-
12/06/2011 10:19:00 PM
Hello could you tell me how I can purchase the september 2008 issue with sylivia ji on the cover in the uk
-
DenisePesulima 01/13/2011 7:28:00 PM
Can you please tell me how I may find the Artist of the print on the cover of the LAWEEKLY SEPTEMBER 12-18, 2008/ VOL.30 / NO. 43
I wish to purchase it.
-
breathed you 01/17/2009 7:43:00 AM
*NOTE: My girlfriend showed me this article upon our discussion on Lowbrow art. I didn't even bother to read all the comments because it is just too tiresome, so I'll add one more for the cliche I am about to set:
Negation of Negation
You all have taken this article and turned it into a self subjective pity party. Hopefully these feelings are still not running strong all the way from September.
1) This article was great! Accept for the meshing of punk rock, skateboarding, street art, tom waits and what ever. That street cred comment was kind of a narrow minded shit. All those groups/scenes of people, Tom waits excluded, are far too broad to pinpoint within themselves a pinnacle of greatness. Give em a little credit man.
2) What I think doesn't matter.
3) Corporate commercialism of ones art is their one ticket out of artistic freedom. From that point on everything they think or do is suspect. Sell-outs! But, more power to them.
4) Censorship! To feel like you are a part of a community in which supports and evokes free thinking with no limits is extremely empowering and needed in order to produce pure expression, or just to make art. I can't believe someone wold post a comment of the "Law" 1466A. What about the first amendment? Within the article, the fact that a group of artists would protest a peer and a gallery, either silently or vocally, is egregious.
5) Sarcasm makes me nauseous.
6) Combine 4 and 3 and you have our small group of "Outlaw" artists. By their protest they are censoring an artist to protect their image. Although not a corporate commercial gain, these artists are defining their own art world built on conservative values and moral high ground. This act of protest in order to save ones artistic reputation negates the face value of their work, stifling expression and promoting a dangerously narrow philosophy.
7) There are three things I came here to do. Eat tacos, love art, and kick ass. And I'm all out of tacos and art...
-
Alexandra Lynn 10/08/2008 1:53:00 PM
The September 11th cover is "Dona Dolorosa" by artist Sylvia Ji.
-
Ani Markaryan 10/03/2008 10:53:00 AM
Can u please tell me who the artist was for the cover art piece on the sept 11th issue. thank you , sincerely ani markaryan
-
Ani Markaryan 10/03/2008 10:53:00 AM
Can u please tell me who the artist was for the cover art piece on the sept 11th issue. thank you , sincerely ani markaryan
-
DAE 09/22/2008 9:52:00 PM
HELLO!!!!!!
I NEED THIS LA WEKLY COVER,DOES ANY ONE HAVE THIS NEWS PAPER??????????
-
DAE 09/22/2008 9:52:00 PM
HELLO!!!!!!
I NEED THIS LA WEKLY COVER,DOES ANY ONE HAVE THIS NEWS PAPER??????????
-
jeremy cross 09/19/2008 4:39:00 AM
Sexist slurs? Not from me. I am a lot of things but sexist isn't one of them. You may be associating me with comments I didnt make. Common around here. I am Jeremy Cross or The Bastard.
Name calling?,..well I am a Bastard.
Downplaying the exhibit? Only so much as others have overplayed it.
I am in no way trying to further my career with controversy. I have not once posted my website, myspace, facebook page or anything else on here. And the blog I posted was on my own page. So only people who were already friends or associated saw it directly from me.
Weird.
Last thing ill say " Bill is awesome, Hyaena gallery rocks, Stu is brilliant, people can be nearsighted, Its sad that one Boi's attack on a good man caused so much heartache for so many. I understand why people are on both sides. Doesnt mean I have to agree with it. Pornography is in the eye of the beholder."
I will not post or respond further on here.
You wanna talk further, find me elsewhere.
Cheers
Jeremy "The Bastard" Cross
-
jeremy cross 09/19/2008 4:38:00 AM
Sexist slurs? Not from me. I am a lot of things but sexist isn't one of them. You may be associating me with comments I didnt make. Common around here. I am Jeremy Cross or The Bastard.
Name calling?,..well I am a Bastard.
Downplaying the exhibit? Only so much as others have overplayed it.
I am in no way trying to further my career with controversy. I have not once posted my website, myspace, facebook page or anything else on here. And the blog I posted was on my own page. So only people who were already friends or associated saw it directly from me.
Weird.
Last thing ill say " Bill is awesome, Hyaena gallery rocks, Stu is brilliant, people can be nearsighted, Its sad that one Boi's attack on a good man caused so much heartache for so many. I understand why people are on both sides. Doesnt mean I have to agree with it. Pornography is in the eye of the beholder."
I will not post or respond further on here.
You wanna talk further, find me elsewhere.
Cheers
Jeremy "The Bastard" Cross
-
alexa 09/18/2008 8:27:00 PM
mr.cross
by the way if you think this is as innocent as hanna montana then you may be adding your own sexual enthusiasm to what you are watching
YOU-------> "is this more pornographic than sexualizing Hannna Montana (good ol disney) or the Olsen Twins? "
im not sure i ever saw the olsen twins sucking dicks the size of duraflame logs. or hanna montana with a demons toungue in her vagina. have you?
don't try to down play this exhibit. yes what disney does to little girl is gross and demoralizing to society, i agree 100% but its not porn. name calling and sexist slurs will only serve to make you look judgemental and ignorant.
i think your art is very nice and i wish you all the best with it, but you should not use controvercy to further your career.
