Comments

2

The function of art is to make people ask questions and think. Now, these paintings make me think "This artist is probably an asshole, and the gallery owners are also at least of questionable judgement (I'm sure there was plenty of non-racist art they could have showcased this month)", but that's the risk they both take in making an presenting this stuff. I'm not going to buy this guy's work, and this gallery goes to the bottom of my list of places to visit, which may mean it doesn't get visited at all.

3

Whats most frustrating about this is not the artists works, its the fact that this gallery felt this was the best most culturally relevant and community serving artist that they could bring in. This reflects much more on the gallery than it does the artist.

4

More on this eh? Want to get into what the difference is between someone from the left demanding art be censored, burned etc, and some fringe right crank doing the same? Hey they are both offended. What does 'local DJ of color' think about fringe right cranks calling for football players to be fired for kneeling during the national anthem? Sorry, censorship, however offended you are, however righteous your cause, is utterly odious and has no place in an allegedly free society. Full stop. You, Ms. St. Lawrence, being someone who apparently has some background in the arts, should know better.

6

"More on this eh? Want to get into what the difference is between someone from the left demanding art be censored, burned etc, and some fringe right crank doing the same?"

Where is anybody demanding censorship?

7

"Michael Jackson had to say he wasn’t part of the occult for Thriller so why don’t you have to say: 'Whatever I made doesn’t reflect me.' Is white America now so dense that such rules don’t apply to them socially? "

Yes.

If the artist is making a living of selling paintings of racists --to racists, because who else will buy them?-- then he is supporting & promoting racists and racism. Pretty straight forward, imo.

If he wants to make a social comment, then don't sell those art pieces.

There is not much, if any, context in those paintings that indicates these racists are malevolent cultural mutations... they could easily be hung in some nazi's house in a place of honor. There's virtually no commentary within the paintings at all.

The artist's statement --while superficially expressing troubled feelings about the rise of rabid nationalism-- does not address the very obvious neutral and potentially positive representations of these 'faces of evil'. I find his approach and presentation of the art to be jejune at best.

9

@6 Oh come on. This writer's original 'critique', this guy going in there yelling (allegedly) and talking about burning shit? Intimidation, stirring up outrage with statements which seem incredibly ignorant about art history, (really really embarrassingly ignorant for a supposed art critic in fact) you don't have to explicitly demand the authorities come in to shut the exhibition down. They are both pretty clearly calling for censorship.

10

The artist deliberately set out to create controversy and race bait. And then he got it. That's how this whole "freedom of expression" thing works. It goes both ways. The artist also set out to make himself the martyr in this "controversy."

I don't see Mohr asking for censorship. I see him asking the very questions the artists claimed he wanted to provoke - "Why?" Especially "Why NOW?"

The problem is the artist nor the gallery had any real answers beyond "to get a bunch of attention." So they can't complain that the attention is negative.

Mohr asking for the price tags to be removed might strike some as unfair. I'd like to see an argument explaining why anyone should profit off of something designed to piss off victims of white supremacy and to appeal to racist piles of shit?

I mean. Sure. Sell that shit. But then publish the names of who bought it so we can ask them why they think glamorizing racist murderers is cool enough to hang o a wall. Of maybe they buy it and put it on a bonfire. Either way the gallery is showing it's true self.

11

This fascist wuss wants that kind of confrontation - it strokes whatever bigot fantasy he has.

Next time just watch his comes and goes, wait for him to exit into his privilege bubble, and back-alley his ass. He'll forget that he was called names but he will never forget a friendly ass-whoopin.

12

@9 First, nope, that's not what censorship is. Nobody is asking a government body or powerful institution to step in and suppress this artist or this gallery.

Second, if this IS censorship then you saying people can't have these strong reactions to this "art" is also censorship.

You can't have it both ways.

If a group of people storm the gallery and destroy that "art" I will condemn them. But nobody is doing that. Nobody sane is saying they should do that.

This "art" is getting precisely the attention it sought. Mission accomplished.

