Battle Flag Of The Army Of Northern Virginia

I was actually thinking of running down to the State House today to shoot the flag but the parking was insane with all the live shots. So far, I've only taken wide shots of it




Taken from the South Carolina State House steps

Are you asking FAA to judge art now?

David

As of right now, we sell art and we do not judge the political statement it makes. It is part of our history and while we do not endorse what it stands for it will not be pulled in the near future.

On the artist side, I do present historical images or more aptly put, historical places. I just shot a Confederate Memorial in downtown Pensacola. Now, when I upload such things that might not be particularly appealing to many, I move them back in my portfolio pretty quickly but they can be found for those that look.

If I post a photo of the General Lee from the Dukes of Hazard, I don't pre-judge the motivations of the buyer. This is a private retail establishment selling legal items. What's next a ban on anything sexy? Anything drug related? Anything religious? Anything political? Slippery slope.

A flag did not make that cowardly thug do what he did. Neither did his gun. I have no interest in the Confederate flag, and I hate guns, but this frenzy over that flag's a bit much IMO. Even if it's taken down, nothing's going to change, because haters are still gonna hate.

One can certainly tell that it's political hybrid season! The confederate flag can fly on civilian homes here in the United States. So can flags with swastikas, Sickle and Hammers, flags with KKK written on them and all the like. That's what rights are all about. Even the American Flag... can be burned and stomped on in public.

As for the Confederate flag flying proudly over Federal Buildings... it shouldn't. Over State Buildings it shouldn't either. But each state has to make those laws. Feds ought to stay away.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a big run on them. Look how popular the scoundrel Guerrillero Heroico's image is!

Govt institutions have no business running racist symbols. None.

If someone is going to hate they need to do that ONLY on their own time.

Dave

Its all smoke screen to avoid talking about gun control.

Hate is the main issue here and it can't be legislated. Guns are a related issue, but our federal legislators do not have the guts for a fight over gun regulations. The confederate flag is a relic of history. It represents a time and place that no longer exists and has not place or purpose flying over either Federal or state buildings, period!

Keep
To
Art

Right - The issue is the symbol in art. If you do a search here for confederate flag you see a wide range of artwork from historic paintings to modern renditions to photographs etc. You can't just do a blanket removal and you can't just assume the intent of each artist or buyer. Art explores issues, symbols and makes people think about these symbols in a new way.
....

Interesting article from Atlantic Monthly - http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/06/confederate-flag-pop-culture-phenomenon/396596/

Confederate Flag, Pop-Culture Phenomenon
What can it mean to “remove” this symbol of the Confederacy when it’s become such a familiar, seemingly benign, part of American life—through songs, clothing, and a Dodge Charger known as the General Lee?

Reason I asked is that several POD's are taking them down because they're concerned about boycotts. Might be a good idea to get ahead of it with a statement.

"Govt institutions have no business running racist symbols. None."

Then they should stop flying the American Flag as well
Every slave brought to this country was on a ship flying the "American Flag"
The American Indians were slaughtered and moved to reservations by armies flying the "American Flag"
Japanese Americans were "interned" against their will in WWII, by the govt under the "American Flag"

Shall I go on....if we are to make such broad statements, then maybe we should look a bit more at our history....

I'm going to try walking a fine line here.

There is a difference between personal enjoyment - even reverence - and institutionalized display. There is a difference between displaying an image privately, and suggesting that it represents an entire region of the country; even those for whom it symbolizes oppression.

Here's an analogy based on another controversial image:

Guy named Marcus Harvey did this portrait in the 70s. It was of a well know child murderer Myra Hindley. It's a stark portrait made up entirely of black, white, and gray children's handprints. Inherenty, it offered a very uncomfortable display of both innocence and crime. Of something valuable and something unthinkable. Most things in the world are a blend of the two sides, of course. Is it a valid artistic statement? Absolutely, yes. Would it be reasonable to use this image to represent children as a whole, even if framed in a light of it being a true historical event? Nope.