-
Louis Hansell 09/18/2008 3:45:00 AM
"Art disturbs..." ~Georges Braque, Le Jour et la nuit
-
alexa 09/18/2008 2:13:00 AM
so since ths is all going over my head. explain to me how paintings of little girls sucking mens penises is not child porn? it may be art but i think it can be more than one thing. it is not ignorance to call it what it is. its ignorance to ignore the obvious. people should not be victimised because you dont agree with the fact that they don't like to see children getting victimized. and as far as judging goes i think you were the one to take this public to begin with and start denaouncing people as artists for not liking this child porn exhibit
-
j.cross 09/18/2008 1:57:00 AM
Alexa. I do not have a gallery.I am just an artist expressing his own personal opinion and I speak for no one but myself.
I would never have a problem with people voicing an opinion. But I can also think that that opinion is wrong and speak out against it.
The only thing that truly upsets me is ignorance.
And you completely missed my point about the religious iconography.
I was responding to the comment about the artist or anyone who likes the work being a pedophile. Just as using my own images do not make me a christian.
Sorry that it went over your head.
-
alexa 09/17/2008 9:01:00 PM
im not sure why you think religious iconography is the same as child porn. one violates federal laws and one does not.
if you are such a lover of free speech then why are you so against people speaking out against your gallery. what queenie did was courageous, you are just a bully. you can defend child porn till the cows come home but its still child porn. however you dress it up or desguise it the artist clearly states his intention to paint pre-pubescent girl.
-
TheBlackadder 09/17/2008 10:47:00 AM
Okay Look,
I've read all of this stuff, the different articles and whatnot surrounding the whole thing and this is what I have to say:
Queenie's artwork (For anyone with a brain) you can see clearly that they are fictitious characters. They were something that she came up with that are CUTE. And yeah, they are a little dark but they are supposed to be Gothic. They are inspired by someone who is of the Gothic Culture. I thought all you artists are supposed to be deep and intellectual and smart . . . if that's true, then I suppose that you can realize Queenie's dolls are not REAL little girls. They were never supposed to be.
The controversial Artwork that started this whole thing, is OBVIOUSLY supposed to depict real human little girls. Anyone who has a little girl or child in their lives (not necessarily theirs) would be repulsed by these images that someone decided to paint which were images in their head. Obviously they could see them in their mind, otherwise they wouldn't know what to paint.
So it's America, so everyone has a right to their opinion . . . but if the degenerates of the world want to flaunt their deviance in an 'art show', under the banner of 'free speech', that doesn't really leave much that anyone can do about it. But if people don't want their name associated with such things, then they shouldn't have to.
And as for Hideous boys artwork . . . are you guys blind or just ignorant?! The man is a talented genius! And if he wants to back up his girlfriend then good for him! Not enough men in this world know how to be a man and support and protect the ones they love.
In conclusion to my two cents worth, as someone who has a 9 year old girl living in my house who is my niece that I love dearly . . . . Have your little distasteful artshow. But I'm not going to spend a dime of my money on it, or send my friends and associates to see it. We have better things to do with our time and money. Because as you like to say, This is a free country. And as such I'm free to criticize people who do support this stuff and create it. As much as you have a right to criticize and talk down at people who have morals and human decency and disagree with you.
~Marian~
-
jeremy cross 09/17/2008 7:44:00 AM
MC...theres a big difference between using a digital camera to photograph actual children and painting images that are not based on an actual human.
Your argument is invalid.
all of you "pornography" hounds need to get a life. is this more pornographic than sexualizing Hannna Montana (good ol disney) or the Olsen Twins? (when they were still underage...)
I am an artist, I often paint very religious symbols into my paintings and just as often use the iconography to portray an emotion or idea in a controversial or more visually intense setting. Does this make me pro-christian? Hell no! I use them to churn over my own demons with society and religion...to try and share these issues and expose that part of my soul so I can try and gain elevation.
"Judge not lest you be judged"
-
MC 09/16/2008 11:33:00 AM
I supported many forms of art. I have purchased several pieces from Hyaena, but "prepubescent girls" are crossing the line in so many ways. To say that it is ok because "it's art", just opened the door for every pedophile with a digital camera. "It's not kiddie porn! It's art!" How would you feel if your daughters face was on one of those pieces? If you would still feel the same way, then you are what's wrong with this country.
I applaud the "crafty" housewives and Hideousboi for standing up for what they believe in and pulling out of the gallery. I will continue to buy their "crafts" and I will continue to buy pieces from artist that are still at Hyaena, but I will not purchase them through the gallery again.
-
LittleBat 09/16/2008 6:16:00 AM
Ok, people need to calm the hell down and stop going that art is wrong, it's horrible, blah blah blah.
There is ALOT worse art out there!!
My thirteen year old cousin goes on a free website that has comic books that you can look at ALL the pages on it. And it's a porno-comic incest site.
I've seen a page when I was walking past his computer on day.
It is much, much worse then a painting!!
SO GET A LIFE, IT'S THE ARTISTS' WORK AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDGE IT!!!!
