Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
39 user(s) are online (28 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 39

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 »


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#39
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/9/23 17:28
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 119
Offline
I don't care for most of the art but I'm glad it's there. The topic is so subjective that global agreement is not possible. Art by committee may be boring but this is somewhat of a democracy.....

I don't know Yvonne but this is supposed to be a forum to express opinions and disagreement is fine but the idiotic name calling and abuse is why I've come to think of jclist as moronlist.

Posted on: 5/15 11:32
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#38
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2013/10/14 19:28
From Earth
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 99
Offline
Soooo, the chalk on the walk troll fest is done I guess?

We got a new one....hooray!!!

Posted on: 5/15 11:01
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#37
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/7/10 10:01
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 65
Offline
Is the artist complaining of Native American descent? That could bring some sort of real arguement. Or is she just taking offense and answering for all Native Americans.
Seems like someone is sour and did not get pick to create a mural.

Posted on: 5/14 22:49
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#36
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
5/10 17:14
From GroveSt
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5
Offline
I completely agree that the Mural Project is a complete political/marketing campaign aimed at developers and real estate investors. It’s a ruse to convince outsiders that Jersey City has a thriving artist community. In fact, the “Jersey City Arts Community” is 1/10th of what it was just a few years ago.

I also agree that the responsibility of art selection should NOT be in the hands of one individual. If we’re serious about an “Artist’s Community”, there should be some sort of Arts Council comprised of professional working artist living in the community. Should that team be giving direction on what artists should paint? Of course not. But some sort of quick moving, “Yes or No” voting process should exist during the comp process.

In terms of this one “Artists” approach to the change… Using political correctness and implying that she is “Offended” by the art seems like a very shallow attempt at legitimizing herself as an expert, forcefully placing herself in the throne of Creative Director. Her proposed direction would have the opposite effect of what she states—leading me to believe this is about Her and not encouraging positive creative energy.

I very much disagree with her assertion that every mural must relate to Jersey City history. I feel that direction is narrow-minded and unrealistic. It limits artistic flexibility, style and voice. That’s how you get corporate-looking crap plastered all over the city.

Last, but certainly not least… Art is personal. You’re not going to like every piece that is in MoMA. You’re not going to like every mural in Jersey City. The best we can do is make sure the art going up is of quality craft and has value beyond its mere state of existence.

Posted on: 5/12 22:12
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#35
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/11/16 20:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1119
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The law requires people to call Jesus a liar on marriage. Jesus said, "A man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be one flesh." Religion does not stop when you leave your house of worship. Granted this is another topic. The Supreme Court also said Dred Scott was not a citizen. So why is the Supreme Court right now?
wtf are you even talking about? How is the law requiring you to call Jesus a liar? What about that statement has anything to do with the law or lying? That a man doesn't have to leave his father and mother and can live at home with them? I can't understand the nonsense rattling around in your noggin without a crazy translator.

Posted on: 5/11 13:09
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#34
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4071
Offline
Really Nick, I do feel sorry for you. The only way you can get your point accross is to attack someone on a personal level. I guess you were never taught better.

Posted on: 5/11 11:14
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#33
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
5/10 23:36
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 7
Offline
The only time the murals bugged me was the Monopoly Board on Newark Ave. It was a cool idea but just looked cheap and the paint did not seem to stick well on the street. The content did not bother me as much as some others. It just looked a bit cheap and crappy to be honest.

I would agree with some review, but not for content, but just artwork and skill of the artist.

In other words, make sure the artist are talented and bring great work. I see awesome stuff around the Holland tunnel. There is is a stay puff dripping away and the veins and crap are underneath. Its great work, but perhaps would not fly on a building right downtown or really anywhere kids would be freaked out, I'm not sure how to police that, but its awesome work.

The problem with a review over content is that you will always find someone offended by something. If that's what it turns into, then few great murals will be thrown up in the city.

