pezlow
Junior Member
🗨️ 5,388
👍🏻 254
January 2007
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by pezlow on Dec 16, 2007 9:41:41 GMT 1, Personally I cannot see any reason for any individual to want to own a gun. There is no way I would want to bring an instrument of death in to my house. I wouldn't want my children growing up with such things in the house. Not because I would be concerned about them getting hold of it but because I wouldn't want them to be brought up in an environment where they considered that the ownership of a gun was normal or natural.
To try and justify gun ownership on the basis that it is protection is just bizarre. It's not a shield it is a deadly weapon. Likewise to justify it on the basis that "everyone else has one and it is no big deal" scares me even more.
Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society.
Personally I cannot see any reason for any individual to want to own a gun. There is no way I would want to bring an instrument of death in to my house. I wouldn't want my children growing up with such things in the house. Not because I would be concerned about them getting hold of it but because I wouldn't want them to be brought up in an environment where they considered that the ownership of a gun was normal or natural.
To try and justify gun ownership on the basis that it is protection is just bizarre. It's not a shield it is a deadly weapon. Likewise to justify it on the basis that "everyone else has one and it is no big deal" scares me even more.
Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society.
|
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by bristolboy on Dec 16, 2007 10:23:32 GMT 1, ***Back on topic***
When the sniper went up by the childrens hospital in Bristol they had some guy on the local news explaining that the sniper is holding the gun incorrectly, so maybe guns are something we can add to the feet list.
***back off topic***
***Back on topic***
When the sniper went up by the childrens hospital in Bristol they had some guy on the local news explaining that the sniper is holding the gun incorrectly, so maybe guns are something we can add to the feet list.
***back off topic***
|
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by numusic on Dec 16, 2007 11:14:24 GMT 1, As for Morons, there are a couple of potentials as to who exactly the Morons are... this image in itself doesn't bother me too much, but when allied with Festival and Sales End and I start to wonder. I'm happy to acknowledge all sorts of post-modern, ironic what-have-you but these three images taken together leave me feeling more than a little disrespected, which is the reason they won't be on my walls in the near future. It is a difficult one, because so much of his work has "society-at-large" as the core of the joke, if you like, and in that respect understanding (or self-defining) where you, yourself, are positioned in relation to that is quite an arrogant act, as I said before: just because you say you are something, doesnt necessarily make it so... "I'm all right, I'm a believer, I get it... therefore its not directed at me and I'm allowed to laugh heartily", meanwhile..? Excellent points. Some say Morons is his most brilliant piece but I see it as a jab at those who pay huge amounts on the secondary market. As far as the prices and him being able to get more if he wanted...it's still a pretty good sum of money for a print and I wouldn't be surprised if Banksy has a laugh at the difference in price his signature makes. Maybe that's why he signed some in what appears to be crayon or something like that with the Trolly's release. He's surely a millionaire by now and the prices do increase with each release.
The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should.
As for Morons, there are a couple of potentials as to who exactly the Morons are... this image in itself doesn't bother me too much, but when allied with Festival and Sales End and I start to wonder. I'm happy to acknowledge all sorts of post-modern, ironic what-have-you but these three images taken together leave me feeling more than a little disrespected, which is the reason they won't be on my walls in the near future. It is a difficult one, because so much of his work has "society-at-large" as the core of the joke, if you like, and in that respect understanding (or self-defining) where you, yourself, are positioned in relation to that is quite an arrogant act, as I said before: just because you say you are something, doesnt necessarily make it so... "I'm all right, I'm a believer, I get it... therefore its not directed at me and I'm allowed to laugh heartily", meanwhile..? Excellent points. Some say Morons is his most brilliant piece but I see it as a jab at those who pay huge amounts on the secondary market. As far as the prices and him being able to get more if he wanted...it's still a pretty good sum of money for a print and I wouldn't be surprised if Banksy has a laugh at the difference in price his signature makes. Maybe that's why he signed some in what appears to be crayon or something like that with the Trolly's release. He's surely a millionaire by now and the prices do increase with each release. The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should. |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by numusic on Dec 16, 2007 11:17:29 GMT 1, Personally I cannot see any reason for any individual to want to own a gun. There is no way I would want to bring an instrument of death in to my house. I wouldn't want my children growing up with such things in the house. Not because I would be concerned about them getting hold of it but because I wouldn't want them to be brought up in an environment where they considered that the ownership of a gun was normal or natural. To try and justify gun ownership on the basis that it is protection is just bizarre. It's not a shield it is a deadly weapon. Likewise to justify it on the basis that "everyone else has one and it is no big deal" scares me even more. Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society.
ditto that Pez
Personally I cannot see any reason for any individual to want to own a gun. There is no way I would want to bring an instrument of death in to my house. I wouldn't want my children growing up with such things in the house. Not because I would be concerned about them getting hold of it but because I wouldn't want them to be brought up in an environment where they considered that the ownership of a gun was normal or natural. To try and justify gun ownership on the basis that it is protection is just bizarre. It's not a shield it is a deadly weapon. Likewise to justify it on the basis that "everyone else has one and it is no big deal" scares me even more. Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society. ditto that Pez |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by numusic on Dec 16, 2007 11:28:08 GMT 1, That would be like saying if your religious you shouldn't be on here because of all the art that deals with the "religion is a scam" theme. Or am I off base? More often than not, the target in these instances is organised religion, which is wholly different. If you hold your religion dear to you and believe unquestionably, dogmatically in the word of "god" as most organised religions instruct, then I would find it a little weird that you are interested in owning art that is often not only disrespectful but often disparaging to your heartfelt belief system, yes... That said, with for example the Gee Vaucher work on SG at the moment, there is an attempt to debunk some of the hypocracy in organised religions and I can understand why a religious person could be interested in some works, though followers of organised religions make up the majority of people that would call themselves "religious" (in fact, usually not the case, especially in christianity... calling yourself something, doesnt actually make it so! ceci n'est pas un croyant), and these quasi-religious people would probably have their fragile religious house of cards destroyed by such a relevation (though not particularly a new one!! Some be-sandled geezer got the message 2000 years ago!) and hence these followers of organised religion wouldn't feel interested in the work as it should strike them as disrespectful, or like I say, debunking.
some very intelligent posts last night lee...loved reading through your argument. Agree 100%. big respect mate.