13

11 - Cue the SLOG interwebs heroes who will say it is wrong to harm fascists. Yes we have probably come to that.

14

@10 I see, so 'censor' and 'censorship' actually have to be verbally stated or else no one is calling for censorship. I guess when right-wing thugs in interwar period France smashed up modern art exhibitions they decided were irreligious, beat up artists, issued death threats, they were not calling for censorship. Technically true I suppose.

And it sure does not sound like this guy was just 'asking questions'. He himself says he was yelling, making a scene, talking about burning shit. Pretty clear what he wanted: the art off the walls. One dude, fine. The 'critic' on the other hand...

15

@12 Come on Ace. I'm familiar with your views. There are few excesses that leftist authoritarians could engage in that you would not find some way to excuse.

19

from the statement from the show:
"The series explore the power of media photos of “bad guys” to provoke our fears, and reflect on the way these images trigger our innate survival skills."

If survival skills are "innate" why would we need an image to "trigger" them?
We don't. The statement rings hollow. The only thing it makes me reflect on is that the artist and gallery don't have the balls/ovaries to actually say something substantial. Sounding good and meaning nothing is what I have come to expect from most art in Seattle... ultimately that's what seems to be going on here. Just another run of the m-ill show contributing to the meaninglessness of art. Kinda makes you wonder who the "bad guys" are--or not

20

@16 Yeah it certainly sounds like what we have here is well beyond 'criticizing'. For one thing it would be rather charitable to call this writer's original screed 'criticizing'. Arguments along the lines of 'what right do you have to put this on the wall', 'what does this gallery think it is doing putting this stuff on the walls', dishonestly insinuating that the guy is a fascist himself even though this is pretty clearly not the case. I do not read that as 'criticizing'. Sorry, nope. And this guy himself admits to yelling, making a scene and talking about burning shit. Sounds like something a bit different than criticizing. I'm pretty cranky about this trend of simplistic PC outrage infiltrating galleries but sure protest and criticism is all well and good. Far too often that's just veneer for intimidation and pressure with a rather clear aim (to the not willfully blind anyway): censorship.

22

"I went into Gallery 110 and saw a portrait of Dylan Roof and it just made me feel like I was going to be in a fight"

Emotive much? Prone to violence much? Don't blame others for your inability to manage your emotions, and inclination to violence in a civilized way.

"When you describe something to somebody, or to a lot of people, and they all generally react the same way that you react it validates it for you."

So that's what you need, validation. Looks like you are looking for something to get work up over, establish the moral high ground--which you have none--, and go into whack mode.

This DJ is an interesting artist, attempting to tell another artist how to express their art, what's acceptable, what's not, and whether or not to sell the work. This DJ is clearly a self-entitled 36 year old. If you don't like the art someone expresses then don't look at it. You're not standing up for yourself. You're not minding your own business. You're making your problem someone else's. Own it, and STFU.

"Look, as far as actions he could take go, I told him that if he took all of these stickers down with the prices, I would literally spend the rest of the day that I have and listen and we could have talked about what this show meant. Motherfucker still said no. All he had to do was take the price stickers down."

Sounds to me like this DJ is the motherfucker. Walking into someone else's artistic realm, screaming at them, telling them what to do, and how to do it. And if they don't do it you won't talk to them. Well, motherfucker, you aren't entitled to an explanation, nor a discussion. You aren't entitled to negotiate the artistic expressions of others around you.

I can only imagine the fool this DJ made their self out to be walking into that gallery screaming, out of control, making demands you are in no position to demand. The best part of this piece is reading this DJ has been put in their place, knocked down a peg or two from their Fascist behavior. The best prescription for dealing with this DJ is ignoring self-entitled crazy.

23

"I guess when right-wing thugs in interwar period France smashed up modern art exhibitions they decided were irreligious, beat up artists, issued death threats, they were not calling for censorship."

God. Is this all you have? A Godwin scratched record of Strawmen on repeat?

