I think it was an insult to primates.

Do art gallery managers, even in NY, have the power to arrest people?

Actually, anyone can arrest anyone else with the old "citizen's arrest" thing, can't they? That's what the cops told me to do with one of my neighbors if he acted up again. (That doesn't mean the cops, when they arrive, have to go along with it.)

But, yeah, if he said it, he probably meant "have" them arrested. You know how incoherent some people can get when emotional.

except that the artist has said that the proceeds from the painting will now go to a "freedom of expression" charity, so he's not making any profit.

Not necessarily. He could be using it as a loss leader, expecting to compensate for it in substantial profits off other works (including derivative works off this one) from the publicity.

"This is much deeper than art. This is fundamental American rights, freedom of speech," Savido said. "To see that something like this can happen, especially in a place like New York City is mind boggling and scary."

Now this is hyperbolic B.S. His freedom of speech has not in anyway been infringed. More people have seen the work and heard of him than he could possibly have hoped for otherwise. The show has gone on, just at a different location. He still plans to not only garner reaction and publicity but to sell the piece. How has he been censored or had his right to free speech taken in any real sense?

To me it comes down to what we see here often: Yes you have the right to say anything you want, but not in my living room. Take it elsewhere and have at it. Your rights are intact.

"I don't know what kind of place lets itself get taken to task in a newspaper without sending out a statement of its own. Perhaps one with no good rebuttal..."

You know they haven't? Newspapers notoriously run an article one day and then never follow up on it the next. The original NYT article said they couldn't be reached for comment because the offices were closed.

This wasn't an art gallery anyway, Chelsea Market is a mall, isn't it? People buy their groceries there, right? You can imagine someone showing up to Amy's Breads to find 2,000 people complete with an open bar and DJ. One would question the legality of an open bar in a shopping mall.



The description I posted above makes it plain that the painting wasn't at issue when the guy told them to shut down.

Again,

"But the presence of a disc jockey and open bar created a nightclub milieu. That provoked another person who helps manage the market, Mr. Turco said. "The party's over right now," Mr. Turco said the market worker told him before calling security to clear the crowd.""

But... of course... it HAD to be the picture of Bush that did it... It's a non-issue that the artist has played up into some snazzy press for himself by dropping the Bush name and rallying the easily outraged *cough*....

I think it was an insult to primates.

(I'm going to respond to your humorous comment with a serious one. Don't you hate it when people do that? )

Liberals have been calling Bush a chimp for years. There's nothing particularly original or insightful about this painting's concept. The "controversy" sideshow scores only slightly higher for rhetoric-soaked performance art.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the short lecture "Tempest in a Teapot" will follow tonight's production of "Much Ado About Nothing."

You know they haven't? Newspapers notoriously run an article one day and then never follow up on it the next. The original NYT article said they couldn't be reached for comment because the offices were closed.

And if someone badmouthed me, I'd give my rebuttal. They didn't. Why?

The description I posted above makes it plain that the painting wasn't at issue when the guy told them to shut down.

You're description quotes the exact same person that mine does. Your description doesn't give the insight of the people on the other side of this story that you care so much about. My description has him giving one reason, yours has him giving a different one. Perhaps one is true, perhaps both are, perhaps neither is. My question is, how are you so sure that the particular version you agree with is the truth. Who's the easily outraged one...?

Either way, it speaks volumes for horrible planning on whoever was in charge of putting this show together.

"And if someone badmouthed me, I'd give my rebuttal. They didn't. Why?"

AHHHH!!!!! lol. You have no idea if they have offered a rebuttal or not. There was only one story done, and the hundred spin-offs just quote the reuters original.

It's disengenuous to scoff at the average plebian for being taken in by the press, and then turn around and pretend that you can take the artist's word in this case at face value. If they don't want to print Chelsea Market's perspective, they don't have to. All I have to do is read anti-Bush propaganda to see how often this supposedly happens in the press, right?

So for years I've been told not to believe one-sided stories of political bent by the anti-Bush camp here, but now I am supposed to swallow the complaint of an artist, horribly shunned by a shopping mall...

It's disengenuous to scoff at the average plebian for being taken in by the press, and then turn around and pretend that you can take the artist's word in this case at face value. If they don't want to print Chelsea Market's perspective, they don't have to. All I have to do is read anti-Bush propaganda to see how often this supposedly happens in the press, right?

I can only assume you're referring to me as disingenous, and I've been no such thing. I just pointed out that there's no more validity to the thing being shut down because of a bar than there is to the thing being shut down because of the painting.