That would be like saying if your religious you shouldn't be on here because of all the art that deals with the "religion is a scam" theme. Or am I off base? More often than not, the target in these instances is organised religion, which is wholly different. If you hold your religion dear to you and believe unquestionably, dogmatically in the word of "god" as most organised religions instruct, then I would find it a little weird that you are interested in owning art that is often not only disrespectful but often disparaging to your heartfelt belief system, yes... That said, with for example the Gee Vaucher work on SG at the moment, there is an attempt to debunk some of the hypocracy in organised religions and I can understand why a religious person could be interested in some works, though followers of organised religions make up the majority of people that would call themselves "religious" (in fact, usually not the case, especially in christianity... calling yourself something, doesnt actually make it so! ceci n'est pas un croyant), and these quasi-religious people would probably have their fragile religious house of cards destroyed by such a relevation (though not particularly a new one!! Some be-sandled geezer got the message 2000 years ago!) and hence these followers of organised religion wouldn't feel interested in the work as it should strike them as disrespectful, or like I say, debunking. some very intelligent posts last night lee...loved reading through your argument. Agree 100%. big respect mate. |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by paulypaul on Dec 16, 2007 11:29:58 GMT 1, Personally I cannot see any reason for any individual to want to own a gun. There is no way I would want to bring an instrument of death in to my house. I wouldn't want my children growing up with such things in the house. Not because I would be concerned about them getting hold of it but because I wouldn't want them to be brought up in an environment where they considered that the ownership of a gun was normal or natural. To try and justify gun ownership on the basis that it is protection is just bizarre. It's not a shield it is a deadly weapon. Likewise to justify it on the basis that "everyone else has one and it is no big deal" scares me even more. Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society. ditto that Pez
Slightly off topic but there's an interesting essay in Freakonomics about child deaths from guns in the home v child death due to drowning in the home swimming pool.
I'm not sure if I would say that gun ownership is unjustifiable, but it is a complicated and protracted intelectual/moral discussion, much of which revolves around the norms/mores of the society you live in and the USA is not the only country in the world with rampant gun problems.
However, I thoroughly enjoy living in a society where guns are not the norm, but am very frightened at the constant erosion ofl my rights and wonder where it will lead.
Incidentally, those of you that live in London really should get involved with this. It's via the Mark Thomas website....
This is your chance to make MPs live with the consequences of laws they
pass. All you have to do is snap a photo of an MP when they are doing
TV or radio interviews on College Green opposite Parliament and send it
in to gotcha@shopanmp.com. We will then try and get them investigated
by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Here is why and how....
In August 2005 it became illegal to demonstrate in and around
Parliament Square without prior police permission under the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). So far Maya Evans has been
prosecuted and found guilty of an offence under this law for reading
out the names of the British an Iraqi war dead by the Cenotaph in
Whitehall. People have been threatened with arrest for wearing T shirts
with political slogans on them and for having cakes with the word PEACE
iced upon it on display in Parliament Square. Mark Thomas had to get
permission to wear a red nose on Red Nose Day or run the risk of
arrest. He even had to get permission to stand by himself with a banner
saying "Support the Poppy Appeal'. The law is stupid.
According to SOCPA one person can constitute a demonstration, other
than that there is little definition in law as to what a demonstration
is. But if a person breaks the law by reading the names of the war dead
and the Oxford English Dictionary lists a definition of a demonstration
as : an expression of opinion, then surely each time an MP gives a TV
or radio interview about politics or politicians on College Green tthen
they are demonstrating- and if they are demonstrating without
permission that is illegal.
Mark Thomas with lawyers Leigh Day and Co (advised by Tim Owen QC of
Matrix Chambers and Tom de la Mare of Blackstones Chambers) delivered a
letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions Wednesday 12 December 07
calling for an urgent investigation into allegations that MPs had
broken the law- including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Any new
evidence of MPs giving interviews on College Green will be forwarded to
the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Here is how you can help. If you live, work or are visiting London and
walk past College Green (opposite the House of Lords entrance) and you
see an MP giving an interview then:
(1) Photo them with your phone (make sure we can identify them)
(2) Send it in to us with details of time and date
(3) If you hear any of the interview then send us the details.
We will follow up the interview and shop them to the D.P.P.
Personally I cannot see any reason for any individual to want to own a gun. There is no way I would want to bring an instrument of death in to my house. I wouldn't want my children growing up with such things in the house. Not because I would be concerned about them getting hold of it but because I wouldn't want them to be brought up in an environment where they considered that the ownership of a gun was normal or natural. To try and justify gun ownership on the basis that it is protection is just bizarre. It's not a shield it is a deadly weapon. Likewise to justify it on the basis that "everyone else has one and it is no big deal" scares me even more. Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society. ditto that Pez Slightly off topic but there's an interesting essay in Freakonomics about child deaths from guns in the home v child death due to drowning in the home swimming pool. I'm not sure if I would say that gun ownership is unjustifiable, but it is a complicated and protracted intelectual/moral discussion, much of which revolves around the norms/mores of the society you live in and the USA is not the only country in the world with rampant gun problems. However, I thoroughly enjoy living in a society where guns are not the norm, but am very frightened at the constant erosion ofl my rights and wonder where it will lead. Incidentally, those of you that live in London really should get involved with this. It's via the Mark Thomas website....
This is your chance to make MPs live with the consequences of laws they
pass. All you have to do is snap a photo of an MP when they are doing
TV or radio interviews on College Green opposite Parliament and send it
in to gotcha@shopanmp.com. We will then try and get them investigated
by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Here is why and how....
In August 2005 it became illegal to demonstrate in and around
Parliament Square without prior police permission under the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). So far Maya Evans has been
prosecuted and found guilty of an offence under this law for reading
out the names of the British an Iraqi war dead by the Cenotaph in
Whitehall. People have been threatened with arrest for wearing T shirts
with political slogans on them and for having cakes with the word PEACE
iced upon it on display in Parliament Square. Mark Thomas had to get
permission to wear a red nose on Red Nose Day or run the risk of
arrest. He even had to get permission to stand by himself with a banner
saying "Support the Poppy Appeal'. The law is stupid.
According to SOCPA one person can constitute a demonstration, other
than that there is little definition in law as to what a demonstration
is. But if a person breaks the law by reading the names of the war dead
and the Oxford English Dictionary lists a definition of a demonstration
as : an expression of opinion, then surely each time an MP gives a TV
or radio interview about politics or politicians on College Green tthen
they are demonstrating- and if they are demonstrating without
permission that is illegal.
Mark Thomas with lawyers Leigh Day and Co (advised by Tim Owen QC of
Matrix Chambers and Tom de la Mare of Blackstones Chambers) delivered a
letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions Wednesday 12 December 07
calling for an urgent investigation into allegations that MPs had
broken the law- including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Any new
evidence of MPs giving interviews on College Green will be forwarded to
the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Here is how you can help. If you live, work or are visiting London and
walk past College Green (opposite the House of Lords entrance) and you
see an MP giving an interview then:
(1) Photo them with your phone (make sure we can identify them)
(2) Send it in to us with details of time and date
(3) If you hear any of the interview then send us the details.
We will follow up the interview and shop them to the D.P.P. |
|
|
|
stuey09
New Member
🗨️ 49
👍🏻 1
August 2008
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by stuey09 on Dec 16, 2007 11:37:33 GMT 1, I agree that erosion of your rights is something to be concerned with Paul, but preventing people from owning guns will only assist in preserving your most basic of rights; survival. Toerags that go around waving guns at people are dangerous and a threat. I think we should shoot the bastards.
