Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist’s views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    149 months ago

    Didn’t a couple of people mention that was all of it before a certain year?

    I don’t know, did they? Also, why would that matter?

    • @John_McMurray
      link
      English
      79 months ago

      Protesting something that no longer exists by copying it. Brilliant.

    • RedFoxOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      https://mander.xyz/comment/9083214.

      I’ll edit this, I can’t read the other stuff on the mobile version while responding.

      Edit, I mentioned that because the whole place was male only until '65. I don’t think there was that much outcry? (It didn’t look it up, I assume that poster did).

      It would be now in 2024 though.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        189 months ago

        Ok so you’re saying that women used to be discriminated and that (thankfully) is no longer the case. Why would it be ok for the opposite to happen? Both things are wrong and that “eye for an eye” mentality benefits no one.

        • RedFoxOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -3
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I do agree both things are wrong. Meaning discrimination.

          I think one person’s art in this case might be described as another person’s stunt.

          Edit, as for whether it’s beneficial, not sure. I guess we’ll see.