MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
By Rory Carroll in Los Angeles, guardian.co.uk, 12 September 2012
The hunt for the maker of the anti-Islamic video that inflamed mayhem in Egypt and Libya and triggered a diplomatic crisis has led to a Californian Coptic Christian convicted of financial crimes.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, who lives outside Los Angeles, confirmed on Wednesday he managed and provided logistics for The Innocence of Muslims.
Nakoula, who pleaded no contest to federal bank fraud charges in 2010, told AP in a brief interview outside his home that he considered Islam a cancer and that the film was intended to be a provocative political statement assailing the religion.
He denied being Sam Bacile, the pseudonym for the video's purportedly Israeli Jewish writer and director, but AP said the cellphone number it called for a telephone interview with Bacile on Tuesday matched Nakoula's address.
His outing solidified growing evidence that members of Egypt's Coptic diaspora, who complain of persecution by Egypt's Muslim majority, were behind the making and promotion of the video.
Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the US, promoted it on his website last week. Within days it was fuelling outrage in Arab countries [....]
Comments
Bacile, Basseley, how clever (not.) But Stephen Braun and Gillian Flaccus of the Associated Press deserve some kind of old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism merit points.
I love this part:
Nakoula denied he had posed as Bacile. During a conversation outside his home, he offered his driver's license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found it and other connections to the Bacile persona.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 10:27pm
I watched the 13 minute trailer. I've seen better acting in porn flicks. I can see why Muslims would be insulted but I found it hilarious. Not to trivialize the deaths it may have sparked but it seemed to me like a blooper real.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/12/2012 - 11:55pm
Thing is, Muslims who get violent rage about this kind of thing don't tend to be very selective about artistic quality (or even size of audience) one way or the other.
It is ironic that right before this happened, Salman Rushie finally published an account of his first days and weeks after the fatwa in 1989 at The New Yorker (date of publication says Sept 17, but I' read the article in the dead tree version Monday.) There wasn't any real blasphemy in The Satanic Verses, not that any sensible Islamic scholar could support. Reading his article got me thinking how virtually all of these cases, including the recent one of the disabled Christian girl in Pakistan, turn out not to be real blasphemy but the attempt of demagogues of all varieties, from major leaders to minor schlumps, to gin up anger in a bunch of uneducated people for some other reason.
So now, double irony, here we have Mr Basseley/Bacile Nakoula doing a cheesy Counter-demagogue Op as it were, intentional blasphemy, in order to get the same result. They know not what they do, that they are doing what he and his agitator Morris Sadek wanted them to do!
Makes me wonder what Mr. Rushdie thinks about all of this; if I were him, I would be sorely tempted to write a truly blasphemous piece right now.
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 10:30am
Protests in Yemen, Iran, Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia, and again in Cairo:
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 10:03am
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/13/2012 - 4:36pm
Federal probation officers and Nakoula have a talk:
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/15/2012 - 4:06pm
The accompanying photo shows he went to this confab dressed Salman-Rushdie style, circa 1990:
Credit:
Bret Hartman/Reuters
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/15/2012 - 4:11pm
One might feel compelled to poke at a hornets' nest, and one might have the right to poke at the hornets' nest should one feel so compelled, but it still remains a hornets' nest.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 09/15/2012 - 4:17pm
He gets a prison of his own making. Where Salman Rushdie hadn't a clue that such offense would be taken, Nakoula sought to offend. I'd be willing to bet there won't be any fellows/gals in the film arts coming to his defense, not even Larry Flynt. (Maybe Glenn Greenwald? I haven't checked..)
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/15/2012 - 4:35pm
"While everything is permitted, not everything is acceptable." - Albert Camus
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 09/15/2012 - 8:10pm
Artistic freedom does not mean one is free from criticism. In fact, it is the duty of other artists to hold other artists to standard of ethics and commitment to humanity and life. It is in the discourse that follows this that we move forward as a society (or backwards depending on the quality of that discourse).
