I am the only one bringing a viable reason as to why the wall was being put up. Both Bansky and LordNO chose not to acknowledge any reason why Israel would take such a drastic action as putting up an ugly monterous wall. I'm just trying to point out that there is a reason, hopefully giving a view to the other side of the issue.
Please don't think I am for the wall, I think it's oppresive but I understand it's function. I would love for someone to come up with a much better solution to the problem.
I got no problem with criticism of the wall. I do have a problem with the skewing of the view and therefore the reason for the wall. Bansky went down there and did his shock thing by painting the wall and portraying it in such a way that it looks like the Israelis are trying to restrict the Palestinian population from ever seeing the other side. His little message on his website makes it seem like Israel is constructing this wall without reason or care for the people on the other side.
There is no definitive "view" to skew. We each have our own perspective, saying there is a "view" creates a concensus that doesn't exist in reality.
Bansky does have a definitive view, beyond his artwork on the wall he even wrote a short statemtn, making it so obvious that there really is no argument as to what he's trying to say.
Of course Banksy has a point of view. As do you, as do I. I was referring to your saying that he was "skewing" the view. skewing it from where? some imaginary, neutral view point that doesn't exist?
As for all this calling your mom a whore business...Do you not agree that there is a semiotics of architecture? That, for instance, a shopping mall signifies capitalist activity? If we're talking about aesthetics, and the language of architecture and how architecture has been used historically, this appears as a totalitarian structure. Sorry, it just does.
If you paid attention to my post you might note that I said the work was naive and lacked complexity, which could be taken to mean that it fails to take into account a lot of things, for instance Israeli security concerns you mention. Although personally I don't think the wall is the best answer to those problems.
I got no problem with criticism of the wall. I do have a problem with the skewing of the view and therefore the reason for the wall. Bansky went down there and did his shock thing by painting the wall and portraying it in such a way that it looks like the Israelis are trying to restrict the Palestinian population from ever seeing the other side. His little message on his website makes it seem like Israel is constructing this wall without reason or care for the people on the other side.
There is no definitive "view" to skew. We each have our own perspective, saying there is a "view" creates a concensus that doesn't exist in reality.
Bansky does have a definitive view, beyond his artwork on the wall he even wrote a short statemtn, making it so obvious that there really is no argument as to what he's trying to say.
Of course Banksy has a point of view. As do you, as do I. I was referring to your saying that he was "skewing" the view. skewing it from where? some imaginary, neutral view point that doesn't exist?
While everyone has a point of view, I'm saying that there is another side to these stories. Once again, if bansky or you wants to acknowledge that there is a totalitarian drab and evil wall up, both of you should also acknowledge the reasons why the wall was erected. I understand that the wall is oppressive in its size and view but I also realize it's purpose.
If you paid attention to my post you might note that I said the work was naive and lacked complexity, which could be taken to mean that it fails to take into account a lot of things, for instance Israeli security concerns you mention. Although personally I don't think the wall is the best answer to those problems.
It's hard for me to assume that your use of the words "naive" & "lacks complexity" is supposed to acknowledge security for Israeli civilians. If you are saying you do realize that the wall is not just an evil Israeli tool to shit on Palestinians than we are coming closer to being on the same page and I agree putting a big wall up is rudimentary way to solve an issue, I'd like there to be a better answer to this problem but as of yet no one has thought of one or tried to put on in action.
While everyone has a point of view, I'm saying that there is another side to these stories. Once again, if bansky or you wants to acknowledge that there is a totalitarian drab and evil wall up, both of you should also acknowledge the reasons why the wall was erected. I understand that the wall is oppressive in its size and view but I also realize it's purpose.
I didn't think it was necessary to acknowledge that there has been suicide bombings in Israel killing innocents cause I thought that was common knowledge.
It's hard for me to assume that your use of the words "naive" & "lacks complexity" is supposed to acknowledge security for Israeli civilians. If you are saying you do realize that the wall is not just an evil Israeli tool to shit on Palestinians than we are coming closer to being on the same page and I agree putting a big wall up is rudimentary way to solve an issue, I'd like there to be a better answer to this problem but as of yet no one has thought of one or tried to put on in action.
Well, I'd say Banksy's piece is naive and lacks complexity for a number of reasons.
I personally find the palm trees and all that distasteful , because it idealizes life in Israel, and I know from Israeli friends that it's not all a day at the beach in Israel. What bothers me most is the style of self promotion in the middle of the conflict coupled with the self-congratulatory, uncomplicated, western-leftist-speaking on-behalf-of-the-Palestinians thing.
