Loading...
The Citizen, 2016-01-07, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2016. PAGE 5. Other Views Is it art? You can banksy on it Have you ever been subjected to the Proust questionnaire? It's a personality test made famous by the French writer Marcel Proust. The questions come out of deep left field — what is your main fault? Name your favourite flower — that sort of thing. I got nailed with the Proust questionnaire on a live radio program, which meant no time to think. "Who's your favourite painter?" my quizzer queried. "Tom Thomson" I blurted. Which was total BS. Thomson was just the first painter that sprang to mind. Ask me today and my answer would be: Banksy. Who's Banksy? Good question. Nobody knows. We're pretty sure that he's a Brit, probably from Bristol and he's been `painting' since about 1990. He signs his work but he doesn't do interviews or photo ops. His work has appeared in venues as various as Barcelona, Paris, Vienna, San Francisco and New York. Correction: his work has appeared on brick walls and board fences in the aforementioned locales. Banksy is a graffiti artist. Not to be confused with the knobs and mouth -breathers who spray paint incoherent `signatures' on public spaces. Banksy is a true artist. His works have purpose and point of view — usually the point of view of a middle finger directed toward the establishment. Some famous `Banksys": Winston Churchill wearing a Mohawk, two British bobbies kissing; a military helicopter wearing a fluffy pink satin bow. At the Bristol Zoo, Banksy sneaked into the elephant enclosure and left a message on the wall in seven -foot letters that read: "I WANT OUT. THIS PLACE IS TOO COLD. KEEPER SMELLS. BORING, BORING, BORING — as if daubed there by an elephant's trunk. Banksy is decidedly subversive. A few years ago he flirted with counterfeiting, producing fake British 10 -pound notes featuring a portrait of Diana, Princess of Wales in place of the Queen. Naturally, he changed the printed legend BANK OF ENGLAND to BANKSY OF ENGLAND. These limited -edition Banksy fake bills show up on eBay from time to time — usually going for about 200 quid. That's the true genius of Banksy. He despises the 'Art World', the crap it encourages and its insanely inflated prices. He mocks that world in just about everything he does. And yet collectors and dealers are drawn to him like rats to a dumpster. Forbes magazine estimates his value at $20 million. Banksy couldn't care less. "Commercial success," he says, "is a mark of failure for the graffiti artist." That makes Banksy one of the most successful art failures ever. Shepard Fairley, writing in Time said of Banksy• "His works, whether he stencils them on the streets, sells them in exhibitions or hangs them in museums on the sly, are filled with wit and metaphors that transcend language barriers." Banksy puts it this way: "The thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self - obsessed to become our artists. Modern art is a disaster area. Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little." Betcha even Tom Thomson would agree with that. The line between patriot, terrorist people may or may not be aware of the stand-off in Oregon where armed protestors are refusing to leave Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to protest, among other broader ideas, the re -sentencing of two farmers who apparently want nothing to do with the protest. Ammon Bundy, the leader of the protestors, took over the site (without violence, it should be noted, or at least I feel it should be noted) to protest decisions that he feels are being made by the government at the cost of the rights and freedoms of its people. Central to the case is a situation where father Dwight and son Steven Hammond were sentenced to three months and one year in jail, respectively, for arson. Arson, however, may conjure up images of the two throwing molotov cocktails at a building when, in reality, the two ranchers claimed to have exercised a controlled burn to kill an invasive species on their grazing land. The controlled burn, however, was anything but and ended up spreading to federal lands. The two served their time. After being released after serving their time, however, a judge ruled that their terms were not long enough because the burn occurred on federal lands. The minimum sentence for arson on federal land is five years. The Hammonds were handed additional sentences to bring their total time served up to five years each. Federal prosecutors feel that the burns were not done to control an invasive species, however, and state the blaze, that spread to 127 acres of federal land, was done to cover up poaching. Reports indicate that, despite the group of armed protestors taking up the cause, the Hammonds intended to surrender themselves peacefully earlier this week to a California federal prison, though the younger Hammond has been quoted as saying he believes the sentence far outweighs the crime. There have been rallies for the Hammonds that included marches to the local sheriff's office that show that the sentiment of the armed occupiers is shared, if not their methods of protest. While the Hammonds' case is a flashpoint Denny Scott Denny's Den for the heated standoff happening at the refuge, it is far from the only cause adopted by Bundy and his comrades. Bundy, whose father was involved with an armed standoff with the government several years ago, has stated that the refuge itself is indicative of the over -reaching actions of the federal government. The lands that make up Malheur National Wildlife Refuge were, according to Bundy, taken from approximately 100 ranchers and miners and continues to expand at the cost of taxpayers lands and livelihoods. Members of the group claim they are ready to stay on the land for years if necessary and have said that the land will once again be used for ranching, logging and mining under the protection of "the people". Now that you have some of the information about the case (only some because to put it all here would take a month's worth of column space, so I urge you to read and come to your own