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 09/15/2012 - 8:14pm
Artistic freedom does not mean one is free from criticism
Goes without sayin' unless you don't want an audience--unless you don't want anybody to see/read/hear it. Many great artists seek it.
it is the duty of other artists to hold other artists to standard of ethics and commitment to humanity and life.
I don't agree with that, that it's a duty, or even that there should be ethical code for art. My first thought is that you're mixing fine art with craft. Many crafts can be described as a profession, it is difficult to place that label on most fine artists.
If you believe that, then you would side with the official Paris Salon for trying to keep certain standards by rejecting the art later shown at the Salon des Refuses of 1863. If you believe that, then you side with the folks who wanted Diaghilev and Stravinsky hounded out of town after producing "Rite of Spring."
Of course, "avant garde fine art" that is at first insulting to the patron or viewer is a Western invention, 19th century on; there's no other culture where you throw a pie in the face of the audience or at your patron to get them to change their thinking, and the audience welcomes it and the patron pays for it. I wouldn't want to see that change. (That western tradition continues to spread worldwide, so I don't think it's going anywhere; even artists in China have been doing it for at least a decade now, though they still have boundaries, see Ai Weiwei.)
But subjecting individual artists to any kind of communal standards that they might not agree with takes you on the road to the kind of art that you get in communist totalitarian societies. In non-Western cultures, and the pre-19th-century west before the avant-garde tradition, the elite who employ the artists are the ones who decide what shall be made.. And some are quite open to support the revolutionary, i.e.. the Medici. But they wouldn't go so far as paying for a pie in the face or a personal insult. (I should add that in the west, if you are publicly funded, artists are often subjected to standards like that, and I for one have no problem with that when taxpayers are paying, just that the standards should not apply when taxpayers aren't paying. If taxpayers want the inoffensive, mild and mediocre, or things of current mass standards of esthetic beauty only-craft, that's their perogative.)
All that aside, I don't even consider issues about "artistic freedom" to be applicable in this case. I don't consider it sensible to categorize someone like Larry Flynt or Nakoula as an artist, do you? For me, their cases are about freedom of speech, not artistic freedom. Some are hard to categorize either way, like Hogarth, but Thomas Paine, not an artist, mho...Taking that to YouTube, it if you polled all the posters, I doubt the majority think they are making art (I.E..."How to Change Your Own Doorbell," or "The Gait of a Patient with Marie Charcotte Tooth Syndrome," or "Rush Limbaugh is a Fat Pig")
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/16/2012 - 3:18am
Trope,
they're running a pretty decent continuing panel discussion over at the New York Times/Arts on what we were starting to get into here:
Shock Value: Does art retain the power to shock? Must artists contrive to provoke?
Note that they've also got this sidebar there of examples:
Can art shock? Vote for the most shocking moment in its time or tell us in the comments what we missed.
by artappraiser on Tue, 09/18/2012 - 5:44pm
Whether you agree with his message or not, this essay includes a great roundup of links to reports and facts on the story of the video itself, embedded in his text, as the news developed:
by artappraiser on Mon, 09/17/2012 - 1:08am
And this is a good older summary from Al-Jazeera:
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:10am
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/22/2012 - 9:15pm
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 8:47pm
Looks like Google Tube is increasingly acting like a branch of the government.
by Dan Kervick on Sun, 09/23/2012 - 8:51pm
Dan,
I think it's much more like a parent filtering the internet or TV for a child (Even to the point where the parent knows the savvier kids can get around the filter if they want to.) And I hope it eventually gets to the point where countries are ashamed of Google deciding to filter out something for their audience, as if they are not as grown up as other countries and can't handle it.
Pre-emptive if you're going to raise the censorship on DagBlog issue: I would disagree that they are equivalent. The "Google Tube" is not an edited information product like a website published by an individual or individuals (especially one published under the person's own name and not a pseudonym), it is the world library card catalogue.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:06am
by artappraiser on Tue, 09/25/2012 - 11:56pm
Human Rights First press release:
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/26/2012 - 12:16am
by artappraiser on Fri, 09/28/2012 - 4:46am