-
Semyaza 09/15/2008 11:18:00 PM
All art comes from inspiration. It really makes one wonder what has "inspired" Stu Mead to paint pornographic pictures of pre-pubesent girls having sex and urinating.
-
bha 09/15/2008 10:53:00 AM
Hey ,
First of all Queenie does not paint pictures of deal children. I have seen her art work.
Second of all, I think if you had children you actually cared about you would feel different about those child pornography paintings.
-
bazooka 09/15/2008 8:27:00 AM
I wanna have Stu Meads babies!
-
dynamiterose 09/15/2008 4:38:00 AM
Before people scream freedom of speech and claim first amendment rights, learn what is covered by it.
The PROTECT Act of 2003 CLEARLY explains what is and what is not considered child pornography. The US Supreme Court decided that the rights of children were paramount in cases of this matter. The fact that Stu Mead lives in Germany is inconsequential, as the act clearly states that US citizens are still governable by US law even when overseas.
Trying to make Queenie sound "just as bad" as Stu Mead is ridiculous and offensive. Her characters are not "dead" nor do they step all over the rights of others by their existence.
Also, taking this into public forum when the artists that left just wanted to leave end of story is childish. How is it that Stu Mead can have first amendment rights and the artists that left have no right to express their feelings? How are they hypocrites and the artist in the Lemmings show not?
-
Dessy 09/15/2008 2:57:00 AM
Be it contraversial I have never seen an artist with such perverted thoughts. If you like that type of art you my friend are a pedofile. Think about it this guy sitting in his room thinking about naked children, is that ok with you. Hey maybe he's using someones kid as insperation,
-
Gene Trosper (Semyaza) 09/15/2008 1:42:00 AM
Art is art. Sometimes it depicts wonderful scenes and ideas, other times, it depicts the underbelly of humanity. Though I can recognize Stu Meade's art as *art*, that does not mean I have to like it or support it. In fact, I find his depictions of small girls engaged in sexual acts to be disgusting. He has the freedom to produce his art, but no one inside or outside the arts community should feel compelled to support it.
Personally, I am glad that those three female artists (I have seen and appreciate their artwork) decided to pull their works from that gallery. It demonstrates a willingness to stand up for principle, something you don't find much of anymore.
-
The American Werewolf 09/15/2008 1:06:00 AM
Mr. Cross, this has nothing to do with limiting freedoms and I have already thought carefully about this--each persons fate is his or her own business.
-
jeremy cross 09/14/2008 1:52:00 PM
according to the "werewolf" there should be limits on freedom of expression....
Perhaps other freedoms should be limited?
Perhaps?
Think deep and conjure carefully....your fate may be your own.......
-
jeremy cross 09/14/2008 1:51:00 PM
according to the "werewolf" there should be limits on freedom of expression....
Perhaps other freedoms should be limited?
Perhaps?
Think deep and conjure carefully....your fate may be your own.......
-
The American Werewolf 09/14/2008 8:46:00 AM
Everyone has the right to their own opinion and the freedom to express such an opinion--to condemn someone for having a certain opinion about Stu Mead's work and exercising the freedom they have in doing what they consider is right, is just being hypocritical--that is playground stuff so get over the fact that people are different than you and THATS OK---
As far as my personal opinion in regards to art which offends--yes, we have the freedom to depict anything we want, but that is not always a good thing--An artist is going to depict that which they find themselves preoccupied with at their core--an artist creates that which interests them personally-they are expressing that which is within-is the preoccupation with naked prepubescent girls in sexual situations with dogs among other beings more "acceptable" just because its not a photograph?--some of you folks seem to revel in the fact that the art is offensive to some, and you wave the banner of "freedom of expression" but what about right and wrong? Or is this another moral relativism?--What is the purpose of such depictions? To take the freedom of expression we have and get as downright vile and taboo shattering as you want? Is that a good enough reason to create a work of art? The truth of the matter is that the more we accept under the guise of freedom of expression, the more things will decay---when there is no clear line between right and wrong, we are all going to be in a world of hurt--JUST MY OPINION--
-
The American Werewolf 09/14/2008 8:46:00 AM
Everyone has the right to their own opinion and the freedom to express such an opinion--to condemn someone for having a certain opinion about Stu Mead's work and exercising the freedom they have in doing what they consider is right, is just being hypocritical--that is playground stuff so get over the fact that people are different than you and THATS OK---
As far as my personal opinion in regards to art which offends--yes, we have the freedom to depict anything we want, but that is not always a good thing--An artist is going to depict that which they find themselves preoccupied with at their core--an artist creates that which interests them personally-they are expressing that which is within-is the preoccupation with naked prepubescent girls in sexual situations with dogs among other beings more "acceptable" just because its not a photograph?--some of you folks seem to revel in the fact that the art is offensive to some, and you wave the banner of "freedom of expression" but what about right and wrong? Or is this another moral relativism?--What is the purpose of such depictions? To take the freedom of expression we have and get as downright vile and taboo shattering as you want? Is that a good enough reason to create a work of art? The truth of the matter is that the more we accept under the guise of freedom of expression, the more things will decay---when there is no clear line between right and wrong, we are all going to be in a world of hurt--JUST MY OPINION--
-
matt dukes jordan 09/13/2008 10:30:00 PM
