Canadian whites under fire for refusing to more to the back of a concert

[AnGrYcRoW]

Man you guys need to let this shit topic go , who gives a fuck at this point

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Really? What blatantly racist troll posts? You mean not getting sidelined by shit you guys want to focus on when the tone of the article is about the photographer not moving?

Personally, I'm just curious as to whether you misspoke/misread, or if you actually feel that this was resolved appropriately.

That you're being called out in this thread cannot be blamed on the usual suspects, as you seem to be doing in your previous post, because there's a pretty mixed bag of posters here, and yet the view you expressed stands in opposition to pretty much every, single one of us.

Obviously people are going to take interest. Not only are you a long-time poster (who's usually far more careful about what you say) but you're now also a mod - if you're a troll, a racist, or too busy choking on your foot to admit to any fault, people are going to take notice.

Beyond that, I'm also kinda curious as to the super sophisticated reality of your opinion - you know, the one whose nuances we're all too dim to grasp.

 

[genecop]

You want the front , get in early or STFU..

 

[Gunny]

Personally, I'm just curious as to whether you misspoke/misread, or if you actually feel that this was resolved appropriately.

That you're being called out in this thread cannot be blamed on the usual suspects, as you seem to be doing in your previous post, because there's a pretty mixed bag of posters here, and yet the view you expressed stands in opposition to pretty much every, single one of us.

Obviously people are going to take interest. Not only are you a long-time poster (who's usually far more careful about what you say) but you're now also a mod - if you're a troll, a racist, or too busy choking on your foot to admit to any fault, people are going to take notice.

Beyond that, I'm also kinda curious as to the super sophisticated reality of your opinion - you know, the one whose nuances we're all too dim to grasp.

+1 to this

 

[RIPWarrior]

Man you guys need to let this shit topic go , who gives a fuck at this point

A Canadian progressive telling sane people to stop talking about racial hatred towards white people...

 

[panamaican]

Personally, I'm just curious as to whether you misspoke/misread, or if you actually feel that this was resolved appropriately.

That you're being called out in this thread cannot be blamed on the usual suspects, as you seem to be doing in your previous post, because there's a pretty mixed bag of posters here, and yet the view you expressed stands in opposition to pretty much every, single one of us.

Obviously people are going to take interest. Not only are you a long-time poster (who's usually far more careful about what you say) but you're now also a mod - if you're a troll, a racist, or too busy choking on your foot to admit to any fault, people are going to take notice.

Beyond that, I'm also kinda curious as to the super sophisticated reality of your opinion - you know, the one whose nuances we're all too dim to grasp.

In this thread, the linked article is about the photographer not moving when asked during an artistic event.

The linked article is NOT about the audience moving or not moving. It's not about the artist asking the audience to shift it's position at her request. It is about the photographer, who was working for the show on a volunteer basis, not complying with the request of the artist.

From the 1st page, it is obvious that most of the commentary directed my way was about the artist's request to her audience. But that's not what the article is about. Nowhere in the article does it say that the artist required such movement, only that she requested it and that she makes such requests at all of her performances.

There were no repercussions for the audience not complying with that request. The only repercussion was when the volunteer event staff member refused to comply with the request of the artist/employer.

If this were a job interview or something similar, I'd be more inclined to understand the vitriol but this is an artistic event. Art has always had more leeway in these matters since it is a platform often used to highlight issues and bring them to the forefront for discussion. That the artist in this story makes a similar request at all of her performances is evidence to that effect.

People can dislike her form of artistic expression, the same way people dislike Confederate statues. But the only person who was chastised for failure to comply was the event staff member who disregarded the artist's request. It is no different from some Museum security guard covering up the naked statues in a museum because he thinks they're immoral. In this case, your job is to support the artistic expression, not inject yourself into it - that role is reserved for the interplay between artist and audience.

I read the article and commented in regards to the only person punished for any behavior - the photographer. That other people are more concerned about the singer's form of artistic expression doesn't change that core detail.

 

[Son of Jamin]

I read the article and commented in regards to the only person punished for any behavior - the photographer. That other people are more concerned about the singer's form of artistic expression doesn't change that core detail.

Form of artistic expression sure is one creative circumlocution for blatant bigotry/racism.

But I guess this was just the owner of the establishment's form of artistic expression regarding water usage...