I agree that erosion of your rights is something to be concerned with Paul, but preventing people from owning guns will only assist in preserving your most basic of rights; survival. Toerags that go around waving guns at people are dangerous and a threat. I think we should shoot the bastards.
|
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by paulypaul on Dec 16, 2007 11:39:06 GMT 1, I agree that erosion of your rights is something to be concerned with Paul, but preventing people from owning guns will only assist in preserving your most basic of rights; survival. Toerags that go around waving guns at people are dangerous and a threat. I think we should shoot the bastards.
Or beat them to death with Wii's???
I agree that erosion of your rights is something to be concerned with Paul, but preventing people from owning guns will only assist in preserving your most basic of rights; survival. Toerags that go around waving guns at people are dangerous and a threat. I think we should shoot the bastards. Or beat them to death with Wii's??? |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by paulypaul on Dec 16, 2007 11:40:43 GMT 1, Guns ain't the problem - it's the idiots that own them.. Looks like I'm never gonna be Prez of the US of A..
Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted
The 2006 University of Minnesota study made a lot news about its revelation of how atheists are the most despised minority in America, but this wasn't news to atheists — it was just the most recent in a long series of surveys showing that Americas are very bigoted and prejudiced against atheists. For as long as organizations have been asking Americans about atheists, Americans have been responding that they wouldn't treat atheists as equals to theists and Christians.
A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine Americans' willingness to tolerate a Jewish president (Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President at the time). Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:
Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
Baptist: 6%
Woman: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38%
Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
Atheist: 48%
Gallup has been asking people about whether they would vote for atheists for president for quite some time. Here are the numbers who have said "no" over the years:
February 1999: 48%
August 1987: 48%
April 1983: 51%
July 1978: 53%
December 1959: 74%
September 1958: 77%
August 1958: 75%
It might be argued that there is some cause for hope here, since the number of Americans who would refuse to vote for someone solely on the basis of being an atheist has dropped from 75% to "merely" 48% over the course of 40 years. It's not much hope, though. First, the numbers of Americans whose prejudice would prevent them from voting for members of other minorities has dropped much farther much faster over the same period of time. Second, the numbers of those prejudiced against atheists hasn't really dropped in the past couple of decades — almost all the progress was made between 1959 and 1978.
Finally, other studies and surveys indicate that prejudice against atheists is going back up. A March, 2007 survey done by Newsweek shows that 62% of people would refuse to vote for any candidate admitting to being an atheist. Republicans were, predictably, the most bigoted at 78%, followed by Democrats at 60% and independents at 45%. Among those surveyed, 47% claimed that America is more accepting of atheists than in the past. I wonder where they got that idea? The only positive results from this survey were that 68% of the people felt that atheists could be moral — but this begs the question of why people won't vote for atheists.
In 2003, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll on "religion and public life" which asked people about their attitudes towards a variety of groups, including atheists. People's opinions of atheists break down:
Very Favorable: 7%
Mostly Favorable: 27%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 33%
So, only 34% of Americans have at least a mostly favorable attitude towards atheists; 52% have a mostly unfavorable or worse attitude. Opinions about people who are not religious are better:
Very Favorable: 9%
Mostly Favorable: 41%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 14%
So, 50% of Americans have at least a mostly favorable attitude towards the irreligious and just 33% have a mostly unfavorable (or worse) attitude towards them. Compare these figures with attitudes towards Muslims:
Very Favorable: 9%
Mostly Favorable: 38%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 12%
Muslims are thus regarded a bit worse than the non-religious, but much better than atheists. Attitudes towards "Muslim Americans" were even better than this. All of these attitudes translated into whether people are willing to vote for a person for president. Here are the percentages of Americans who, according to this Pew Research Center survey, would refuse to vote for someone based on the relevant characteristic:
Catholic: 8%
Jewish: 10%
Evangelical Christian: 15%
Muslim: 38%
Atheist: 50%
The 50% who would refuse to vote for an atheist is higher than the 48% who answered the same in a 1999 Gallup survey, suggesting that perhaps attitudes towards atheists are getting worse. These overall American attitudes are largely, but not entirely, the product of Christian attitudes. A 1995 study done by Barna revealed that the prejudice and bigotry of born-again Christians towards atheists was almost universal, but still very high among non-Christians.
Here are the numbers of born-again Christians who regard the impact of these groups as negative:
Islam: 71%
Buddhism: 76%
Scientology: 81%
Atheism: 92%
Here are the numbers of non-Christians who view the impact of the same groups as negative:
Islam: 24%
Buddhism: 22%
Scientology: 30%
Atheism: 50%
There is a large drop for each group, but the drop for atheists is smallest and the final number of people who remain prejudiced against atheists is significantly higher than for every other group — so much higher, in fact, that non-Christians are more prejudiced against atheists, relatively speaking, than they are against the other groups. Born-again Christians are more prejudiced in absolute terms, but they are generally more prejudiced against everyone.
Guns ain't the problem - it's the idiots that own them.. Looks like I'm never gonna be Prez of the US of A..
Over 40 Years of Research Show Atheists Are Despised, Distrusted
The 2006 University of Minnesota study made a lot news about its revelation of how atheists are the most despised minority in America, but this wasn't news to atheists — it was just the most recent in a long series of surveys showing that Americas are very bigoted and prejudiced against atheists. For as long as organizations have been asking Americans about atheists, Americans have been responding that they wouldn't treat atheists as equals to theists and Christians.
A 1999 Gallup poll conducted to determine Americans' willingness to tolerate a Jewish president (Joseph Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President at the time). Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:
Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
Baptist: 6%
Woman: 8%
Mormon: 17%
Muslim: 38%
Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
Atheist: 48%
Gallup has been asking people about whether they would vote for atheists for president for quite some time. Here are the numbers who have said "no" over the years:
February 1999: 48%
August 1987: 48%
April 1983: 51%
July 1978: 53%
December 1959: 74%
September 1958: 77%
August 1958: 75%
It might be argued that there is some cause for hope here, since the number of Americans who would refuse to vote for someone solely on the basis of being an atheist has dropped from 75% to "merely" 48% over the course of 40 years. It's not much hope, though. First, the numbers of Americans whose prejudice would prevent them from voting for members of other minorities has dropped much farther much faster over the same period of time. Second, the numbers of those prejudiced against atheists hasn't really dropped in the past couple of decades — almost all the progress was made between 1959 and 1978.
Finally, other studies and surveys indicate that prejudice against atheists is going back up. A March, 2007 survey done by Newsweek shows that 62% of people would refuse to vote for any candidate admitting to being an atheist. Republicans were, predictably, the most bigoted at 78%, followed by Democrats at 60% and independents at 45%. Among those surveyed, 47% claimed that America is more accepting of atheists than in the past. I wonder where they got that idea? The only positive results from this survey were that 68% of the people felt that atheists could be moral — but this begs the question of why people won't vote for atheists.