Perhaps I should add a few things to my already lengthy commentary above. ONE of the women who withdrew her art from Hyaena did so out of fear of loss of sales. Others were concerned about other issues. However, my point that Bukowski resisted selling out still stands as a valid comment. He stuck with the small presses because they provided freedom of expression, just as some artists like the small galleries or the self-publishing route because it allows greater freedom of expression. As to the benefits of free thought and expression, one has to ask if satire is of value. Does it liberate consciousness and free our minds to mock things in art and writing? Bukowski did this, Rabelais did this, and many other greats did it. I see Stu Mead as a satirist. For more about satire, read my review of the Juxtapoz factor show at Laguna Art Museum in the forthcoming issue of COAGULA magazine -- in that article I talk about the value of satire. Understanding the function of satire is useful for getting insight into this discussion. And, if we are to take all of this discussion of freedom of expression further, we have to consider a key issue -- do we think that humans are rational beings? Do we live rationally? Do we live lives of the mind? Can we think and reason and understand that a work of art is something different from the thing itself? In some non-technological societies, some people feared that if someone captured their image with a camera, that they would lose their souls. That's irrational thinking. Such a person believes that an image is the same as the thing itself. We know it's not true, rationally. Back to IRON MAN -- I enjoyed seeing the cocky, funny actor Robert Downey Jr. playing a guy who creates a superman suit and flies to places of oppression and frees people ---- albeit by violent acts. I knew it was a fantasy. Rationally I'd much prefer to resolve conflicts in other ways, if that's possible. Question: should this film be withdrawn and people boycott it because it promotes vigilant-like solo violent action-- taking the law into one's own hands? Or do we as a society say, Ok, we know it's a fantasy? And permit it to be? Where do you draw the line on freedom? How much freedom is enough and how much is too much? How rational are humans? If we are irrational, might art be a vehicle to explore that? Do people who make art about goth stuff create something that encourages people to think dark goth thoughts? Or is it satire and a freeing up of our psyches? Lots of questions -- in a rational, free society, we would rely on reason to find the answers, not dogma or emotion. That's how science works as well. Turns out we are not at the center of the universe, we can see that from space. We never would've gotten there if we'd stayed on a track of purely dogmatic, narrow-minded, irrational thinking. I love the photos of the planet from space. It's good enough for me even if it's not the center of the universe. It's beautiful.
-
Bastet2329 09/13/2008 10:10:00 PM
"It turns out the women left for business reasons -- they feared they would lose sales ! "
yes. Thats because I veiw this as my BUSINESS and not a hobby. I am an adult with adult responsibilities and bills. My art is my livelihood and if something is stopping me from making a living, I move on.
How many people have quit a job? I saw Hyaena as my place of "work". If i worked at an office and something similar happened, I would pack up my stapler and tape dispenser and hit the highway. I am passionite about many things but I pick my battles. My daughter and my Business are at the top of that list. I will protect those with all of my heart.
Christie
WWW.bastet2329.com
-
matt dukes jordan 09/13/2008 9:43:00 PM
Bill Shafer is a great guy and he runs a fine gallery -- I know, I show there and work with him. If you like free expression and lowbrow art, don't miss the upcoming Hyaena show that I organized called ART ABOUT BUKOWSKI-- lowbrow masters like Glenn Barr, Kalynn Campbell, Anthony Ausgang, Skot Olsen, Gregg Gibbs, Jeremy Cross, Louis Hansell ... and many more -- golly, about 30 amazing artists will interpret Bukowski...... Who I'm sure would've found this whole thing amusing. It turns out the women left for business reasons -- they feared they would lose sales ! That's funny. Buk stuck with the small mags and small presses even though he had a chance to sell out and go with the majors...... He was loyal to Black Sparrow and City Lights, etc. He didn't worry about sales. he worried about integrity of his vision. The "littles" -- little mags and little presses --- let him write whatever he wanted. He didn't have to tone things down, as Doug Nason did with his tiki show for Forest Lawn. I'm a long-time Buk fan and just wrote a new book about his connection to LA -- it's called BUKOWSKI'S LA. The book is now for sale -- I self-published it. Check out the myspace page (google Bukowski's LA)..... I published the best history of lowbrow art too -- WEIRDO DELUXE...... chronicle books, sf, 2005. As to censorship, the important thing to remember is that art is about free exploration of ideas and imagination. People seem to forget that there is a difference between imagining/thinking things and doing things. It's one thing to watch a film like IRON MAN, which I enjoyed, and it's another thing to actually fly around destroying things. One value of art is that it allows people to explore ideas and imagine things in a realm that enriches the mind. Free thinking is what has moved humans into new realms... say, the invention of the light bulb, or computers, or films, or space travel... when thought and imagination is restricted you get the Dark Ages, where everyone lived in fear and lived by dogma and, overall, it was a dead time for human thought and imagination.... Seems we have a whole segment of our population who would like us to be in the Dark Ages again, with restricted thoughts and ideas that must conform to their ideas of what the nature of the universe and life is all about. Support the U.S. constitution, it's a great document! Support free thought and expession- without it, we live pathetic, sullen, dreary lives of conformity and narrow thinking, unhappiness, and fear...... and a sense that our greatest gifts -- our minds and imaginations -- are being wasted or repressed by a bunch of narrow-minded dolts. Alas, scientists who dared say the earth wasn't the center of the universe were punished at one time. This is what dunkerheads who say they know all ask of science........ are asking of it. Freedom of thought and expression is our greatest liberty in a free society.