Sure, I understand that some Israelis see the wall as helping with security, and I can appreciate that there's been less suicide bombings. The problem with the wall is that it was put there unilaterally, and that it looks mighty permanent. Israel deciding that border without a process of negotiation just agitates the underlying conflict in the long term and that sort of move may not work toward Israeli security in the long term. Olmert himself said it wouldn't stop all the missiles from flying in. as you say:
I agree putting a big wall up is rudimentary way to solve an issue, I'd like there to be a better answer to this problem
While everyone has a point of view, I'm saying that there is another side to these stories. Once again, if bansky or you wants to acknowledge that there is a totalitarian drab and evil wall up, both of you should also acknowledge the reasons why the wall was erected. I understand that the wall is oppressive in its size and view but I also realize it's purpose.
I didn't think it was necessary to acknowledge that there has been suicide bombings in Israel killing innocents cause I thought that was common knowledge.
not as common as you might think and messages/ art pieces like Banskys really don't help anyone to understand about he suicide bombing attacks; like I said, it gives a one-sided view.
I posted a Bill Maher/ Benjamin Netanyahu interview in another thread yesterday. I'd love to have you watch it and give your opinion, Particularly on the part about Israel being looked at more and more as an evil country in the public eye.
We need to raise awareness about suicide bombings???
What is this, bizarro media world?
yes, when it comes to reasons as to why Israelis took precautions and erected a wall.
It seems like people are against suicide bombers, but not agaist ways to stop them in Israel. In those instances its more about how barbaric thier effective way of stopping them was.
I think we can consider a border in which people come across and blow themselves up in populated areas can be considered hostile. Am I the only one who sees the saving of Israeli lives as a good thing? Perhaps if the Israelis appeared more helpless they'd garner enough sympathy to gain public understanding of why this issue needed to be addressed?
it's a simple equation, someone comes into your area to cause death and destruction, the best quick fix is to not let them in your area.
in an idealistic world I wouldn't have to lock my front door at night. Sadly we all have to live in reality
Sorry, missed the additions on your last edit - I would say that's a gross oversimplification of the issue... but I've learned not to argue about Israel with people of your viewpoint so I will politely excuse myself.
Dude, not to over-simplify this shit but the fact is that both of these peoples will continue to go at each other until one or both sides are exterminated. They hate each other with a fanatical fury that cannot be measured and has only become stronger with the passing of time. It is the sad truth and no amount of walls, UN involvement, peace talks, cease fires, pretty pictures, artistic staements, etc. will ever change or eradicate this conflict.
Having said that. I decided to not attend the Banksy show the minute I saw news coverage of Barely Legal on several channels. The initial hush-hush underground vibe surrounding it made it attractive. However, I soon felt duped and foolish for wanting to be a part of it. The fact that EVERYTHING is masterfully spun and controlled by media is a sad commentary on our culture. Even guerilla artists are turned into a dog and pony show the minute the cameras and press start rolling. There are no more rebels. No voice of dissention. We are all (to varying degrees) followers...
I dig what he did to the Paris Hilton CD though. That was clever.
Comments
Very true, and that wasn't directed to you.
Honestly though, would some of his detractors rather he said nothing and just painted pretty pictures? Things are fucked up and sometimes people need to be reminded of it.
I'm guessing this is directed at me.
I've always seen Bansky as a shock artist and, like I've said I've enjoyed some of his work in the past. I never said the Palestinian wall was a favorite of mines, and yes the elephant was a major put off to me. It goes under the idea of those who take their anti-establishment message into a level of disrespect.
Yes I understand Bansky has a point to make, but using a live anuimal in an abusive way to push buttons and "open eyes" is bullshit beyond bullshit.
As for my comments on the Palestinan wall and Bansky, like I said I think they skew the view on an issue I've shown a lot of care and concern about for quite a long time. I'm all about exposing truth and ideas not giving them a tunnelized view.
however, his shows turning into "the place to be" for celebrity lowlifes IS new... the fact that brad pitt and angelina have his shit on their walls now is just really making his statements somewhat pointless... to me at least.
http://www.whoslocked.com/forums/attachm...17&d=1144191777
Yeah but whose fault is that? You think Banksy called up Brad and Angelina and was like, "mates, I got this show going on downtown. You should roll through." People are really getting this shit twisted, confusing an artist's INTENT with how others choose to receive him.
