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 -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Where is the principle in being indifferent to actual works of art being destroyed but fretful about hypothetical mobs?
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.