-
Bastet2329 09/13/2008 9:15:00 PM
I won't defend my art.
And i won't hide what I make.
I made dolls- Some are ghosts, some are vampires, some are skull head dolls, some have blood, some have cracked faces, some are nuns. I also paint and make collages.
I love halloween, the supernatural and horror movies and I make art the incorperates that.
Just as some of you ask that a person "reasearch" Stu Meads background and NOT take his art at face value, I COULD say the same.
BUT I won't request that because I know thats an impractical request.
People do take art at FACE VALUE.
All of us are guilty of it.
I know I am offensive.
I have had my fair share of battles along the way.
But that is a risk I take.
I offend people all the time....
BUT I have never depeicted prepubescent girls in sexual scenes.
Like I said before, Hyaena helped me and I helped Hyaena. 2 way street. I brought my concerns to Bill and he choose to make our conversations public. By what I am seeing in some peoples posts, he told some people things I told him in the strickest of confidence. But what can ya do?
I did say it would be retarded to take my art out of Hyaena. And for the time, I meant those words. When I said that, the matter was being handled between me and Bill. When other parties got involved and other events happened, I changed my mind.
For the record, I did not ask to keep my dolls there. When I left, I left. I took my things and severed my ties.
I have a little girl. Maybe that makes me more sensitive to the objectification of prepubesenct girls. If i bring that with me when veiwing Stu Meads art then so be it. Its part of being a human.
Controversy sells. Wasn't that the point of the show to begin with? I cannot imagine that Hyaena expected everyone (including artists) to like and support Stu Meads art . It was a risk the gallery took on. The gallery lost artists- Fine. There are a bazillion other artists waiting to line the walls. What did the gallery loose by loosing us? Bill lost friends but the Gallery made space. *shrugs*
Come on now, we all know that doing or showing the same things gets stale. Now Hyaena can show new stuff and sell it (new stuff sells like hotcakes afterall) and us "hens" can go back to doing what we do best- being in control of our own sales. Its a win win really.
I am sure this is not the first or last time something like this will occur. As long as art exists people will be offended. People will react.
-
J.D. 09/13/2008 12:51:00 PM
Apparently my last response to you Captain upset the editors since they pulled my comment. Basically, the censored comment just stated that you missed my entire point. I was being factious (which means that the jail comment was rather tongue in cheek). So, I�ll state it again in more PC terms in order not to get censored. Heaven forbid I ruffle the delicate testosterone by using male jail scenarios. I was just trying to point out that there is no difference between the men who look at photos of little girls and the men who look at paintings of little girls. What�s the difference between what those paintings depict and what you might find in a dark corner in jail? As far as me turning people off to my opinion, well that�s neither here nor there�I�m not an artist. Kudos to you for bringing a buzz to the artists who pulled their work from the gallery. You just personally handed them more money than they ever would have made from their show that got pulled. Well done.
-
Sparatacus 09/13/2008 12:45:00 PM
I personally am not offended by Stu Mead�s art, but I understand that as part of my first amendment right that allows me to view his art, people are also allowed to be offended by it and they are welcome to be so offended. They are welcome to not like it, or look at it, or patronize a gallery displaying it, and if they are an artist with work hanging in the gallery displaying it, they are welcome to remove their work. Stu�s art is generally not my bag, per se, but I�m glad I got to see it and make my own decision about it. I would never think it alright to demand that a gallery owner (and friend) remove the art from his place of business, or require my approval in advance of placing new art in the gallery lest it reflect poorly upon me and my artwork. Who are these people? They aren�t co-owners, they don�t pay rent. They don�t speak for me or my interests. They have their work displayed there based on the good will and support of Hyaena gallery owner, Bill Shafer. He has done nothing but support these artists, he has hung their work in his gallery, he has given them shows, he has bought their art himself and has it hanging on his wall and this is how they repay him? Besides that, more than one of them are hypocrites. They do not create �safe� art themselves, yet are the ones crying the loudest about being so very offended. Hideousboi has been heard to declare how he loves to offend people. Now he�s on the other end of the stick he�s been shaking, and from the way he threatened police action (implied or otherwise), I gather he doesn�t like it much. One of the artists takes baby dolls and makes them into gory, dead creatures. She also recently had a show at Hyaena using actual nude female photographs on which she painted nun habits. Additionally, this same artist wrote something to the effect of �I�d be retarded to pull my art from Hyaena� when this whole thing began, yet she did in fact take her art out of Hyaena. One of the other artists had the gall to ask Bill if he would still sell her dolls or if she changed her mind later, would put her art back up in the gallery? Gosh, I�d say you can�t have your cupcake and eat it, too.
At the end of it all, I�m just saying this thing has gotten out of control. Hyaena is a great gallery, Bill is awesome. There are a lot of wonderful artists on display there. I�m sorry this happened, but in regards to the people who have removed their art from Hyaena, I feel it�s their loss entirely. I think Hyaena will only be the stronger for it.
And to those artists (whether you call yourself an artist or not) up in arms about offending the public, I would say hold up that mirror of scrutiny to your own work and ask yourself, �Who might I be offending?� and, �Am I a giant, hypocritical GOTH-FAG?� (Oh, I�m sorry, was that offensive?)