Posted on: 5/11 0:24
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#32
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/11/21 17:12
From DTJC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 183
Offline
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What hyprocrites, people say no censorship but there is censorship with the ban on chain stores downtown. Why is one fine but not the other?


To point out the obvious, one (art) is protected by the first amendment. The other (stores) is not.


Funny, how liberals ignore the First Amendment on other matters like the florists and bakers who do not want to cater a same sex wedding. Religion falls under the First Amendment before speech , assembly, etc. Returning to the subject, it is still mediocre art.
The law isn't stopping you from being a Catholic. It's just stopping you from treating other people like subhumans. Your arguments are identical to the ones made against interracial marriage, desegregation, and abolition, fyi.

Your concern trolling about the Constitution would make a lot more sense if you had the vaguest understanding of how it works, and if you weren't constantly harping on about nonsense like tiger murals scaring awful drivers.


The law requires people to call Jesus a liar on marriage. Jesus said, "A man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be one flesh." Religion does not stop when you leave your house of worship. Granted this is another topic. The Supreme Court also said Dred Scott was not a citizen. So why is the Supreme Court right now?


The Bible, in 1 Timothy 2:12, also says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

I don't see you being quiet here, so please stop cherry picking your verses.


I think the fat slob just needs a shiny new distraction. Hey Yvonne, there's a parking lot being torn up in Downtown. Maybe you should rush there to go save it! Don't let the tiger mural scare you on your way over though.

Posted on: 5/10 21:23
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#31
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/12/28 12:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 789
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What hyprocrites, people say no censorship but there is censorship with the ban on chain stores downtown. Why is one fine but not the other?


To point out the obvious, one (art) is protected by the first amendment. The other (stores) is not.


Funny, how liberals ignore the First Amendment on other matters like the florists and bakers who do not want to cater a same sex wedding. Religion falls under the First Amendment before speech , assembly, etc. Returning to the subject, it is still mediocre art.
The law isn't stopping you from being a Catholic. It's just stopping you from treating other people like subhumans. Your arguments are identical to the ones made against interracial marriage, desegregation, and abolition, fyi.

Your concern trolling about the Constitution would make a lot more sense if you had the vaguest understanding of how it works, and if you weren't constantly harping on about nonsense like tiger murals scaring awful drivers.


The law requires people to call Jesus a liar on marriage. Jesus said, "A man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be one flesh." Religion does not stop when you leave your house of worship. Granted this is another topic. The Supreme Court also said Dred Scott was not a citizen. So why is the Supreme Court right now?


The Bible, in 1 Timothy 2:12, also says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."

I don't see you being quiet here, so please stop cherry picking your verses.

Posted on: 5/10 21:04
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#30
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/24 20:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 309
Offline
[quote]
Yvonne wrote:.
The Supreme Court also said Dred Scott was not a citizen. So why is the Supreme Court right now?[/quote

This was overturned, try again.


Posted on: 5/10 16:19
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#29
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4071
Offline
Quote:

CatDog wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What hyprocrites, people say no censorship but there is censorship with the ban on chain stores downtown. Why is one fine but not the other?


To point out the obvious, one (art) is protected by the first amendment. The other (stores) is not.


Funny, how liberals ignore the First Amendment on other matters like the florists and bakers who do not want to cater a same sex wedding. Religion falls under the First Amendment before speech , assembly, etc. Returning to the subject, it is still mediocre art.
The law isn't stopping you from being a Catholic. It's just stopping you from treating other people like subhumans. Your arguments are identical to the ones made against interracial marriage, desegregation, and abolition, fyi.

Your concern trolling about the Constitution would make a lot more sense if you had the vaguest understanding of how it works, and if you weren't constantly harping on about nonsense like tiger murals scaring awful drivers.


The law requires people to call Jesus a liar on marriage. Jesus said, "A man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be one flesh." Religion does not stop when you leave your house of worship. Granted this is another topic. The Supreme Court also said Dred Scott was not a citizen. So why is the Supreme Court right now?