Art stands as art, and relies heavily on symbolism. Symbolism is meaning that is generally accepted for the item. The artist can assign meaning, but he or she can't make people agree with that designation. Because meaning lies in perception, not in the intent at creation.

If enough people use a word and agree upon a meaning, then that word gets added to the dictionary and it has a definition because of popular opinion. That doesn't have to change what that word means to an individual, but it absolutely means that individual should expect that others use and understand the more widely accepted definition of the word. Especially if that particular word has has a specific impact on them or their life. I can't walk up to you and say "hand me that "koocheekoo", and expect you to understand that I mean "pen" because my family has been calling it a koocheekoo for 50 years.

No one is suggesting that a person can't hang a portrait of Myra Hindley on your garage door. It's being suggested that it shouldn't be hung in the hallways of schools where as many as 25% of the children who attend there have personal history that was impacted by the crimes represented in the portrait. Individuals are free to display whatever artwork they want (within the law) and even to tell people what it means to them. And groups of people, companies, brands... they can determine what an image's larger understood meaning is and therefore may choose to disassociate themselves from that image. Can't blame them, they are trying to appeal to the majority, after all. Nobody is going to Office Depot to buy "kookeechoos".

So,

Imagine you're walking to a community location, somewhere where there are services to help everyone, somewhere *your* taxes and hard work pay for. In front of that building is something that symbolically represents the historic exclusion of people like you from full participation. It's just an image, no one is actually excluding you (anymore), but you see that image as you walk in. As you drive by. Every time. That image is being used to *represent* you at the same time it reminds you that once it was used, in whole or in part, (and by majority perception) to attempt to ensure you would never be fully included in participation.

Artwork or symbology, specifically when displayed by a government or community representative, should without fail be inclusive of the people it represents. It should never exclude a portion of its own constituents. There is no onus on a government to specifically represent everyone, but there is an onus to not specifically exclude anyone. Not displaying a symbol that represents oppression to a segment of the population doesn't repress the other segments.


Edit:

And the American flag symbol argument is a thin one to me. The American flag symbol also represents the undoing of the crimes in question. It represents a literal unchaining. As I said, nothing is all good or all bad. We also interred innocent Japanese during WWII. A terrible thing, and one could say those awful actions are also represented by our current flag. But much has been done under that current symbol to right those wrongs. The bad exists, right up to today and probably into the future, but the majority perception is that the symbol represents freedom and opportunity.

And lastly;
FAA is not an institution. It's a collective of people who are personally representing themselves as artists. As such I don't see any reason for censorship beyond the rules laid out in the Terms of Service.

Boycott faa? If anything it would be good free publicity especially to come out on the side of artists and free speech.

"And the American flag symbol argument is a thin one to me. The American flag symbol also represents the undoing of the crimes in question"

Really, I do believe that the Indians still to this day, live on reservations....

And think about this, if the slaves had never been brought here on American flagged ships, the Confederate flag probably would never have been created, and we would not be having this discussion right now...cause and effect....

And yes, a lot of good has been done under it as well....

I'm not advocating for or against the confederate flag..I am simply pointing out that the American flag has plenty of blood on it for the unjust actions committed under it...enough that some could easily see IT as being a racist symbol....nuff said..

So, all encompassing statements as above, need to be viewed and tempered through the lens of history...both good and bad...

It's all about popular perception. It's the many that defines us, not the one. E pluribus unum, after all.

There is no flag in existence, going back through all of history, that represents only good and isn't stained by the blood of those who live under it.

Some, however, have become almost exclusively symbols of the tragic in greater perception.

"So, all encompassing statements as above, need to be viewed and tempered through the lens of history...both good and bad..."

I think you need to clean you lens or maybe replace it all together.


"Every slave brought to this country was on a ship flying the "American Flag" '

You need to check you history.... The first slaves were brought to this country came over with Columbus.

The first American slave owner was a black man.