-
Sparatacus 09/13/2008 12:34:00 PM
I personally am not offended by Stu Mead�s art, but I understand that as part of my first amendment right that allows me to view his art, people are also allowed to be offended by it and they are welcome to be so offended. They are welcome to not like it, or look at it, or patronize a gallery displaying it, and if they are an artist with work hanging in the gallery displaying it, they are welcome to remove their work. Stu�s art is generally not my bag, per se, but I�m glad I got to see it and make my own decision about it. I would never think it alright to demand that a gallery owner (and friend) remove the art from his place of business, or require my approval in advance of placing new art in the gallery lest it reflect poorly upon me and my artwork. Who are these people? They aren�t co-owners, they don�t pay rent. They don�t speak for me or my interests. They have their work displayed there based on the good will and support of Hyaena gallery owner, Bill Shafer. He has done nothing but support these artists, he has hung their work in his gallery, he has given them shows, he has bought their art himself and has it hanging on his wall and this is how they repay him? Besides that, more than one of them are hypocrites. They do not create �safe� art themselves, yet are the ones crying the loudest about being so very offended? Hideousboi has been heard to declare how he loves to offend people. Now he�s on the other end of the stick he�s been shaking, and from the way he has threatened police action (implied or otherwise), I gather he doesn�t like it much. One of the artists takes baby dolls and makes them into gory, dead creatures. She also recently had a show at Hyaena using actual nude female photographs on which she painted nun habits. Additionally, this same artist wrote something to the effect of �I�d be retarded to pull my art from Hyaena� when this whole thing began, yet she did, in fact, take her art out of Hyaena. One of the other artists had the gall to ask Bill if he would still sell her dolls or, if she changed her mind later, would he put her art back up in the gallery? Gosh, I�d say you can�t have your cupcake and eat it, too.
At the end of it all, I�m just saying this thing has gotten out of control. Hyaena is a great gallery, Bill is awesome. There are a lot of wonderful artists on display there. I�m sorry this happened, but in regards to the people who have removed their art from Hyaena, I feel it�s their loss entirely. I think Hyaena will only be the stronger for it.
And to those artists (whether you call yourself an artist or not) up in arms about offending the public, I would say hold up that mirror of scrutiny to your own work and ask yourself, �Who might I be offending?� and, �Am I a giant, hypocritical GOTH-FAG?� (Oh, I�m sorry, was that offensive?)
-
Bastet2329 09/13/2008 9:59:00 AM
Yes Krys, many friendships have been lost due to this. Thats the really sad part.
-
KRYSTOPHER SAPP 09/13/2008 8:33:00 AM
The only real casualty to this matter with STU MEADS
showing at HYAENA GALLERY is. the whole art scene
in its self.
and most of all the friendships that were ended.
I SUPPORT HYAENA GALLERY AND BILL.for my own reasons.I also support all persons rights to voice there
opinions.regardless its thought speech or artistic talents.we all have that earned RIGHT
STOP THIS BULLSHIT. OF WHOS WRONG AND WHOS BEEN WRONGED.
go on with Your lives and end time FIND PEACE.
THE ONLY THING THAT IS BEING WASTED IS TIME AND TALENT.
LET IT GO!!!
-
np 09/13/2008 8:05:00 AM
The fact that anyone defends child pornography is really quite sad.
There are a lot of things in the world that I may not like, but I do not begrudge others for liking them, horror movies, etc., but there is a line. A very clear line in fact and this "art" crosses that line.
I would still not like that picture (printed in this article) if it was a woman of age, but I would not be upset about it. My problem is that it is a child. Children should never be shown in such a manner. Whether you look at it and get off or not, someone does and feeding the sickened mind of a pedophile is just wrong.
The women that pulled their art of this gallery are smart to do so.
Your attacks on them as women, as artists, and as individuals that have the right to make up their own set of standards is also quite disgusting.
Not only are you defending the objectification of little girls (and I am sure you don't have a problem doing it to women in general) you demean outspoken women with opinions as "hens" and "crafty" and whatever other things you said about them sets women liberation back about 50 years.
All artists have the right to have their art be presented, represented and associated however they choose.
I don't very much they would appreciate their artwork being printed on the back of a porn magazines either, does that make them prudes? No it makes them artists that don't want their art on porn magazines.
whether you want to admit it or not, this is pornography. They have the right to disassociate themselves with it.
-
The Bastard 09/13/2008 8:01:00 AM
People who believe that any art is inherently "Bad" or "evil" because of the subject matter should remember that any persons reaction to art is 90% of what they bring with them when they arrive to view it.
I find it surprising that anyone can condemn an artist, their art, or the gallery that showed the work because of their own issues.
What year is it?
Do you still wish you could keep slaves and or not allow women to work?
Don't like something? Walk away. No one will go "Clockwork Orange" on your ass and make you stare.
Planning on a career where you are taken seriously as an artist? Grow a thicker skin.
Preferably a layer that covers the wounds that bleed your intolerance.
-
Captain Intolerable 09/13/2008 5:27:00 AM
HideousBoi, It's very sweet that you're giving this matter such careful due diligence, and you're making a really solid statement about... oh... something...but it's looking a little like a cry for attention right now.
