Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
I don't know if you were addressing this question to me - I believe not as you deemed it acceptable to answer it on my behalf..
|
No, I QUOTED you. There's a difference.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
I would _certainly_ be "okay" with a picture of my relative (not necessarily a bloody, lying in the road picture of my relative) being used as an admonishment to not drink and drive. In fact, if someone else didn't create such a statement, I would do it myself.
But you are clearly making some assumptions about the word "okay". Is it "okay" that whomever created the Bush/Dead Soldiers montage did so? Is it "okay" to whom? The soldiers families? Maybe. Maybe not. Is it "okay" to you? I don't care. Is it "okay" to me? Sure.
Something being "okay" is very different from something being illegal. There may be legal ramifications in using someone's likeness without either their permission or the permission of the family. But the legality of the action is very distinct from the subjective consideration of whether it is "okay".
My statement on art is entirely applicable. And I would add that art does not have to be "okay" to anyone at all. Maybe it is illegal art, maybe it is not. Regardless - it was effective art.
|
And here I thought it was the REPUBLICANS who were supposed to be devoid of sensitivity and tolerance for the feelings of others.
Then again, it was Clinton who "loathed the military." I see that he represented his party accurately.
You're right about the "art" being effective, too--Bush got more votes than any presidential candidate in history.