Nobody has physically attacked this artiest or gallery. Nobody. The irony here. This "artist" is appealing to actual Nazis. Not your straw man Nazis. Somehow you don't seem super concerned about that. You seem super fuzzy on the concept of free expression. YOU don't get to decide the words people choose or the emotions people have over a piece clearly designed to provoke a strong reaction. That's what free expression is all about.

I realize you live in a universe devoid of historical context but you might've noticed white people still run the show int his country. And we have a president with explicit White Supremacist leanings who draws full support from Nazis and the Klan.

So, if this "artist" did demonstrate an explicit support of Nazis and Klansmen? Then, yup, people of color would have every moral right to deface that work. It would be self defense. but right now nobody is dong any of that. The "assault" of this work is purely the precious words you fist amendment absolutists pretend to be so concerned about.

24

For me it is hard to figure out weather to take this article seriously. If people think that tis art exposition is actually glorifying racism then why call attention to it at all. Since it was mentioned that Mr. Mohr is a regular DJ at Chop Suey I was reminded the a few years ago when Chop Suey had their grand opening that there was some controversy regarding the name Chop Suey. Apparently the term chop suey is considered racist by some; the Stranger reported about a story regarding some drunken miners harassing some Chinese restaurant owners during the California gold rush. I regarded that story to be a publicity stunt hoax to promote the grand opening of Chop Suey; maybe this story is the same for the art gallery. Anyhow, having only seen the one image under the headline it does not appear to me to be promoting or glorifying racism. If it bothers you that much, stay away.

25

Wish there was an edit button.

What I find interesting is the DJ was offended by being assumed to be a millennial. Their behavior was rather infantile, which would make sense why someone would assume they were younger than they actually were.

26

@21 I disagree that it was a 'straightforward negative art review'. The thesis could pretty much be summed up as 'what does this gallery think they are doing putting this stuff on the walls'. The tone was one of lazy ass PC outrage which seemed to evidence a profound ignorance about art history. I'm not even going to say that I disagree that the work may be ham-fisted, I haven't gone in there to look at it, but I have no problem using that term for the 'critique' itself. The writer may have found the artist's explanations inadequate but as she supposedly has some background in the arts she should be aware that usually if an artist can distill their intentions down to a slogan or blurb their art is shit. The world is complex and art that does not reflect this fact is more often than not disposable. Also, the guy does have a fairly lengthy artist statement on the gallery website. Usually that is also available at the gallery.

31

When someone uses an angry voice with a white guy, he's being censored. Fact.

32

@30 Below are some quotes that I see as very clearly having a subtext as questioning the 'right' of the gallery and the artist to be showing the work. Again, I am reading this in the context of this ongoing trend which this is very much a part of: the outrage machine infiltrating galleries and museums, bringing with it pressure tactics/intimidation, all with an aim to shut down expression that offends someone. Read up on the Dana Shutz controversy at the Whitney Biennial for instance, a case where the leader of the mob was most definitely calling for the work to not only be removed but destroyed. Also the ridiculous controversy about the Omer Fast installation in NYC's Chinatown. The 'criticism' of this show was very much in the same vein.

'How did it come to be that 16 portraits representing white supremacists become a part of the Art Walk?'

'this work should not have been shown without taking into consideration the national tensions regarding gun violence, the pain surrounding the continuous murdering of POC and queer individuals, rising racism across the Americas and Europe, and the brazen public stance that white nationalists have taken.'

'When a white man today forces work like this, when one replicates evil-as-art in such a passé way, you lose your ability to claim to be ‘just a painter’ and instead enter the battle for marginalized voices to be heard over the privileged. '

35

@34 The DJ even acknowledged he was angry and ready to fight.

The works are called Angry White Men.

@33 Those weren't critiques. The DJ even acknowledges he made demands.

