art or offensive?

These are on display at the New York Public Library:








Doctored portraits show fake police mug shots of President Bush and other top White House officials in political satire art on display at main branch of New York Public Library.

Roberta Waddell, curator of the library's print collection, called the exhibit a 'relative example' of political commentary.


So the question to SportsJournalists.com nation is this:
is this political satire art acceptable for display at a public library or should it not be displayed because it offends some people?
(Edit to add: reason I ask is that there are some in NYC who are complaining about it and want it taken down because it's offensive to them)



I say its a good example of political satire and should be on display.

 

Pretty far down on the list of things I'd consider a big deal.

And I'm about as Republican as they come.

 

It's in the eye of the beholder. What's offensive to some is art to others.

In this case, the artist is making a statement about his feelings about the administration and the job it has done. Do I find it offensive? No. And if it were reversed, if it had been a democratic administration, I still wouldn't find it offensive.

 

The two things presented in the thread title are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

It's a fairly mild political statement. Quite frankly, you can make a good case that several of those people depicted SHOULD be in jail. Of course, this is a controversy tailor-made for wingnut talk radio and bloggers. (Never mind all the anti-Clinton junk they shoveled in the '90s)

 

Trying to imagine this board during the Mapplethorpe heyday.

 

Might it tick off some supporters of the president (providing there are any left?) Sure.

That's the result of political satire.

But offensive?

There's a lot worse stuff out there, about much more reverential figures than the ones above, that's pretty much designed to offend.

This is harmless.

 

I'm hesitant to call it art, because I see nothing of artistic value in it. Political statement, certainly. But there's nothing even resembling art here.

As far as political statements go, it seems rather dull. But that's just me.

 

Getting a pretty good chuckle out of the thought.

 

I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing.

On an offensive scale of 1-10, this stuff is about .0001.

 

Art, no question.

It would be even better if displayed next to a portrait of Hillary Clinton submerged in urine.

I'd be happy to, um, contribute.

*****

Actually, a similiar illustration of Bill Clinton would be best, as he provably violated D.C.'s sodomy statute.

 

A sodomy statute? From what century?