I'm no Mansfield fan & I don't agree w/everything TWS has published. But 1) this line is somewhat out of context (refers to male capacity for rape, not individuals); 2) shall we recall the time TNR ran a piece arguing an artwork should be destroyed b/c artist is the wrong race?https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1074424204697563136 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @CathyYoung63
1) I don't see how argument that men as a gender have greater capacity for greatness because they are capable of rape is much better. 2) That's a tendentious misstatement of actual argument.
4 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @L0G1c9UY @CathyYoung63
"The article didn't come right out and say to destroy the painting" -- exactly. It's tendentious to conflate explaining/contextualizing an argument with advocating it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
OK, it defends the would-be burners. I stand corrected.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @L0G1c9UY @CathyYoung63
The mob has no power to destroy these paintings. Meanwhile, actual destruction of art comes from owners whether private (Rockefeller & Rivera murals) or state (Stella's Tilted Arc).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So because a private owner who commissioned a mural had it destroyed in 1932 and an eyesore of a public sculpture was taken down & not displayed again at artist's request, calls for burning ideologically transgressive art shouldn't be publicly condemned?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Stella's Tilted Arc was actually beautiful (although its destruction can be defended on grounds that it caused problems for public that used that space). Point is that actual destruction of art in real world occurs in context of ownership (private & public).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.