In 2003, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll on "religion and public life" which asked people about their attitudes towards a variety of groups, including atheists. People's opinions of atheists break down:
Very Favorable: 7%
Mostly Favorable: 27%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 33%
So, only 34% of Americans have at least a mostly favorable attitude towards atheists; 52% have a mostly unfavorable or worse attitude. Opinions about people who are not religious are better:
Very Favorable: 9%
Mostly Favorable: 41%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 14%
So, 50% of Americans have at least a mostly favorable attitude towards the irreligious and just 33% have a mostly unfavorable (or worse) attitude towards them. Compare these figures with attitudes towards Muslims:
Very Favorable: 9%
Mostly Favorable: 38%
Mostly Unfavorable: 19%
Very Unfavorable: 12%
Muslims are thus regarded a bit worse than the non-religious, but much better than atheists. Attitudes towards "Muslim Americans" were even better than this. All of these attitudes translated into whether people are willing to vote for a person for president. Here are the percentages of Americans who, according to this Pew Research Center survey, would refuse to vote for someone based on the relevant characteristic:
Catholic: 8%
Jewish: 10%
Evangelical Christian: 15%
Muslim: 38%
Atheist: 50%
The 50% who would refuse to vote for an atheist is higher than the 48% who answered the same in a 1999 Gallup survey, suggesting that perhaps attitudes towards atheists are getting worse. These overall American attitudes are largely, but not entirely, the product of Christian attitudes. A 1995 study done by Barna revealed that the prejudice and bigotry of born-again Christians towards atheists was almost universal, but still very high among non-Christians.
Here are the numbers of born-again Christians who regard the impact of these groups as negative:
Islam: 71%
Buddhism: 76%
Scientology: 81%
Atheism: 92%
Here are the numbers of non-Christians who view the impact of the same groups as negative:
Islam: 24%
Buddhism: 22%
Scientology: 30%
Atheism: 50%
There is a large drop for each group, but the drop for atheists is smallest and the final number of people who remain prejudiced against atheists is significantly higher than for every other group — so much higher, in fact, that non-Christians are more prejudiced against atheists, relatively speaking, than they are against the other groups. Born-again Christians are more prejudiced in absolute terms, but they are generally more prejudiced against everyone.
|
|
ray
New Member
🗨️ 388
👍🏻 0
June 2007
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by ray on Dec 16, 2007 12:47:26 GMT 1, Having been part of both groups, growing up Christian and now Atheist I can tell you that the Atheists are just as bad or worse at discriminating against religious people as the other way around.
It's ignorant in my book to discriminate against anything or anyone solely based on what they believe, what they own, where they live, color of skin etc....
Having been part of both groups, growing up Christian and now Atheist I can tell you that the Atheists are just as bad or worse at discriminating against religious people as the other way around.
It's ignorant in my book to discriminate against anything or anyone solely based on what they believe, what they own, where they live, color of skin etc....
|
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by leehambly on Dec 16, 2007 12:49:49 GMT 1, Excellent points. Some say Morons is his most brilliant piece but I see it as a jab at those who pay huge amounts on the secondary market. As far as the prices and him being able to get more if he wanted...it's still a pretty good sum of money for a print and I wouldn't be surprised if Banksy has a laugh at the difference in price his signature makes. Maybe that's why he signed some in what appears to be crayon or something like that with the Trolly's release. He's surely a millionaire by now and the prices do increase with each release. The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should.
I thought Morons was based on a photograph from an art magazine? Live and learn... Banksy can have his own viewpoint about things, and expressing them through his art may at times bring out further meaning which he, even, may not explicitly know... so whilst it may not be his intention, it can (and this is a potential "can") expose his true feelings... I am really not comfortable with this series of three for this reason, mainly because I agree with you... I don't believe he is dissing any of his "fans" but it is the first and most immediate reading, I see, when I look them.
Excellent points. Some say Morons is his most brilliant piece but I see it as a jab at those who pay huge amounts on the secondary market. As far as the prices and him being able to get more if he wanted...it's still a pretty good sum of money for a print and I wouldn't be surprised if Banksy has a laugh at the difference in price his signature makes. Maybe that's why he signed some in what appears to be crayon or something like that with the Trolly's release. He's surely a millionaire by now and the prices do increase with each release. The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should. I thought Morons was based on a photograph from an art magazine? Live and learn... Banksy can have his own viewpoint about things, and expressing them through his art may at times bring out further meaning which he, even, may not explicitly know... so whilst it may not be his intention, it can (and this is a potential "can") expose his true feelings... I am really not comfortable with this series of three for this reason, mainly because I agree with you... I don't believe he is dissing any of his "fans" but it is the first and most immediate reading, I see, when I look them. |
|
ray
New Member
🗨️ 388
👍🏻 0
June 2007
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by ray on Dec 16, 2007 12:53:09 GMT 1, Slightly off topic but there's an interesting essay in Freakonomics about child deaths from guns in the home v child death due to drowning in the home swimming pool. I'm not sure if I would say that gun ownership is unjustifiable, but it is a complicated and protracted intelectual/moral discussion, much of which revolves around the norms/mores of the society you live in and the USA is not the only country in the world with rampant gun problems. However, I thoroughly enjoy living in a society where guns are not the norm, but am very frightened at the constant erosion ofl my rights and wonder where it will lead. Incidentally, those of you that live in London really should get involved with this. It's via the Mark Thomas website....
This is your chance to make MPs live with the consequences of laws they
pass. All you have to do is snap a photo of an MP when they are doing
TV or radio interviews on College Green opposite Parliament and send it
in to gotcha@shopanmp.com. We will then try and get them investigated
by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Here is why and how....
In August 2005 it became illegal to demonstrate in and around
Parliament Square without prior police permission under the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). So far Maya Evans has been
prosecuted and found guilty of an offence under this law for reading
out the names of the British an Iraqi war dead by the Cenotaph in
Whitehall. People have been threatened with arrest for wearing T shirts
with political slogans on them and for having cakes with the word PEACE
iced upon it on display in Parliament Square. Mark Thomas had to get
permission to wear a red nose on Red Nose Day or run the risk of
arrest. He even had to get permission to stand by himself with a banner
saying "Support the Poppy Appeal'. The law is stupid.
According to SOCPA one person can constitute a demonstration, other
than that there is little definition in law as to what a demonstration
is. But if a person breaks the law by reading the names of the war dead
and the Oxford English Dictionary lists a definition of a demonstration
as : an expression of opinion, then surely each time an MP gives a TV
or radio interview about politics or politicians on College Green tthen
they are demonstrating- and if they are demonstrating without
permission that is illegal.