 

[DamasR]

what a wilderbeast

 

[CauseImbetta]

Can't make this stuff up!






http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...s-for-overt-racism-at-polaris-winners-concert

This is so retarded. There is no proof it was because of color. Next time I can't get to the front of some place I'll say it was because I was too white and my skin was blinding people. You mean,mean people!

 

[panamaican]

Form of artistic expression sure is one creative circumlocution for blatant bigotry/racism.

But I guess this was just the owner of the establishment's form of artistic expression regarding water usage...

Yes, form of artistic expression. Don't be simple. Musicians, sculptors, painters, writers, etc. are all considered artists and their productive work is considered artistic expression. I don't recall when state run facilities became art.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

From the 1st page, it is obvious that most of the commentary directed my way was about the artist's request to her audience. But that's not what the article is about. Nowhere in the article does it say that the artist required such movement, only that she requested it and that she makes such requests at all of her performances.

The request to move is central to the story/article. Without it there's no controversy and the photographer simply continues to snap pictures without winding up in the news. Pretty silly to try to carve that aspect out of it. Most people agree that context is important. As for the "request", at what point does it become a requirement if the artist refuses to continue the show until people cooperate?

“Finally after saying it about 10 times — and the woman refused to move — (Pimienta) said, ‘You’re cutting into my set time and you’re disrespecting these women, and I don’t have time for this.”‘

Not sure why you're trying to say it even makes a difference to begin with. Whether a request or a command, it's clearly racist on the part of the performer.

 

[The ScorpioN]

Is dumping the thread an appropriate resolution to this situation?

 

[Gunny]

Yes, form of artistic expression. Don't be simple. Musicians, sculptors, painters, writers, etc. are all considered artists and their productive work is considered artistic expression. I don't recall when state run facilities became art.

I don't think you're doing anything for your position with this line of reasoning. Remembering back to my days as an opera singer, I'm imagining a conductor stopping the performance to request that all the black choristers/stage hands/volunteer ushers, etc. please move to the back and out of the way to make room for whites. It would be universally condemned as outrageously racist. There would be no discussion of the conductors nuanced perspective. It's a perfectly ludicrous and unimaginable scenario in the 21st century.

 

[panamaican]

The request to move is central to the story/article. Without it there's no controversy and the photographer simply continues to snap pictures without winding up in the news. Pretty silly to try to carve that aspect out of it. Most people agree that context is important. As for the "request", at what point does it become a requirement if the artist refuses to continue the show until people cooperate?

The request to move is central to the story but only as it applies to the staff member's refusal to do so. The artist didn't refuse to continue because of the crowd's action. She refused based on the photographer's actions.

The problem with this thread is that people are equating the artist's response to the photographer as the equivalent of the response to the audience. But the article indicates that nothing of the sort occurred.

You can say that context is important but then when people disregard that the audience and the photographer are operating from different roles within the story and with different roles relative to the artist, they are the one's disregarding context. Not me.

Not sure why you're trying to say it even makes a difference to begin with. Whether a request or a command, it's clearly racist on the part of the performer.

Of course it makes a difference when you're talking about artistic expression. That "context" thing you mentioned above is just as applicable here. The artist makes this request of her audience to highlight something that she thinks is important for them to experience. It is part of her "performance". Equating it to a non-artistic request is why I left the thread in the 1st place.

People want to mock when I said nuance but this exactly what I was referring to. Artistic expression vs. non-artistic expression. The roles of the photographer vs. the roles of the audience within that artistic context.

Provocative art is hardly new.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Is dumping the thread an appropriate resolution to this situation?

Shameless

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The request to move is central to the story but only as it applies to the staff member's refusal to do so. The artist didn't refuse to continue because of the crowd's action. She refused based on the photographer's actions.

The problem with this thread is that people are equating the artist's response to the photographer as the equivalent of the response to the audience. But the article indicates that nothing of the sort occurred.

You can say that context is important but then when people disregard that the audience and the photographer are operating from different roles within the story and with different roles relative to the artist, they are the one's disregarding context. Not me.



Of course it makes a difference when you're talking about artistic expression. That "context" thing you mentioned above is just as applicable here. The artist makes this request of her audience to highlight something that she thinks is important for them to experience. It is part of her "performance". Equating it to a non-artistic request is why I left the thread in the 1st place.

People want to mock when I said nuance but this exactly what I was referring to. Artistic expression vs. non-artistic expression. The roles of the photographer vs. the roles of the audience within that artistic context.

