tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2532517725423786301.post3776962227631943653..comments2010-04-27T11:28:10.828-05:00Comments on Station 7 by Jackson Potts: For the Children?Xnihilohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752559104727074994noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2532517725423786301.post-5767125840456751052010-03-21T15:05:43.540-05:002010-03-21T15:05:43.540-05:00"Art" is subjective to the viewer and is..."Art" is subjective to the viewer and is viewed through the viewer's prism of social mores, education and experience; knowing the context that the artist intends to portray brings understanding. I applaud how your family dealt with the 'frightening' of your child...no one really knows however what effect it had on her development until she is grown...we all have defining moments in our childhood. I would agree that any 'art' that provokes a strong initial reaction that belies it's true meaning be cloaked as was done with Jackson's exhibit with a warning that allows parents' discretion in allowing their children to view it. Well done.Dan Heffleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17459204244325451478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2532517725423786301.post-46840301433794500182010-03-11T14:04:38.384-06:002010-03-11T14:04:38.384-06:00You make many good points here. This dialogue coul...You make many good points here. This dialogue could go on and on I think.<br />I do not think the word "offensive" is a word to use to describe the cross. The thoughts and feelings evoked by the most graphic scenes of the Crucifixion are not related to the thoughts and feelings evoked in me by seeing a child being beaten by a police officer. Jesus DID die on the cross. A police officer did NOT beat the child. Having images of what is not true can be far more damaging than those that are, regardless of the "graphic" nature of either.Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05290534151500649637noreply@blogger.com