Mark Thomas with lawyers Leigh Day and Co (advised by Tim Owen QC of
Matrix Chambers and Tom de la Mare of Blackstones Chambers) delivered a
letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions Wednesday 12 December 07
calling for an urgent investigation into allegations that MPs had
broken the law- including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Any new
evidence of MPs giving interviews on College Green will be forwarded to
the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Here is how you can help. If you live, work or are visiting London and
walk past College Green (opposite the House of Lords entrance) and you
see an MP giving an interview then:
(1) Photo them with your phone (make sure we can identify them)
(2) Send it in to us with details of time and date
(3) If you hear any of the interview then send us the details.
We will follow up the interview and shop them to the D.P.P.
That Mark Thomas stuff is pretty scary. I'm not really "up" on your laws as far as freedoms goes but it's never a good sign when government does something like that.
Slightly off topic but there's an interesting essay in Freakonomics about child deaths from guns in the home v child death due to drowning in the home swimming pool. I'm not sure if I would say that gun ownership is unjustifiable, but it is a complicated and protracted intelectual/moral discussion, much of which revolves around the norms/mores of the society you live in and the USA is not the only country in the world with rampant gun problems. However, I thoroughly enjoy living in a society where guns are not the norm, but am very frightened at the constant erosion ofl my rights and wonder where it will lead. Incidentally, those of you that live in London really should get involved with this. It's via the Mark Thomas website....
This is your chance to make MPs live with the consequences of laws they
pass. All you have to do is snap a photo of an MP when they are doing
TV or radio interviews on College Green opposite Parliament and send it
in to gotcha@shopanmp.com. We will then try and get them investigated
by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Here is why and how....
In August 2005 it became illegal to demonstrate in and around
Parliament Square without prior police permission under the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA). So far Maya Evans has been
prosecuted and found guilty of an offence under this law for reading
out the names of the British an Iraqi war dead by the Cenotaph in
Whitehall. People have been threatened with arrest for wearing T shirts
with political slogans on them and for having cakes with the word PEACE
iced upon it on display in Parliament Square. Mark Thomas had to get
permission to wear a red nose on Red Nose Day or run the risk of
arrest. He even had to get permission to stand by himself with a banner
saying "Support the Poppy Appeal'. The law is stupid.
According to SOCPA one person can constitute a demonstration, other
than that there is little definition in law as to what a demonstration
is. But if a person breaks the law by reading the names of the war dead
and the Oxford English Dictionary lists a definition of a demonstration
as : an expression of opinion, then surely each time an MP gives a TV
or radio interview about politics or politicians on College Green tthen
they are demonstrating- and if they are demonstrating without
permission that is illegal.
Mark Thomas with lawyers Leigh Day and Co (advised by Tim Owen QC of
Matrix Chambers and Tom de la Mare of Blackstones Chambers) delivered a
letter to the Director of Public Prosecutions Wednesday 12 December 07
calling for an urgent investigation into allegations that MPs had
broken the law- including the Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Any new
evidence of MPs giving interviews on College Green will be forwarded to
the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Here is how you can help. If you live, work or are visiting London and
walk past College Green (opposite the House of Lords entrance) and you
see an MP giving an interview then:
(1) Photo them with your phone (make sure we can identify them)
(2) Send it in to us with details of time and date
(3) If you hear any of the interview then send us the details.
We will follow up the interview and shop them to the D.P.P.That Mark Thomas stuff is pretty scary. I'm not really "up" on your laws as far as freedoms goes but it's never a good sign when government does something like that. |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by leehambly on Dec 16, 2007 13:25:01 GMT 1, I've come across a few devoutly (organised) religious people who are more than happy to discuss their faith and unexpectedly they, more often than not, question the faith continually and are more than happy to debate the possibilities.
Likewise, I have come across some simple atheistic tradesmen, who have lived their lives more devoutly, to their trade or craft, than most "standard" (ie: not those above) religious people.
It is really those caught in the middle that cause the most problem, imo, those that "call themselves" religious without any real evidence... constantly attempting to do x or y, in the name of god, meanwhile living an entirely contrary existence.
Due to my educational upbringing, I know as much about christianity as pretty much anyone outside of the clergy and this is usually more (often a shitload more) than the "religious christian in the street", it is very easy to call them out by dropping the odd name of the odd parable in conversation by way of highlighting or comparing something and the amount of totally blank, feckless looks on their CoE faces always makes me smile.
I don't care what other people think, it is simply my task to deal with their thoughts and attitudes and how that may affect me... BUT, like I said before here, the other big B (Hicks, Bill that is!) summed it up best: THEY HAVE TO FUCKING MEAN IT! And certainly amongst so-called christians, there really isnt a whole lot of "meaning it" going on. Two of the "apparently" most religious (if you believe what they say) people I know are actually the worst pair of adulturous motherfuckers I have had the displeasure to know, there simply is not a sympathetic cell in either of their bodies, meanwhile they sing in choirs and go to church and simper like twits... if I were a religious person I would/could/(maybe)should metaphorically bitchslap them into enlightenment, but so long as they continue the way they are going, they will burn in hell for all eternity, so I'm happy!
The GUILT involved in the so-called religious (actually really not at all) could well be the intent behind their apparent (see big post above) attitude to atheists? I doubt it though, it would be great if they were enlightened enough to understand their own feelings, but I just don't think that many (ie: 50% or more) are.
I've come across a few devoutly (organised) religious people who are more than happy to discuss their faith and unexpectedly they, more often than not, question the faith continually and are more than happy to debate the possibilities.
Likewise, I have come across some simple atheistic tradesmen, who have lived their lives more devoutly, to their trade or craft, than most "standard" (ie: not those above) religious people.
It is really those caught in the middle that cause the most problem, imo, those that "call themselves" religious without any real evidence... constantly attempting to do x or y, in the name of god, meanwhile living an entirely contrary existence.
Due to my educational upbringing, I know as much about christianity as pretty much anyone outside of the clergy and this is usually more (often a shitload more) than the "religious christian in the street", it is very easy to call them out by dropping the odd name of the odd parable in conversation by way of highlighting or comparing something and the amount of totally blank, feckless looks on their CoE faces always makes me smile.
I don't care what other people think, it is simply my task to deal with their thoughts and attitudes and how that may affect me... BUT, like I said before here, the other big B (Hicks, Bill that is!) summed it up best: THEY HAVE TO FUCKING MEAN IT! And certainly amongst so-called christians, there really isnt a whole lot of "meaning it" going on. Two of the "apparently" most religious (if you believe what they say) people I know are actually the worst pair of adulturous motherfuckers I have had the displeasure to know, there simply is not a sympathetic cell in either of their bodies, meanwhile they sing in choirs and go to church and simper like twits... if I were a religious person I would/could/(maybe)should metaphorically bitchslap them into enlightenment, but so long as they continue the way they are going, they will burn in hell for all eternity, so I'm happy!