By the way... as far as your earlier post of being an artist and how you say you are. "also i am an artist and have been working professionally for over ten years, and have appeared in galleries world wide. www.octobertoys.com/portfolio or you can see my work all over sideshowtoy.com" Out of curiosity I googled you and checked out your myspace and found a blog ironically entitled "I am not an artist !!!!" it says... "and I will from now on be refering to myself as a crafts person just to be one less person denigrating the "art" of artistry." So are you an artist or a crafts person? Decide and execute. Facts and sources can't be used to fit a whim or comment. Truth, and I mean this sincerely... is not malleable...
God bless...
-
hideousboi 09/13/2008 4:43:00 AM
more name calling. how predictable. bill wants to pretend that he was censored and threatened but his argument does not hold water. nobody told him to take down any art. it was his decision and his alone. this was a private matter that he wanted to take to a public forum so he could look like a martyr, his crusade is based on his own imagination
-
the devil 09/13/2008 4:08:00 AM
i want to have hideousboi's babies, so i can sell them to old men on the black market!
-
Bastet2329 09/13/2008 3:31:00 AM
For a "crafty housewife", I must be doing SOMETHING right.
One look at the Hyaena website and you can see that I sold over 80 pieces through Hyaena alone.
http://www.hyaenagallery.com/bastet2329sold.html
But I guess when a person voices their opinion they get seen as just some dumb girl.
Gotta run- Must go make cookies, vaccum the floor, fluff the pillows and make some elbow macaronni crafts all before I whip up some meatloaf and jello for dinner.
*bats eyelashes*
Christie
www.bastet2329.com
-
JK 09/13/2008 3:11:00 AM
I agree 100% with Captain's comments. The inexplicable fit thrown by the "Crafty" housewives and their self important ringleader blew up in their hack faces. The gallery is much better off devoid of their "art". Censorship is hideous.
-
hideousboi 09/12/2008 11:31:00 PM
i did not post as "unreal" i posted as hideousboi. i have nothing to hide. do not atribute comments made by others to me. i take resposibility for my actions and comments i do not hide who i am
-
Captain Intolerable 09/12/2008 10:03:00 PM
In response to several of these very colorful comments...
First "Unreal" or as I'd call you, Hideous Boi, did you look at the final line in your legal disclosure? That it's obscene if the material "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Ok... so they say ARTISTIC in there. And this is after... oh lets just call it...art. So your argument is now rendered moot by your own argument. Oops...
And J.D., wow, you've got some imagination! You should relax and take a pill. You seem really wound up. Calling people closeted pedophiles, saying people should be locked up and raped, condoning violence, calling drawings a crime against children, heck your entire posting just ended up making you look really bad, (if not really insane). If this was an attempt to win people over to your point you did a terrible job. If you did want to show people the venom and anger that you have in your soul towards people who take risks and have talent you did a bang up job. If I was that angry I'd seek counseling right away. You may be a danger to yourself and those around you.
God bless...
-
Bastet2329 09/12/2008 9:06:00 PM
Whoops. EDIT. I meant me show in February.
-
Bastet2329 09/12/2008 8:59:00 PM
As on of the "female" artists that pulled her art, I can say this.
There are 2 sides TO EVERY STORY.
I saw the art, was not pleased, told the owner. It is not my job to support ALL art. It is my job to run my business and I was not comfortable directing some of my buyers to Hyaena during the show. Thats what happened. I told Bill that the day after the reception (which I did not attend) and it seemed all good. We came to an agreement. I had an opinion and I thought my opinion was being respected. Did it put a wedge between me and Bill? Most certainly- After being with Hyaena for a year and a half, it was the first time we had anything like this happen.
Hyaena is a two part gallery. Every 2 weeks there is a new exhibit in the back of the shop but in the front, there is art year round from a huge variety of artists. Some artists have a few pieces, some artists have a lot. I had a lot of stuff there and I sold a fairly steady stream of dolls through Hyaena. But part of selling at Hyaena is directing your buyers to the site. I did that almost daily on Myspace. Hyaena gave me new collectors and I brought Hyaena new clients. It was a 2 way street. Every time I brought new stuff in or was going to be at a show, I promoted the Gallery. So for Stu Meads show, I was not comfortable doing that because not all of my buyers would have been comfortable with Stu Meads prepubescent girls . I did not want my buyers to think that I supported it either.
.
A few days after I (and others) voiced our opinions, artists who opposed the show were being called out on Myspace. So not cool. Loose Lips Sink Ships.
Part of my decsion to pull came after a series of events which I deemed to be bad for my business.
One of them (and I stress just one!) being the "banning" of Hideousboi from Hyaena. I read every message and while I do not agree with his methods of handling affairs, I saw no threats. And for people to say he is not an artist is ridiculous. He makes more than most people as an artist- it is his career- one that has a steady paycheck. Those close to the situation know my ties to Hideousboi and understand why I needed to pull after he was accused of threatening the gallery.
If I never get a solo gallery show again thats fine. If showing in a gallery means that I have to support ALL art, I will stick to my own site . If showing in a gallery means I have to CENSOR my opinion just to be a part of the cool crowd, I will remain a wallflower. My (semi) solo show in May earned me LESS than I made in one day last week. Do I need solo shows? no. I have been doing this for myself for so long. Since leaving Hyaena, my sales have increased and the support has been immense- I stood up for my veiws (whether people agree with them or not) and refused to let anyone CENSOR my opinion. If people are gonna toss around the Censorship wand in this situation they need to understand that it is not just about art- what about freedom of opinion and beliefs?