conclusions), I suppose it's important for me to say that I don't agree with this occupation. As noble as the intentions of the group may (or may not) be, they have put the invitation out to anyone who wishes to join them. That open invite could lead to people joining for the wrong reasons and undermine their cause. Aside from that dilution of those standing for their rights, the fact that they are armed ultimately takes away any pretense of this being a peaceful protest. Every riot that followed a protest, every armed objection to government, every civil action accompanied by violence was, at one time, non-violent. All it took was a rock being thrown, a pepper spray can being used too early or a weapon being pointed to turn what was initially peaceful into an armed standoff, or worse, a massacre. However, when talking about our neighbours to the south, there is one very important historical note to be aware of: their country, their freedoms and their way of life were all gained through battle. While Canadians have proved time and again that we are capable of being an efficient fighting force, our nation and our way of life was not found at the tip of a sword or lance or barrel of a rifle but through negotiation. What the United States of America won through armed conflict with the British, we eventually achieved without the bloodshed. For all we know, those who fought for independence were once viewed the same as this militia is now. While it may seem insane to those on the outside looking in, for those in the United States, they are acting as their forefathers did; they are uniting against what they feel are unfair actions by their government. We see it as an armed occupation or a militia taking control of former native lands that have been turned into a wildlife refuge, but in framing those thoughts through the lens of the United States of America's history, there are those who could understand this to be the next iteration of the Boston Tea Party. To be completely fair to these armed protestors, this might be the first step in what could be a new way of thinking in the United States or it could be the start of the next American Revolution. Whether this action is a pivotal point for the way the government works in the US or whether it simply fizzles and results in criminal charges, it will determine if these people are domestic terrorists or whether they are a new breed of revolutionaries. Whether the men who gathered in the Old South Meeting House prior to the Boston Tea Party were patriots or terrorists depends on whether you were a loyalist or a revolutionary and, in the end, were ultimately defined by the historians who looked back on the event. The fine line between patriot and terrorist depends on what side of a conflict you are on. Shawn 11111 Loughlin Shawn's Sense Still not getting it Jt doesn't seem like that long ago that I wrote about who is a terrorist — at least according to my fellow journalists — and who isn't. That's because it wasn't that long ago. In the Dec. 10 issue of The Citizen, I wrote a column called "Tiered Terrorism" and, with The Citizen taking a week off for Christmas, that means it was only three issues ago. I wrote that column after 14 people were shot and killed in St. Bernadino, California. Before victims were identified, it seemed, journalists and residents alike were asking whether or not the shooters were terrorists. Had they been radicalized? people were asking It turns out that the two shooters were inspired by terrorist groups, but did not identify as terrorists themselves. At the time, I made the point that it would be hard to explain to the 14 families that lost a loved one that the shooters weren't terrorists. No doubt the anguish they felt was caused by terror. Unless someone can convince me that these people died of natural causes, this was an act of terrorism. Not one month later, the debate is hot again as armed protestors have taken over a government building in Oregon. That's right — if you can believe it — a group of "heavily armed" men have taken over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. But these men, as far as I know, are not Muslims. That has resulted in a variety of terms being used to describe them. Whether it's protestors or militia or occupiers, members of the media seem to be very afraid of calling these men terrorists. Sure, they're American and they're doing this on American soil, so the case has been made that they are domestic terrorists. That's fine. That makes sense. But aren't they terrorists nonetheless? The situation has sparked a fierce debate over what is terrorism. Juliette Kayyem, national security analyst for CNN, wrote a column asking the American people to face facts that the Oregon occupation is terrorism no matter how you slice it. This brings me back to the point I attempted to make a few weeks ago. Unless we want to admit that the term "terrorist" is being used as a euphemism for Muslim, why then are these men not terrorists? If a group of what the American media accepts as heavily -armed "terrorists" had stormed onto a federal building site and occupied it by force, citizens would be calling for drastic measures and others would be convinced that the U.S. was facing the end of days. However, because they are American and they aren't Muslim, again, there seems to be comfort in the situation for some. Of course, the media shouldn't jump to label anyone as anything before fact -based details become available, but if you can honestly look at one situation and say it would be handled differently, whether it be by the media or by law enforcement, depending on the perpetrators, then we have a serious problem. The same has been said of the reporting between white and black criminals over the years. The world of terrorism has simply become a new qualifier as to whether or not the average person should care or not — and unfortunately we're buying into it. The men behind the Oregon occupation have said they'll stay there for years to prove their point. If their point was Muslim jihad, would the authorities and the public at large be ready to accept that?