The GUILT involved in the so-called religious (actually really not at all) could well be the intent behind their apparent (see big post above) attitude to atheists? I doubt it though, it would be great if they were enlightened enough to understand their own feelings, but I just don't think that many (ie: 50% or more) are.
|
|
ray
New Member
🗨️ 388
👍🏻 0
June 2007
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by ray on Dec 16, 2007 13:46:50 GMT 1, I don't put to much faith in any "poll" I read and take them all with a grain of salt. It's no secret that most of them are fixed. What the polls don't tell you is who is targeted/asked to give answers to the questions. If I want a poll to show that 90% of people would elect a Mormon President then my target would be to call people only in Utah as the state is predominately Mormon.
I don't put to much faith in any "poll" I read and take them all with a grain of salt. It's no secret that most of them are fixed. What the polls don't tell you is who is targeted/asked to give answers to the questions. If I want a poll to show that 90% of people would elect a Mormon President then my target would be to call people only in Utah as the state is predominately Mormon.
|
|
|
|
Curley
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,012
👍🏻 7
June 2006
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by Curley on Dec 16, 2007 13:48:53 GMT 1, The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should. I thought Morons was based on a photograph from an art magazine? Live and learn... Banksy can have his own viewpoint about things, and expressing them through his art may at times bring out further meaning which he, even, may not explicitly know... so whilst it may not be his intention, it can (and this is a potential "can") expose his true feelings... I am really not comfortable with this series of three for this reason, mainly because I agree with you... I don't believe he is dissing any of his "fans" but it is the first and most immediate reading, I see, when I look them.
i thought it came from a photo that was similar to this one..trying to find it.
The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should. I thought Morons was based on a photograph from an art magazine? Live and learn... Banksy can have his own viewpoint about things, and expressing them through his art may at times bring out further meaning which he, even, may not explicitly know... so whilst it may not be his intention, it can (and this is a potential "can") expose his true feelings... I am really not comfortable with this series of three for this reason, mainly because I agree with you... I don't believe he is dissing any of his "fans" but it is the first and most immediate reading, I see, when I look them. i thought it came from a photo that was similar to this one..trying to find it. |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by leehambly on Dec 16, 2007 13:50:46 GMT 1, I thought Morons was based on a photograph from an art magazine? Live and learn... Banksy can have his own viewpoint about things, and expressing them through his art may at times bring out further meaning which he, even, may not explicitly know... so whilst it may not be his intention, it can (and this is a potential "can") expose his true feelings... I am really not comfortable with this series of three for this reason, mainly because I agree with you... I don't believe he is dissing any of his "fans" but it is the first and most immediate reading, I see, when I look them. i thought it came from a photo that was similar to this one..trying to find it.
I thought Morons was based on a photograph from an art magazine? Live and learn... Banksy can have his own viewpoint about things, and expressing them through his art may at times bring out further meaning which he, even, may not explicitly know... so whilst it may not be his intention, it can (and this is a potential "can") expose his true feelings... I am really not comfortable with this series of three for this reason, mainly because I agree with you... I don't believe he is dissing any of his "fans" but it is the first and most immediate reading, I see, when I look them. i thought it came from a photo that was similar to this one..trying to find it. Thats the baby, not necessarily the exact photo - but the auction |
|
Curley
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,012
👍🏻 7
June 2006
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by Curley on Dec 16, 2007 13:50:58 GMT 1, 
van gogh sunflowers at christies
van gogh sunflowers at christies |
|
ray
New Member
🗨️ 388
👍🏻 0
June 2007
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by ray on Dec 16, 2007 14:01:55 GMT 1, Excellent points. Some say Morons is his most brilliant piece but I see it as a jab at those who pay huge amounts on the secondary market. As far as the prices and him being able to get more if he wanted...it's still a pretty good sum of money for a print and I wouldn't be surprised if Banksy has a laugh at the difference in price his signature makes. Maybe that's why he signed some in what appears to be crayon or something like that with the Trolly's release. He's surely a millionaire by now and the prices do increase with each release. The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should.
Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before.
Sotheby’s presented seven works by Banksy in a sale of contemporary art. “Bombing Middle England” (2001), an acrylic-and-spray-paint stencil on canvas, featuring a trio of retirees playing boules with live shells, was estimated to bring between sixty and a hundred thousand dollars. It sold for two hundred thousand. (“Bombing” is slang for writing graffiti.) Last month, a painting titled “Space Girl and Bird” sold at Bonham’s for five hundred and seventy-five thousand, a Banksy record. Ralph Taylor, a specialist in the Sotheby’s contemporary-art department, said of Banksy, “He is the quickest-growing artist anyone has ever seen of all time.” Banksy responded to the Sotheby’s sale by posting a painting on his Web site. It featured an auctioneer presiding over a crowd of rapt bidders, with the caption “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this shit.”
Excellent points. Some say Morons is his most brilliant piece but I see it as a jab at those who pay huge amounts on the secondary market. As far as the prices and him being able to get more if he wanted...it's still a pretty good sum of money for a print and I wouldn't be surprised if Banksy has a laugh at the difference in price his signature makes. Maybe that's why he signed some in what appears to be crayon or something like that with the Trolly's release. He's surely a millionaire by now and the prices do increase with each release. The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should. Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before. Sotheby’s presented seven works by Banksy in a sale of contemporary art. “Bombing Middle England” (2001), an acrylic-and-spray-paint stencil on canvas, featuring a trio of retirees playing boules with live shells, was estimated to bring between sixty and a hundred thousand dollars. It sold for two hundred thousand. (“Bombing” is slang for writing graffiti.) Last month, a painting titled “Space Girl and Bird” sold at Bonham’s for five hundred and seventy-five thousand, a Banksy record. Ralph Taylor, a specialist in the Sotheby’s contemporary-art department, said of Banksy, “He is the quickest-growing artist anyone has ever seen of all time.” Banksy responded to the Sotheby’s sale by posting a painting on his Web site. It featured an auctioneer presiding over a crowd of rapt bidders, with the caption “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this shit.” |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by leumasdarnley on Dec 16, 2007 15:28:29 GMT 1, Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society.
Usually agree with you Pez but I come from a family of sportsman combined we probably have 25 rifles used for hunting and target shooting. Your statement is ignorant at best... Your opinion is your opinion but this is just a blanket closed ended statement I don't hunt but I use guns in competetion and its a sport like any other. I consider gun ownership not a big deal ...
Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society. Usually agree with you Pez but I come from a family of sportsman combined we probably have 25 rifles used for hunting and target shooting. Your statement is ignorant at best... Your opinion is your opinion but this is just a blanket closed ended statement I don't hunt but I use guns in competetion and its a sport like any other. I consider gun ownership not a big deal ... |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by fasteddie on Dec 16, 2007 16:09:09 GMT 1, The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should. Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before. Sotheby’s presented seven works by Banksy in a sale of contemporary art. “Bombing Middle England” (2001), an acrylic-and-spray-paint stencil on canvas, featuring a trio of retirees playing boules with live shells, was estimated to bring between sixty and a hundred thousand dollars. It sold for two hundred thousand. (“Bombing” is slang for writing graffiti.) Last month, a painting titled “Space Girl and Bird” sold at Bonham’s for five hundred and seventy-five thousand, a Banksy record. Ralph Taylor, a specialist in the Sotheby’s contemporary-art department, said of Banksy, “He is the quickest-growing artist anyone has ever seen of all time.” Banksy responded to the Sotheby’s sale by posting a painting on his Web site. It featured an auctioneer presiding over a crowd of rapt bidders, with the caption “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this s**t.”
"Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before. "
Sorry but it is you that are wrong and Nu is right. The sketches for morons and the morons print came at the Barely Legal LA show. And the first Banksys on Sothebys was later. Banksy put the picture on his website as a direct comment, but then it was already out as a print.
The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should. Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before. Sotheby’s presented seven works by Banksy in a sale of contemporary art. “Bombing Middle England” (2001), an acrylic-and-spray-paint stencil on canvas, featuring a trio of retirees playing boules with live shells, was estimated to bring between sixty and a hundred thousand dollars. It sold for two hundred thousand. (“Bombing” is slang for writing graffiti.) Last month, a painting titled “Space Girl and Bird” sold at Bonham’s for five hundred and seventy-five thousand, a Banksy record. Ralph Taylor, a specialist in the Sotheby’s contemporary-art department, said of Banksy, “He is the quickest-growing artist anyone has ever seen of all time.” Banksy responded to the Sotheby’s sale by posting a painting on his Web site. It featured an auctioneer presiding over a crowd of rapt bidders, with the caption “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this s**t.” "Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before. " Sorry but it is you that are wrong and Nu is right. The sketches for morons and the morons print came at the Barely Legal LA show. And the first Banksys on Sothebys was later. Banksy put the picture on his website as a direct comment, but then it was already out as a print. |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by numusic on Dec 16, 2007 16:19:14 GMT 1, The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should. Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before. Sotheby’s presented seven works by Banksy in a sale of contemporary art. “Bombing Middle England” (2001), an acrylic-and-spray-paint stencil on canvas, featuring a trio of retirees playing boules with live shells, was estimated to bring between sixty and a hundred thousand dollars. It sold for two hundred thousand. (“Bombing” is slang for writing graffiti.) Last month, a painting titled “Space Girl and Bird” sold at Bonham’s for five hundred and seventy-five thousand, a Banksy record. Ralph Taylor, a specialist in the Sotheby’s contemporary-art department, said of Banksy, “He is the quickest-growing artist anyone has ever seen of all time.” Banksy responded to the Sotheby’s sale by posting a painting on his Web site. It featured an auctioneer presiding over a crowd of rapt bidders, with the caption “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this s**t.”
I'll leave someone else to correct this for you.
The print is based on an original painting.. it's based on having a go at the traditional and ridiculous auction house, rich collector, art world and all that goes with it. Buying the print basically means you agree. It has nothing to do with secondary market nonsense nor print collectors. It was produced before his work started fetching thousands at auction. And no, Banksy doesnt "have a laugh" at his fans or the people who buy his prints expense. He does however have a laugh at the art world...and so he should. Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before. Sotheby’s presented seven works by Banksy in a sale of contemporary art. “Bombing Middle England” (2001), an acrylic-and-spray-paint stencil on canvas, featuring a trio of retirees playing boules with live shells, was estimated to bring between sixty and a hundred thousand dollars. It sold for two hundred thousand. (“Bombing” is slang for writing graffiti.) Last month, a painting titled “Space Girl and Bird” sold at Bonham’s for five hundred and seventy-five thousand, a Banksy record. Ralph Taylor, a specialist in the Sotheby’s contemporary-art department, said of Banksy, “He is the quickest-growing artist anyone has ever seen of all time.” Banksy responded to the Sotheby’s sale by posting a painting on his Web site. It featured an auctioneer presiding over a crowd of rapt bidders, with the caption “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this s**t.” I'll leave someone else to correct this for you. |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by numusic on Dec 16, 2007 16:20:02 GMT 1, cheers fasteddie.. too quick for me :-)
cheers fasteddie.. too quick for me :-)
|
|
|
|
BK83
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,604
👍🏻 10
October 2006
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by BK83 on Dec 16, 2007 16:46:37 GMT 1, Yes, the gun is open to make sure the chamber is clear/safe. The funny thing is that it still has a magazine loaded. The gun won't fire in that position. On a side note about guns I live in Nevada. No permit, license, or waiting period to buy a rifle, handgun or ammo. 
Are you being seroius?! you think thats good?! I am embarassed to be an american. How pathetic.
Yes, the gun is open to make sure the chamber is clear/safe. The funny thing is that it still has a magazine loaded. The gun won't fire in that position. On a side note about guns I live in Nevada. No permit, license, or waiting period to buy a rifle, handgun or ammo. Are you being seroius?! you think thats good?! I am embarassed to be an american. How pathetic. |
|
BK83
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,604
👍🏻 10
October 2006
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by BK83 on Dec 16, 2007 16:50:36 GMT 1, Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society. Usually agree with you Pez but I come from a family of sportsman combined we probably have 25 rifles used for hunting and target shooting. Your statement is ignorant at best... Your opinion is your opinion but this is just a blanket closed ended statement I don't hunt but I use guns in competetion and its a sport like any other. I consider gun ownership not a big deal ...
Again. I'm embarassed to be an american.... I really have to get out of this country. peaople who think like this are just plain fucking scary. How can you call it a "sport" when it's you and a fucking automatic weapon against a defenseless animal.
are you havin a laugh? is he havin a laugh?
Gun ownership is wrong, is incapable of justification and is symptomatic of everything that is wrong in american society. Usually agree with you Pez but I come from a family of sportsman combined we probably have 25 rifles used for hunting and target shooting. Your statement is ignorant at best... Your opinion is your opinion but this is just a blanket closed ended statement I don't hunt but I use guns in competetion and its a sport like any other. I consider gun ownership not a big deal ... Again. I'm embarassed to be an american.... I really have to get out of this country. peaople who think like this are just plain fucking scary. How can you call it a "sport" when it's you and a fucking automatic weapon against a defenseless animal. are you havin a laugh? is he havin a laugh? |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by leumasdarnley on Dec 16, 2007 16:52:14 GMT 1, Usually agree with you Pez but I come from a family of sportsman combined we probably have 25 rifles used for hunting and target shooting. Your statement is ignorant at best... Your opinion is your opinion but this is just a blanket closed ended statement I don't hunt but I use guns in competetion and its a sport like any other. I consider gun ownership not a big deal ... Again. I'm embarassed to be an american.... I really have to get out of this country. peaople who think like this are just plain f**king scary. How can you call it a "sport" when it's you and a f**king automatic weapon against a defenseless animal. are you havin a laugh? is he havin a laugh?