Banksy's not Nigo. (Not yet at least).
When he shows up at the VMAs with gigo-bling on, next to Pharrell, feel free to let loose the hate.
By this standard, any artist who actually becomes - shudder - popular enough for certain people to jock becomes lame on the basis of their audience. That, to me, is a ridiculously myopic way to judge an artist.
By the way, I wouldn't nominate her for a Nobel Peace Prize or anything but:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/arts/t...=rssnyt&emc=rss
Which is more than most "guerilla artists" or their holier-than-thou underground fans can claim.
all i'm saying is that having celebrities suddenly support banksy [almost overnight if i may add] is about the equivalent of your parents saying that something is cool. it kinda made it lose it's original appeal. that is all.
There is no definitive "view" to skew. We each have our own perspective, saying there is a "view" creates a concensus that doesn't exist in reality.
The Israelis are, in fact trying to restrict the movement and the access of the Palestinians to the other side. That's what the wall is for.
Banksy's piece on the Israeli wall is not saying much. From my perspective, as an artist, it simply says that the Palestinians would like for it not to be there, and to move unrestricted, and it idealizes Israel making it look like domestic bliss or a dream vacation. While I think the political sentiment is naive and lacks complexity, it is factual that the quality of life is much better in Israel and that they put the wall there. It is aesthetically ,as ODub said, an oppressive, totalitarian structure. He emphasizes that obvious point but otherwise he isn't in fact saying much about Israel.
Ultimately, that means that it's not about the art nor even about the artist - it's about you and your self-perception. If you think liking a certain artist goes against the grain, then that makes said artist and their work cool. HOwever, if that artist gains mainstream love - even if their art has not changed fundamentally but rather, their audience has - abandoning them simply means that it was never about the art; it was what the art said about you as a fan.
Believe me, I understand that if your parents cosign on some shit, it makes it less rebellious and less interesting but the only people for whom this should matter are teenagers. At a certain point, it's not about what other people like; it's about what YOU like.
Not to speak for O-Dub, but I think you missed his point. I don't think he was attacking you.
I would argue that the majority of Bansky's work is more social commentary than mocking pop icons. Something Brad Pitt's wife (?) is pretty heavily into. So I can see why they would be into his work.
Bansky does have a definitive view, beyond his artwork on the wall he even wrote a short statemtn, making it so obvious that there really is no argument as to what he's trying to say.
no, the wwall is not to restrict Palestinians movement, it is to protect Israelis from the terrors of suicide bombers and others that wish to create harm and destructino within Israels recognized borders. You're statement is the exact reason why I think Bansky's propagandic artwork is wrong and generates hate. Like I said if he created something that may make discussino as opposed to single minded thought I'd be more into it.
this contradicts what you just wrote one paragraph ago
The wall has nothing to do with lowering the Palestinian quality of life, at least not expressly. There is a border there, the border itself was rather open for quite sometime. I've taken the bus between Palestine and Israel in the past without problems. The wall was proposed and built after a long period of terrorist suicide bombings inside of Israel. This is a major point that is looked over far too often, not once in your retort do you mention this or even acknowlege that I've mentioned it in several posts within this thread.
this is similar to saying he called your mama a whore, but he didn't say too much about your family. The view is still skewed and intent is still to show the wall as evil without explaining whyt the evil wall is there.
If someone wants to come in your house and kill your family wouldn't you want to lock him out?
I've never thought much of Banksy's work... it's visually attractive, his statements are sometimes wonderfully witty and sometimes terribly heavy-handed.
It is of course inevitable that he would become a hipster favorite. How he treats his newfound celebrity will be interesting.
Patrick is like the angriest suburbanite I know
I wholeheartedly agree with all the above statements.
I'm sorry both of you feel I am being closed minded in this. I feel however that I am the only one bringing a viable reason as to why the wall was being put up. Both Bansky and LordNO chose not to acknowledge any reason why Israel would take such a drastic action as putting up an ugly monterous wall. I'm just trying to point out that there is a reason, hopefully giving a view to the other side of the issue.
Please don't think I am for the wall, I think it's oppresive but I understand it's function. I would love for someone to come up with a much better solution to the problem.
Of course Banksy has a point of view. As do you, as do I. I was referring to your saying that he was "skewing" the view. skewing it from where? some imaginary, neutral view point that doesn't exist?
