What Admirable Artistic Sentiments
…”Should we as artists, or any free-thinking people, have to be subjected to fear of violent attacks for expressing our sincere concerns? I made a collage with a comic book and an illustration of a religious icon to express the corruption of something precious and spiritual,” Chagoya told FoxNews.com. “There is no nudity, or genitals, or explicit sexual contact shown in the image. There is a dressed woman, a religious icon’s head, a man showing his tongue, and a skull of a Pope in the upper right corner of the controversial page. I did not make a picture of Christ. I used symbols as one would use words in a sentence to critique corruption of the sacred by religious institutions.”
…and his depiction of Jesus, well,…let’s just say it’s covered under “freedom of expression”.
I’ll also note that ~ yet again ~ another BRAVE CRUSADER (Stanford University Professor Enrique Chagoya – WHAT’S that tuition at Stanford costing parents who subsidize this MORON?), in the name of tweaking the religious powers that be, used the ALWAYS POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS and ORIGINAL AS ALL SHIT Catholic symbology to “convey corrupt religious institutions”. Bold, BOLD fellow and an academic, no less! Don’t have to worry about Friar Fatwa, Cardinal Koran or Abbot Abdullah sending someone to slice your ass up that way, do you? Way to go, Professor!
Fucking fraud. How about, for once, from one of these higher education boy-in-a-tuition-bubbles, we get a canvas that has…okay wait. I’ll just change his paragraph and show you what balls on a Stanford professor’s ~ or ANY LIBERAL ART PROFESSOR’S art SHOULD have looked like, if they LIVED what they PROTESTED and TAUGHT.
“There is no nudity, or genitals, or explicit sexual contact shown in the image. There is a blue burqa draped woman, a religious goat’s head with sliced off ears and nose, a man missing his hand, and a flaming skull of a Ayatollah in the upper right corner of the controversial page, and two 16 year old homosexuals hanging from a scaffold. I did not make a picture of Mohammed. I used symbols as one would use words in a sentence to critique the cruelest and most inhumane oppression of the powerless and scared by the manic religious interpretations of a misogynistic band of neolithic goat herders, who wear suits on occasion.“
But, no. He went with “a pope”.
Douche.
Humanity...or the Lack Thereof, Makes Ya Barf, People | tree hugging sister | 
October 7, 2010 11:32 pm
Subscribe
“Should we as artists, or any free-thinking people…”
Obviously he meant “bullshit artist”, and if there was ever a “free” thought in his head it packed its bags and moved out due to loneliness.
Stinking coward.
Too right.
[…] Try taking a stab at Islam, too, heroes. Do read. […]
Just think. This clown has or wants public funding. Because he’s evolved, you know.
I do wonder what his answer was when asked why he never depicted pisslamic icons.
I would bet my last $5 he would NEVER be asked such a question. NEVER. That’s racist or insensitive or something. For sure, it’s a lot more dangerous than a dang pope’s skull, right?