Provocative art is hardly new.

You trying to split hairs on what the story is "about" is ridiculous. Within the story a performer discriminates against audience members based on race and a venue enables it. This is what you've defended as artistic expression. Just a reminder, the audience is not the art. They are not part of the act and have no obligation to participate.

The photographer, for the purposes of this story, is no different than any of the other audience members who the article says took offense. She was there to take pictures on behalf of the venue and was not working for the performer. If anything photographers need to be closer, not further away. Most event staff don't take orders from the performers. Especially when it interferes with getting their job done.

Bottom line, you're defending racism against whites. Couching it in artistic expression would be fine if the issue were the actual art. Making whites move to the back isn't substantially different than simply not letting blacks in.

 

[panamaican]

I don't think you're doing anything for your position with this line of reasoning. Remembering back to my days as an opera singer, I'm imagining a conductor stopping the performance to request that all the black choristers/stage hands/volunteer ushers, etc. please move to the back and out of the way to make room for whites. It would be universally condemned as outrageously racist. There would be no discussion of the conductors nuanced perspective. It's a perfectly ludicrous and unimaginable scenario in the 21st century.

Your imagination is running amok here. The artist didn't make any requests of the performers. She does this as her way of drawing her audience's attention to a subject she considers important. As artists have done since time immemorial.

She does it at every show, so it's not an impromptu request for which the staff should be unprepared for.

My line of reasoning is fine. The problem here is that you and others are equating artistic performances with non-artistic speech. And you're equating the role of the photographer who is working for the venue with the role of the audience.

When people blur that many lines so that they can feel outraged, it's usually a pretty good sign to leave them to it.

Nowhere in the story does the artist punish the audience for non-compliance. Nowhere does it say the artist makes this request outside of her artistic performances. Lastly, the artist explains the specific reasons for the request - to make her audience aware of a social issue she considers important. It's basic provocative art asking the audience to become uncomfortable so that the artist's work to make a statement.

The photographer is not part of the audience, she's working for the artist and the venue. So when her employer asks her to do something, her job is to do it. Not to inject herself into the artist's attempted performance piece.

As a former performer, you certainly know the difference between your paying audience and the venue's staff. So I don't know why you would continue to equate the 2 for this story.

Let me try another example since I think you have kids. You take your kid to story time at the library. The book reader asks the kids to come forward and the parents to hang back. An adult who works for the library refuses. Do you really equate the library staff member with a parent and state that the library staff shouldn't have to comply with the book reader's request? Sure, some parents will disregard the book reader and stay up front with their kids but the library staff isn't there to hear the story, they're there to facilitate whatever the book reader is trying to accomplish.

 

[panamaican]

You trying to split hairs on what the story is "about" is ridiculous. Within the story a performer discriminates against audience members based on race and a venue enables it. This is what you've defended as artistic expression. Just a reminder, the audience is not the art. They are not part of the act and have no obligation to participate.

The photographer, for the purposes of this story, is no different than any of the other audience members who the article says took offense. She was there to take pictures on behalf of the venue and was not working for the performer. If anything photographers need to be closer, not further away. Most event staff don't take orders from the performers. Especially when it interferes with getting their job done.

Bottom line, you're defending racism against whites. Couching it in artistic expression would be fine if the issue were the actual art. Making whites move to the back isn't substantially different than simply not letting blacks in.

I'm not splitting hairs, I going by exactly what the article states. The audience is part of the art, that's common enough that I don't think it even requires debate. Most obvious example - magicians. But singers also frequently request that audience engage them in a certain way - that's not new either.

And yes the photographer is different from the audience. She's not part of the audience. She's not there to enjoy the show, she didn't receive a ticket. She's staff, she's there working. Not hanging out.

Since you seem to think that art is real life. If a book described that same scene - would the author be racist? If someone painted the same scene - is the artist racist for painting it and explaining the painting?

And again - she did not make the audience move. Go back, re-read the article and quote where she forced the audience to move. She made a request and compliance was entirely voluntary, except for the venue staff member who chose to interfere in the artist's work.

And your defense of the photographer falls short. Her job is to capture the event - if this is part of the artist's motif then the photographer should have moved to where she was directed and taken pictures from that angle to provide a more complete representation of the artist's vision. And the venue had this person there to facilitate capturing the work of the performers. If the venue selected this artist then they did so aware of how she conducts her performances and the photographer should capture that via her photography.