As for all this calling your mom a whore business...Do you not agree that there is a semiotics of architecture? That, for instance, a shopping mall signifies capitalist activity? If we're talking about aesthetics, and the language of architecture and how architecture has been used historically, this appears as a totalitarian structure. Sorry, it just does.
If you paid attention to my post you might note that I said the work was naive and lacked complexity, which could be taken to mean that it fails to take into account a lot of things, for instance Israeli security concerns you mention. Although personally I don't think the wall is the best answer to those problems.
While everyone has a point of view, I'm saying that there is another side to these stories. Once again, if bansky or you wants to acknowledge that there is a totalitarian drab and evil wall up, both of you should also acknowledge the reasons why the wall was erected. I understand that the wall is oppressive in its size and view but I also realize it's purpose.
It's hard for me to assume that your use of the words "naive" & "lacks complexity" is supposed to acknowledge security for Israeli civilians. If you are saying you do realize that the wall is not just an evil Israeli tool to shit on Palestinians than we are coming closer to being on the same page and I agree putting a big wall up is rudimentary way to solve an issue, I'd like there to be a better answer to this problem but as of yet no one has thought of one or tried to put on in action.
I didn't think it was necessary to acknowledge that there has been suicide bombings in Israel killing innocents cause I thought that was common knowledge.
Well, I'd say Banksy's piece is naive and lacks complexity for a number of reasons.
I personally find the palm trees and all that distasteful , because it idealizes life in Israel, and I know from Israeli friends that it's not all a day at the beach in Israel. What bothers me most is the style of self promotion in the middle of the conflict coupled with the self-congratulatory, uncomplicated, western-leftist-speaking on-behalf-of-the-Palestinians thing.
Sure, I understand that some Israelis see the wall as helping with security, and I can appreciate that there's been less suicide bombings. The problem with the wall is that it was put there unilaterally, and that it looks mighty permanent. Israel deciding that border without a process of negotiation just agitates the underlying conflict in the long term and that sort of move may not work toward Israeli security in the long term. Olmert himself said it wouldn't stop all the missiles from flying in. as you say:
agreed.
not as common as you might think and messages/ art pieces like Banskys really don't help anyone to understand about he suicide bombing attacks; like I said, it gives a one-sided view.
I posted a Bill Maher/ Benjamin Netanyahu interview in another thread yesterday. I'd love to have you watch it and give your opinion, Particularly on the part about Israel being looked at more and more as an evil country in the public eye.
the link to the interview is on this page
http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/video/
What is this, bizarro media world?
yes, when it comes to reasons as to why Israelis took precautions and erected a wall.
It seems like people are against suicide bombers, but not agaist ways to stop them in Israel. In those instances its more about how barbaric thier effective way of stopping them was.
I think we can consider a border in which people come across and blow themselves up in populated areas can be considered hostile. Am I the only one who sees the saving of Israeli lives as a good thing? Perhaps if the Israelis appeared more helpless they'd garner enough sympathy to gain public understanding of why this issue needed to be addressed?
it's a simple equation, someone comes into your area to cause death and destruction, the best quick fix is to not let them in your area.
in an idealistic world I wouldn't have to lock my front door at night. Sadly we all have to live in reality
Dude, not to over-simplify this shit but the fact is that both of these peoples will continue to go at each other until one or both sides are exterminated. They hate each other with a fanatical fury that cannot be measured and has only become stronger with the passing of time. It is the sad truth and no amount of walls, UN involvement, peace talks, cease fires, pretty pictures, artistic staements, etc. will ever change or eradicate this conflict.
Having said that. I decided to not attend the Banksy show the minute I saw news coverage of Barely Legal on several channels. The initial hush-hush underground vibe surrounding it made it attractive. However, I soon felt duped and foolish for wanting to be a part of it. The fact that EVERYTHING is masterfully spun and controlled by media is a sad commentary on our culture. Even guerilla artists are turned into a dog and pony show the minute the cameras and press start rolling. There are no more rebels. No voice of dissention. We are all (to varying degrees) followers...
I dig what he did to the Paris Hilton CD though. That was clever.
Overall, disappointed.
it's no more an oversimplification than drawing a picture on a wall snapping some photos of it and putting a 3 sentence explanation on your website.
yes the whole thing is complicated, and I respect you for wanting to stop this debate at this time.
I'm chilling too unless someone else steps to the plate.
*dr**n[/b]: we needs to link up (no ayo)