Many countries owned ships built and designed to carry slaves all over the world, including to America. Some of them were owned by blacks in Africa that bought slaves from victorious warring (blacks on both sides) tribes that sold their captives into slavery and many of them ended up in the United States and other countries.

But that said, I think those institutions and especially government office should have had the good sense to take the flag down when they lost the Civil War, or at least shortly thereafter and way before it got to this point.

The flag to me is NOT a racist image. But I am not black. I see the flag as a symbol of independence and the reason the Civil War was fought to begin with; States Rights. That fact has been totally obliterated and wrongly replaced with the issue of slavery.

The state’s rights issue was valid. The south was fighting for the individual states right to choose their destiny over the federal government power to impose standards that would dictate that destiny on a lot of other issues not just slavery. Slavery was the hot button issue that would align the most northerners against the south so that became the main issue, but it was not the main reason for the war.

Of course as of late a lot of race baiters, from both sides of the issue, have figured how to make a lot of money or get some sort of ego boost by keeping the slavery issue in the headlines.

The Confederate flag is just another example of that.

Individuals should have the right to fly that flag where they want. This idea that just because you have or like the flag that that alone makes you a bigot or racist flies directly in the face of the 1st amendment and one the very basic reasons we fought for independence and several was hence.

In closing, show me one flag of any nation in history that is not drenched in a certain amount blood. I find that statement offensive seeing some of that blood includes a lot of my own family blood going all the way back to the Mayflower.

I'll tell you what really offends me is the fact that certain people are bitchingabout Americans flying the Confederate flags but yet we see nothing being done about the flags from nations that are sworn enemies of America. Some of them having formed a pact with other nations to kill every American in the world.

Maybe I should get out of this thread before I say something I will wish latter I never had. Okay... that would never happen... but before I get banned is maybe a better reason.

See My, I would remove that before you get tossed out. That is a NO NO!

Say goodbye to the General Lee as you’ve always known it.

In the wake of the deadly South Carolina shooting and the decision by several major retailers to stop selling merchandise featuring the Confederate battle flag, the toy spawned by the hit TV series “Dukes of Hazzard” that became a Southern icon wearing those colors will no longer be produced.

@Floyd, Yeah, its a no-no but its available for sale here. Hilarious. People post images all the time. When I asked was there a limit on what could be sold here my thread was closed with no explanation.

Its easy to stay out of trouble. Just stay on topic. Should a retailer bend to the political winds of the week? Are there subjects that an artist can't address?

If you think of FAA as your fulfillment partner than you as an individual artist are responsible for what you offer for sale. If you create art that angers a certain group, then you might face protest as an individual artist.

Maybe PETA will boycott me for dressing up dogs in pajamas.

Technically, the "rebel flag" is not a legit flag to begin with. The confederate flag did not look like that. As stated in several articles, southern states began flying it in protest of the Civil Rights movement; it was originally a battle flag and only Mississippi incorporates it into their state flag. The battle's over, the North won. Time to put it where it belongs, in a store room of a museum.

I would say society at large won. But now we are off topic again.

SMP - I would agree with Floyd. You have no idea about the motivations of the artist or their background. Artists deal with all kinds of subjects. Race being just one.

Kara Walker is an artist who takes on this issue - http://learn.walkerart.org/karawalker

I suppose you could grab a single image of her art and try to paint it as racist if you didn't take the time to research the artist.

In art, as in life, things that are beautiful to some will offend others, whether it is a flag, nudity, or some other image. Art must always remain free to express itself. Those who like it will buy it and those who do not will not.

And John about sums it up in what will be the final post in the thread unless another sneaks in while I type.

See My Images, take some time off please.

Mississippi is NOW the only state that has incorporated it into their state flag but there were a few others at one time or another.

What states choose to do over their Capitol is political.

Gun Control is political.

Quite frankly, art, including flag art of many different varieties including but not exclusive to the symbol at hand, is political but we are done debating that here.