38

@33 Yeah I am not exactly equating her critique with censorship, explicitly. More like it is part of this trend. A thought experiment:
Let's say sometime art critic for The Stranger had more power than she very likely has and next time this gallery, or even some other small-time gallery, considered showing something that they thought some leftist arbiter of virtue in the local media would find offensive, they thought twice about it and passed. Maybe we should ask her if this would trouble her in the least. I'd say highly improbable. This is how I see her screed, which was mostly about venting outrage rather than actual criticism, relates to censorship.

40

Holy fuck, man. “Thought experiment?” Hahaha. I think you need more familiarity with the concept of “thought.”

Hahaha. You clearly do not participate in the Art scene in this town or any other town for that matter. Have you ever even read art reviews? I mean one of the last paid full time art reviewers on the entire West Coast was Jen Graves. Entire shows were designed to piss her off. Ask Ben Beres for fuck sake.

Getting a reviewer to freak out is the raison d'être for a quarter of the artists out there.

But please go on and tell us the correct reaction to a dude selling images of white supremacists who’ve murdered people. Does it involve a monocle dropping into a martini and a lot of “I say! That’s unsporting!”

God. I’m embarrassed for you right now.

41

@11 - Great idea. Use violence to get your message --whatever it is-- across. Wow, you have yet to cease to amaze me.

@21 - "Sure the talk about burning things is not ok"
Why not? Apparently Mr Mohr spoke about 'burning' in the context of a video installation of burning portraits of racists. That's perfectly artistic, and a worth approach to portraits of racists. I'm not sure that just including references to 'fire' automatically disqualifies.

@23 - "fist amendment absolutists" ... :D Excellent typo. :>) (no sarcasm. I will use that typo in the future. :>)

@28 - well said.

@31, 34 - Ha! right?

@37 - No. Art exists in the context of community. We're affected by it whether we see it or not. If Charles Kraffftttt or wtf his name is goes down and buys one or more of those pieces, that's an important action, and it resonates and affects others. The artist will be profiting from pro-racism. That reflects on the artist, AND the gallery. THAT is worth discussing, commenting, critiquing, and addressing.

Neither have addressed that issue at all.

42

Omg! You guys! A DJ made “demands!”

Its censorship!

No. Worse. It’s just like Hitler and Stalin! No. Wait. More like a hybrid Hitler-Stalin Giant Robot that used satanic eye lasers to only murder upset broflake white dudes. That’s exactly what it’s like.

Do you want that?

No. No you don’t.

So. In conclusion Nazi art is “free expression” BUUUUT having any not-white guy approved response to said Nazi art is “Hitler-Stalin Killer Robot.” I think we can all agree that’s reasonable.

Thankyou for your time. The end.

43

The artist wanted it make a statement. To me, the statement he made is: "I am a white trash white supremacist sympathizer...and I even find them kinda hot!"

44

I can't address the DJ's reaction because I'm still stuck on the art itself. Not whether it's any good or not, artistically speaking, because it's good enough to broadcast loudly, if not clearly, and get a lot of people talking about difficult subjects.

That's not a defense of its righht to exist, however. The art's existence can only be excused when it's viewed as completely shameful. A scandal, even. When looking at it makes you wince and you feel revulsion. This is a feeling more Americans should be feeling today, because this country is facing scandals every day. And if that art makes nice Seattle people having comfortable six-figure lives wake up to the fact that these paintings are of real, shitty members of their race, and that they are only part of the solution when they are not a part of the problem, then I see a reason for this art. The images are miles deeper than their surfaces; they look into the abyss that makes our country awful for too many people. The artist portrays the shame of this nation, and art ain't always pretty, don'tcha know.

Where they could do real harm, as previous commenters have said, is in being sold (or given away) and used as propaganda or dressing for a shrine, a meeting room in some racist's RV barn in Shelton or whatever. That makes me side squarely with those who wish it had never existed (but now that they do exist, we need to use them as teachable moments, not tinder for a bonfire). The works have an association with awfulness, something like the paintings of John Wayne Gacy. As with a Gacy painting, some dark-as-fuck hipster could buy one of these charged images to shock the houseguests, but that kind of shock hits most people too hard. Way too creepy to live with if you're a normal person. We can all be thankful that most people draw the line long before "hang Dylan Roof over the mantlepiece."