Posted on: 5/10 15:34
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#28
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/11/16 20:11
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1119
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What hyprocrites, people say no censorship but there is censorship with the ban on chain stores downtown. Why is one fine but not the other?


To point out the obvious, one (art) is protected by the first amendment. The other (stores) is not.


Funny, how liberals ignore the First Amendment on other matters like the florists and bakers who do not want to cater a same sex wedding. Religion falls under the First Amendment before speech , assembly, etc. Returning to the subject, it is still mediocre art.
The law isn't stopping you from being a Catholic. It's just stopping you from treating other people like subhumans. Your arguments are identical to the ones made against interracial marriage, desegregation, and abolition, fyi.

Your concern trolling about the Constitution would make a lot more sense if you had the vaguest understanding of how it works, and if you weren't constantly harping on about nonsense like tiger murals scaring awful drivers.

Posted on: 5/10 15:21
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#27
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/12/28 12:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 789
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What hyprocrites, people say no censorship but there is censorship with the ban on chain stores downtown. Why is one fine but not the other?


To point out the obvious, one (art) is protected by the first amendment. The other (stores) is not.


Funny, how liberals ignore the First Amendment on other matters like the florists and bakers who do not want to cater a same sex wedding. Religion falls under the First Amendment before speech , assembly, etc. Returning to the subject, it is still mediocre art.


The supreme court disagrees with you. But, feel free to continue to posit yourself as a constitutional scholar.

Posted on: 5/10 13:33
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#26
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/4/19 17:41
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 79
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Most of the art here is mediocre and it shouldn't be.


That's an opinion. I like a lot of it.

Posted on: 5/10 13:26
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#25
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/24 20:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 309
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Returning to the subject, it is still mediocre art.


Have you ever seen your "logo" and web page?

Posted on: 5/10 13:14

Edited by psyop on 2017/5/10 13:33:09
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#24
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4071
Offline
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What hyprocrites, people say no censorship but there is censorship with the ban on chain stores downtown. Why is one fine but not the other?


To point out the obvious, one (art) is protected by the first amendment. The other (stores) is not.


Funny, how liberals ignore the First Amendment on other matters like the florists and bakers who do not want to cater a same sex wedding. Religion falls under the First Amendment before speech , assembly, etc. Returning to the subject, it is still mediocre art.

Posted on: 5/10 10:55
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#23
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/12/28 12:08
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 789
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
What hyprocrites, people say no censorship but there is censorship with the ban on chain stores downtown. Why is one fine but not the other?


To point out the obvious, one (art) is protected by the first amendment. The other (stores) is not.

Posted on: 5/10 10:12
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#22
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/7/16 12:20
From JCNJ
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 68
Offline
Quote:

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

Killtown wrote:
Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Most of the art here is mediocre and it shouldn't be. Yes, I know a few people who said they were startled while driving when they saw the tiger near White Castle. Art should not cause an accident, it should uplifting. The art should be telling the story of Jersey City which is very rich and its people. There are no tigers or zoos in JC.


If a driver gets so startled by a mural that it makes them lose control of their car then they shouldn't be driving -period.


When you use a period (.) you don't have to say "period"


When you end a sentence with "period" in quotation marks, you still have to use a period inside the quotation marks.


stop mansplaining at me

Posted on: 5/8 14:16
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#21
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/9/17 23:58
From Between Thought and Expression
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 773
Offline
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Quote:



There is no David Bowie in Jersey City either. Take it down!



Tigers


Mural mural, Yvonne is distressed
Mural mural, your art is a mess


Huh - well done!!!

And Yvonne is making things up as usual...

Posted on: 5/8 12:41
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#20
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/4/22 0:43
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 388
Offline
Quote:

Killtown wrote:
Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Most of the art here is mediocre and it shouldn't be. Yes, I know a few people who said they were startled while driving when they saw the tiger near White Castle. Art should not cause an accident, it should uplifting. The art should be telling the story of Jersey City which is very rich and its people. There are no tigers or zoos in JC.