As I said, there are 2 sides to every story. The art I was upset about was pulled from the Hyaena website so people are not seeing what I (and others) were upset about to begin with. And thats fine. While I am not into the rest of the show, it was something I was willing to ignore. A WOMAN playing pool with her boob hanging out-fine. BUT underage girls in sex acts is NOT something I support. (like I said, Images were pulled). Is it because I am a Mom? A woman? who knows. Blame it on whatever you like.
Something I have always tried to do in life is be honest with people and I tried to do that at Hyaena. I was honest and upfront with my opinions but that was not respected. I do not respect people who can only see one side to a situation and do not understand that people do not always see eye to eye.
Was the show child porn? I am not a judge so I don't know. But I will say that several (not all) of the show pieces were disgusting and depicted underage girls in a sexual manner. If people like that kind of thing and want to support it then I do not want to be a part of it. period.
If that makes you not want any more of my dolls and art, I am cool with that. I respect the opinions of those who respect that I have my own opinion.
~Christie
WWW. Bastet2329.com
-
richard vanderaa 09/12/2008 2:24:00 PM
Dear Doug, just read yr (great) art. about the growing (&expanding: europe) Lowbrow freak painting. Somehow all these paintings seem kind of familiar to me...saw them before, but...but, of course, they're cheap copies of a guy these artists probably never heared of. Send these guys on a trip to El Prado in Madrid and have 'em check out Hieronymus Bosch so they can go on with their lives. Have a good day.
-
J.D. 09/12/2008 2:09:00 PM
First of all, the fact that anyone has the audacity to condone these types of paintings is unthinkable. I truly hope none of you are parents of young girls. Lord knows what happens behind your closed doors if you can actually look at these images and find art in them. They are vile and anyone thinking otherwise is most obviously a closet pedophile.
I think a good medicine would be to put the artist, the gallery owner, the writer of this article, the supporters of the show, and all the additional artists who participated in the �freedom of art show� (or whatever they disguised it as) and lock them in jail with big, mean, daddies of �pre-pubescent� daughters. The kind of men whose crimes have them locked up, never see the light of day again, and who are now looking for fresh meat. Maybe someone can sit in the corner and paint them while they are having their insides turned out. Don�t try to fight this as freedom of whatever, this was a crime against innocent children and it�s also against the law. Look it up.
Hooray for the artists who boycotted this entire fiasco. You will be the ones who are victorious in the end. The rest of these dirty old men (and women) will dissolve into the disgusting parts of humanity with their rotting minds. Good riddance.
-
UNREAL! 09/12/2008 1:29:00 PM
Why don't you read the laws once in awhile!
18 U.S.C. 1466A � OBSCENE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN
It is forbidden to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with the intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that
depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, or
depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, and such depiction lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Look it up and read on!
You cry freedom of art! I cry seek help!
-
Captain Intolerable 09/12/2008 7:22:00 AM
I'm very familiar with Hyaena gallery and can say from past business dealing that Bill Shafer (owner) is a stand up guy. All I can say is the shops a better place without the juvenile, "crafty" contingent of hens and their stock that decided to leave. Oh, and Obnoxious boi or whatever he goes by when he's casting his decrees from Mount Olympuss as to what is and isn't decent art should probably keep his nose out of his girlfriends business dealings for her own good... word travels fast in the art community.
-
Jim Wirt 09/12/2008 3:06:00 AM
I'm one of many artists that have work for sale at Hyanea Gallery, and I'm glad that the artists who were offended by Stu's artwork pulled their crap out the place. See you later, dip shits!
-
the devil 09/12/2008 2:03:00 AM
stu mead's little girls look like they're having a lot more fun than queenie's little girls.
-
Gloria Sisco 09/12/2008 1:17:00 AM
Who is the artist featured in the piece on the cover story?
(Day of the Dead lady with red flowers in her hair?)
It is simply stunning!
-
K. 09/11/2008 10:14:00 PM
I can't belive the comment about Queenie . Her paintings and characters are the most alive little girls I've ever seen. They have tea parties and dress up like pirates. They are bright and full of life and happiness. I have no clue where your "cute dead-child paintings" is comming from. Her "boyfriend" also happens to be a very talented artist. He is actually an artist by profession. How many of us can say that?
I fully believe in freedom of art. But I also believe in freedom to choose. These artist chose to pull out of Hyeana. That is their freedom. The show went on with out them. End of story.
-
hideousboi 09/11/2008 9:22:00 AM
queenie's art does not depict dead children whatsoever. in fact they are quite alive, and very adorable. leaving hyeana was the best decision she ever made.
also i am an artist and have been working professionally for over ten years, and have appeared in galleries world wide. www.octobertoys.com/portfolio or you can see my work all over sideshowtoy.com
no threats were ever made.
-
jeremy cross 09/11/2008 7:22:00 AM
The only item that is not mentioned is just how successful the "Lemmings" replacement show has been at Hyaena Gallery.
Bill Shafer and the Hyaena Gallery are everything that is right in the Los Angeles art scene. Raw, daring and community oriented. Some do it well, but Hyaena does it best.
Cheers to a Fantastic article!
-The Bastard Artist