If you actually read what I wrote the sport was target shooting.... <sigh>
Usually agree with you Pez but I come from a family of sportsman combined we probably have 25 rifles used for hunting and target shooting. Your statement is ignorant at best... Your opinion is your opinion but this is just a blanket closed ended statement I don't hunt but I use guns in competetion and its a sport like any other. I consider gun ownership not a big deal ... Again. I'm embarassed to be an american.... I really have to get out of this country. peaople who think like this are just plain f**king scary. How can you call it a "sport" when it's you and a f**king automatic weapon against a defenseless animal. are you havin a laugh? is he havin a laugh? If you actually read what I wrote the sport was target shooting.... <sigh> |
|
ray
New Member
🗨️ 388
👍🏻 0
June 2007
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by ray on Dec 16, 2007 17:01:34 GMT 1, Usually agree with you Pez but I come from a family of sportsman combined we probably have 25 rifles used for hunting and target shooting. Your statement is ignorant at best... Your opinion is your opinion but this is just a blanket closed ended statement I don't hunt but I use guns in competetion and its a sport like any other. I consider gun ownership not a big deal ... Again. I'm embarassed to be an american.... I really have to get out of this country. peaople who think like this are just plain f**king scary. How can you call it a "sport" when it's you and a f**king automatic weapon against a defenseless animal. are you havin a laugh? is he havin a laugh?
I'm trying to find where he said he hunts with automatic weapons...I assume you don't eat meat or wear leather of any kind because you don't like seeing animals killed.
As far as being embarrassed to live, and wanting to leave the country because people hunt and have guns....Are you just finding this out now? Also, if you do really move because of it you'll be hard pressed finding a country that doesn't allow hunting or guns.
Usually agree with you Pez but I come from a family of sportsman combined we probably have 25 rifles used for hunting and target shooting. Your statement is ignorant at best... Your opinion is your opinion but this is just a blanket closed ended statement I don't hunt but I use guns in competetion and its a sport like any other. I consider gun ownership not a big deal ... Again. I'm embarassed to be an american.... I really have to get out of this country. peaople who think like this are just plain f**king scary. How can you call it a "sport" when it's you and a f**king automatic weapon against a defenseless animal. are you havin a laugh? is he havin a laugh? I'm trying to find where he said he hunts with automatic weapons...I assume you don't eat meat or wear leather of any kind because you don't like seeing animals killed. As far as being embarrassed to live, and wanting to leave the country because people hunt and have guns....Are you just finding this out now? Also, if you do really move because of it you'll be hard pressed finding a country that doesn't allow hunting or guns. |
|
ray
New Member
🗨️ 388
👍🏻 0
June 2007
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by ray on Dec 16, 2007 17:04:44 GMT 1, Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before. Sotheby’s presented seven works by Banksy in a sale of contemporary art. “Bombing Middle England” (2001), an acrylic-and-spray-paint stencil on canvas, featuring a trio of retirees playing boules with live shells, was estimated to bring between sixty and a hundred thousand dollars. It sold for two hundred thousand. (“Bombing” is slang for writing graffiti.) Last month, a painting titled “Space Girl and Bird” sold at Bonham’s for five hundred and seventy-five thousand, a Banksy record. Ralph Taylor, a specialist in the Sotheby’s contemporary-art department, said of Banksy, “He is the quickest-growing artist anyone has ever seen of all time.” Banksy responded to the Sotheby’s sale by posting a painting on his Web site. It featured an auctioneer presiding over a crowd of rapt bidders, with the caption “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this s**t.” I'll leave someone else to correct this for you.
My bad then nuart...I got the info from this write up from the NY post. Maybe I'll shoot her an email and tell her she's wrong. here's the link quoting the guy from Sothebuy's
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/14/070514fa_fact_collins
Actually it was based "after" his work started fetching thousands at auction not before. Sotheby’s presented seven works by Banksy in a sale of contemporary art. “Bombing Middle England” (2001), an acrylic-and-spray-paint stencil on canvas, featuring a trio of retirees playing boules with live shells, was estimated to bring between sixty and a hundred thousand dollars. It sold for two hundred thousand. (“Bombing” is slang for writing graffiti.) Last month, a painting titled “Space Girl and Bird” sold at Bonham’s for five hundred and seventy-five thousand, a Banksy record. Ralph Taylor, a specialist in the Sotheby’s contemporary-art department, said of Banksy, “He is the quickest-growing artist anyone has ever seen of all time.” Banksy responded to the Sotheby’s sale by posting a painting on his Web site. It featured an auctioneer presiding over a crowd of rapt bidders, with the caption “I can’t believe you morons actually buy this s**t.” I'll leave someone else to correct this for you. My bad then nuart...I got the info from this write up from the NY post. Maybe I'll shoot her an email and tell her she's wrong. here's the link quoting the guy from Sothebuy's www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/14/070514fa_fact_collins |
|
ray
New Member
🗨️ 388
👍🏻 0
June 2007
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by ray on Dec 16, 2007 17:06:54 GMT 1, Again. I'm embarassed to be an american.... I really have to get out of this country. peaople who think like this are just plain f**king scary. How can you call it a "sport" when it's you and a f**king automatic weapon against a defenseless animal. are you havin a laugh? is he havin a laugh? If you actually read what I wrote the sport was target shooting.... <sigh>
Don't feel to bad about it. I've been accused right here on this thread of belonging to the NRA, the pro-gun lobby, and being a redneck for owning one.
Again. I'm embarassed to be an american.... I really have to get out of this country. peaople who think like this are just plain f**king scary. How can you call it a "sport" when it's you and a f**king automatic weapon against a defenseless animal. are you havin a laugh? is he havin a laugh? If you actually read what I wrote the sport was target shooting.... <sigh> Don't feel to bad about it. I've been accused right here on this thread of belonging to the NRA, the pro-gun lobby, and being a redneck for owning one. |
|
|
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by leumasdarnley on Dec 16, 2007 17:12:51 GMT 1, If you actually read what I wrote the sport was target shooting.... <sigh> Don't feel to bad about it. I've been accused right here on this thread of belonging to the NRA, the pro-gun lobby, and being a redneck for owning one.
Cheers Ray like I said I don't hunt not into it but from a culture point of view its probably pretty easy to not understand on top of a soap box on the Lower East Side of Manhattan...
If you actually read what I wrote the sport was target shooting.... <sigh> Don't feel to bad about it. I've been accused right here on this thread of belonging to the NRA, the pro-gun lobby, and being a redneck for owning one. Cheers Ray like I said I don't hunt not into it but from a culture point of view its probably pretty easy to not understand on top of a soap box on the Lower East Side of Manhattan... |
|
ray
New Member
🗨️ 388
👍🏻 0
June 2007
|
A Rare Banksy Mistake?, by ray on Dec 16, 2007 17:53:49 GMT 1, I don't hunt either but as I said before, I'm not judgmental against those that do. It would be ignorant for me to do so simply because I don't hunt.
I don't hunt either but as I said before, I'm not judgmental against those that do. It would be ignorant for me to do so simply because I don't hunt.
|
|