It's like a stage hand interfering with a play because the actors are breaking the 4th wall with the audience. No one would countenance that - it's unprofessional.

 

[Gunny]

Your imagination is running amok here. The artist didn't make any requests of the performers. She does this as her way of drawing her audience's attention to a subject she considers important. As artists have done since time immemorial.

She does it at every show, so it's not an impromptu request for which the staff should be unprepared for.

My line of reasoning is fine. The problem here is that you and others are equating artistic performances with non-artistic speech. And you're equating the role of the photographer who is working for the venue with the role of the audience.

When people blur that many lines so that they can feel outraged, it's usually a pretty good sign to leave them to it.

Nowhere in the story does the artist punish the audience for non-compliance. Nowhere does it say the artist makes this request outside of her artistic performances. Lastly, the artist explains the specific reasons for the request - to make her audience aware of a social issue she considers important. It's basic provocative art asking the audience to become uncomfortable so that the artist's work to make a statement.

The photographer is not part of the audience, she's working for the artist and the venue. So when her employer asks her to do something, her job is to do it. Not to inject herself into the artist's attempted performance piece.

As a former performer, you certainly know the difference between your paying audience and the venue's staff. So I don't know why you would continue to equate the 2 for this story.

Let me try another example since I think you have kids. You take your kid to story time at the library. The book reader asks the kids to come forward and the parents to hang back. An adult who works for the library refuses. Do you really equate the library staff member with a parent and state that the library staff shouldn't have to comply with the book reader's request? Sure, some parents will disregard the book reader and stay up front with their kids but the library staff isn't there to hear the story, they're there to facilitate whatever the book reader is trying to accomplish.

I mentioned volunteer ushers as a means of covering all potential venue personnel who may be similarly affected by this "artistic expression" as you put it. It would be absolutely unacceptable.

Also, I've sang under the baton of old German guys who might like to enforce their own version of the sort of racial segregation this lady called for. There is not a snowball's chance in hell they could get away with that shit and couch it as "artistic expression" - they'd be fired on the spot and escorted off the premises so please stop trying to go there. I'm earnestly encouraging you to rethink the stance you've taken because you're on the wrong side of reasonable discourse here. There's no way defending that crazy racist lady helps anything or anyone. The only affect you can possibly have here (however limited in scale) is to drive more people into the camp of the alt-right or white nationalists by making them feel they're in a culture that condones racism provided it's directed toward them.

 

[panamaican]

I mentioned volunteer ushers as a means of covering all potential venue personnel who may be similarly affected by this "artistic expression" as you put it. It would be absolutely unacceptable.

Also, I've sang under the baton of old German guys who might like to enforce their own version of the sort of racial segregation this lady called for. There is not a snowball's chance in hell they could get away with that shit and couch it as "artistic expression" - they'd be fired on the spot and escorted off the premises so please stop trying to go there. I'm earnestly encouraging you to rethink the stance you've taken because you're on the wrong side of reasonable discourse here.

I sincerely disagree. The artist isn't enforcing racial segregation, she is trying to make a social statement. Seriously, go back and read the article. Do you disregard her explanation for why she makes the request at her shows?

...frequently asks her audience to welcome people of colour to the front of the stage. In turn, she requests that white people move back.

Where exactly does the artist enforce anything?

This is from the venue:

“We are sorry that one of our volunteers interrupted your art, your show, and your audience by being aggressive and racist,” reads a Facebook post signed by vice-chairman Georgie Dudka.

Even though audience members also responded negatively to the artist's request, the venue only commented on their volunteer...for interfering with the artist's performance.

For all of the bitching about victimhood in the WR, when people can't separate out the staff from the audience and artistic works from general speech, we've certainly put that mentality into overdrive.

As for what your old German guys could or could not get away with, I don't see the relevance. Pop artists sing explicitly about sex. A church choir director doing the same would get a very different reaction. Different audiences, different artistic intents. I've played piano throughout the Mid-Atlantic, I've done public speaking and some improv. You can certainly make requests of your audience and if they don't go along with it, that's fine. But you expect the venue staff to be aware of your goals and to not interfere with your engagement with your audience.

The artist's request is specifically designed to bring the audience's attention to race based inequities that matter to the artist. The reaction to that request is the artist's goal. You're equating performance art with an audience component with performance art where there is no audience component. A play where the audience is passive vs. a play where the actors break the 4th wall to solicit the audience.