If a driver gets so startled by a mural that it makes them lose control of their car then they shouldn't be driving -period.


When you use a period (.) you don't have to say "period"


When you end a sentence with "period" in quotation marks, you still have to use a period inside the quotation marks.

Posted on: 5/8 11:17
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#19
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/7/16 12:20
From JCNJ
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 68
Offline
Quote:

TonyTwoPoops wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Most of the art here is mediocre and it shouldn't be. Yes, I know a few people who said they were startled while driving when they saw the tiger near White Castle. Art should not cause an accident, it should uplifting. The art should be telling the story of Jersey City which is very rich and its people. There are no tigers or zoos in JC.


If a driver gets so startled by a mural that it makes them lose control of their car then they shouldn't be driving -period.


When you use a period (.) you don't have to say "period"

Posted on: 5/8 11:00
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#18
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/4/22 0:43
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 388
Offline
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Art by committee is worse than no art at all - it becomes boring, sanitized nonsense that forces the artist to water down their original vision. Nothing extraordinary gets created by a committee.

This is such a stupid idea and I have a hard time believing a legitimate artist would ever propose this. This means someone like Yvonne, who is offended by everything, will get veto power over someone else's artistic vision. The only murals she'll allow are ones that glorify either the church or parking lots.


i agree that art by a committee, or art with rigid veto control by a group of ignorant cranks, is indeed a very bad idea.

Public, taxpayer-funded art having some oversight by a committee composed mainly of artists, curators, and others with knowledge and experience with art, I think is probably good. The city just started an oversight committee like that for the murals, and I am hoping they’ll bring a variety of perspectives to the table while still allowing for individual artists to express themselves.

Posted on: 5/6 19:25
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#17
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 7:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1777
Offline
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Quote:



There is no David Bowie in Jersey City either. Take it down!



Tigers


Mural mural, Yvonne is distressed
Mural mural, your art is a mess

Posted on: 5/6 18:34
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#16
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/14 23:56
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 677
Offline
Quote:



There is no David Bowie in Jersey City either. Take it down!



Tigers

Posted on: 5/6 18:27
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#15
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 7:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1777
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
There are no tigers or zoos in JC.


There is no David Bowie in Jersey City either. Take it down!

Posted on: 5/6 16:06
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#14
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/11/23 14:38
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 150
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
There are no tigers or zoos in JC.


My soul hurts. Please make this stop.


Posted on: 5/6 15:38
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#13
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/11/30 7:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1777
Offline
Maybe they should call the Waaaaaaahmbulence

Posted on: 5/6 15:14
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#12
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/24 20:34
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 309
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Most of the art here is mediocre and it shouldn't be. Yes, I know a few people who said they were startled while driving when they saw the tiger near White Castle. Art should not cause an accident, it should uplifting. The art should be telling the story of Jersey City which is very rich and its people. There are no tigers or zoos in JC.


Luckily you have no influence on this since everything in this post is complete nonsense.

Posted on: 5/6 15:12
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#11
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/8/25 15:18
From the village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 260
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Most of the art here is mediocre and it shouldn't be. Yes, I know a few people who said they were startled while driving when they saw the tiger near White Castle. Art should not cause an accident, it should uplifting. The art should be telling the story of Jersey City which is very rich and its people. There are no tigers or zoos in JC.


If a driver gets so startled by a mural that it makes them lose control of their car then they shouldn't be driving -period.

Posted on: 5/6 13:58
Print Top


Re: Jersey City Residents Decry Offensive Murals Commissioned by the City
#10
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/6/16 22:16
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4071
Offline
Most of the art here is mediocre and it shouldn't be. Yes, I know a few people who said they were startled while driving when they saw the tiger near White Castle. Art should not cause an accident, it should uplifting. The art should be telling the story of Jersey City which is very rich and its people. There are no tigers or zoos in JC.

Posted on: 5/6 13:51
Print Top




(1) 2 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017