I think that women everywhere have the right to kick this douche in the, um, shins.
4 Likes
I am all for showing identifiable individuals without their permission in public, when it is the police, at least. But in general, we live in the panopticon. If you carry a cell phone, there is no privacy.
Interesting how the only pic I could find of this… prime specimen… happens to be dartboard-ready. Yes. That is him, going for that certain air of Bohemian.
2 Likes
There’s a film in here somewhere… various photos of this hack on screen with a subtitle: He’s No Ai Weiwei
2 Likes
This is a fascinating concept. What if society took people and instead of looking at them as individuals, tried reducing them to a single ranking, one both based on superficial appearance and assigned arbitrarily by some entitled individual? Or say not everyone, but just one particular subgroup, as a way of dehumanizing them? Can you imagine?
It’s a tremendously creative premise, assuming that isn’t just the normal lived experience of any significant portion of the population, in which case it would just be some bigoted jackass who somehow thinks his least significant thoughts are more important than other people.
13 Likes
I don’t know what Chinese law has to say on the matter but there’s definitely a huge ethical difference between “filming people in public without their permission” and “publicly shaming random people over their appearance as part of a public exhibition.”
6 Likes
Interestingly, the filmmaker was ranked ugliest man on campus by all 5000 women!
5 Likes
Isn’t this exactly how Facebook started out?
4 Likes
Am I supposed to rate that picture?
2 Likes
I agree. The installation is apparently thought provoking. In terms of being dull and weak, there are many equal works out there. But his attempt at justification couldn’t be any more revealing.
1 Like
Of course not.
Are you seriously having trouble interpreting it?
6 Likes
We don’t need some abstract theory of degenerate art here. It’s wrong to harm others, whether it’s art or not.
1 Like
Or an ‘artist’ historically speaking
“Not an asshole” is not historically known as a common denominator for artists.
People often discuss how much you should separate the art from the artist. When the art is literally nothing but them showing off what a scumbag they are, though, there’s not exactly a reason to extend much credit.
8 Likes
Agreed.
1 Like
Song also said he had intentionally excluded the photo of the “No.1 (top beautiful) woman” from the video. Instead of sharing the photo with the public, “I kept it for my own,” he told BIE.
7 Likes
Yet another proven dirt-bag that everyone now knows about.
2 Likes
5 Likes
The article gives a clearer explanation of the legal issues that were misreported as copyright infringement:
By secretly taking photos of the students, Song also violated their privacy and portrait rights, some users criticized.
Legal expert Zhang Bo believes that Song’s behavior constituted a tort stipulated by China’s Civil Code. The involved female students “can ask Song for a civil compensation, or require him to remove the photos and make an apology,” Zhang told the Global Times on Friday.
The Civil Code regulates that no organization or individual may infringe upon any other person’s right to portrait by means including vilifying and defacing, Zhang pointed out.
The Civil Code also makes clear that without the consent of a person entitled to portrait, the holder of rights to portrait works shall not use or make public the portrait of such person by means of publication, reproduction, distribution, lease, exhibition, etc, Zhang added.
2 Likes