Instead of removing the pricetags and taking the art off the market as the DJ insists, the artist could mark them up to $500 million each. Never sold, nor stifled. Still, one just wishes they'd never occurred to anyone to paint in the first place.

45

Obviously 57 years later, we haven't learned shit from West Side Story--or Nazi Germany 80 years later. "Those who don't learn from history are likely to repeat it".

46

The phrasing “Local DJ of Color” is terrible.

47

@42 Uh, yeah I participate in the art community. You? I think all evidence points to the fact that you are a fringe left crank with about as much knowledge of art that I have of gastroenterology.

You know I used to find the concept of left-wing authoritarianism if not quaint, somewhat alien. Mostly a European phenomena. Not sure if I missed something, if it is a millennial thing, a west coast thing (although I have been living out here for over 25 years). I always believed that, in the states, the left, liberals, considered free expression sacrosanct, and yep I am militantly committed to that idea. You Dr. Zzzzzzzzzzzz and many of the other nitwits around there, Social Justice Antifa Ninjas, Jill Stein aficionados, grubby unpleasant hippies, what have you, you are apologists for authoritarianism (the nice kind that emanates from the moral high ground that is). And half-assed ones at that. What offends you ought to be considered a capital offense and yet what offends some racist, homophobe from some godforsaken exurb, well somehow that's not even worthy of consideration. I wonder why that is when you do seem to have so much in common.

Musing about this a short time ago: might have to be of a certain age to remember this but back in the 80's or early 90's when Rudy Giuliani, yes 'Trump's attorney', was mayor of New York, there was a spectacular to-do about his efforts to get a show of YBA artists at the Brooklyn Museum shut down on account of what he saw as affronts to religion in the work of Chris Offili. Perhaps you could regal us, Dr. Jackass (as you are a Dr after all) with a compelling argument as to what the difference is between old Rudy's demagoguery and the conflagration of outrage we encountered with the 'critique' that this post is a follow-up to?

48

@42 Uh, yeah I participate in the art community. You? I think all evidence points to the fact that you are a fringe left crank with about as much knowledge of art that I have of gastroenterology.

You know I used to find the concept of left-wing authoritarianism if not quaint, somewhat alien. Mostly a European phenomena. Not sure if I missed something, if it is a millennial thing, a west coast thing (although I have been living out here for over 25 years). I always believed that, in the states, the left, liberals, considered free expression sacrosanct, and yep I am militantly committed to that idea. You Dr. Zzzzzzzzzzzz and many of the other nitwits around there, Social Justice Antifa Ninjas, Jill Stein aficionados, grubby unpleasant hippies, what have you, you are apologists for authoritarianism (the nice kind that emanates from the moral high ground that is). And half-assed ones at that. What offends you ought to be considered a capital offense and yet what offends some racist, homophobe from some godforsaken exurb, well somehow that's not even worthy of consideration. I wonder why that is when you do seem to have so much in common.

Musing about this a short time ago: might have to be of a certain age to remember this but back in the 80's or early 90's when Rudy Giuliani, yes 'Trump's attorney', was mayor of New York, there was a spectacular to-do about his efforts to get a show of YBA artists at the Brooklyn Museum shut down on account of what he saw as affronts to religion in the work of Chris Offili. Perhaps you could regal us, Dr. Jackass (as you are a Dr after all) with a compelling argument as to what the difference is between old Rudy's demagoguery and the conflagration of outrage we encountered with the 'critique' that this post is a follow-up to?

49

@45, People do learn from history but they go ahead and repeat it anyway; just ask the Rohingya or the Tutu peoples. History at best teaches the perpetrators to destroy any evidence and engage a strong campaign of denial.

50

@49-myself, Correction to prior statement; that should have been Tutsi peoples.

51

@48 hahaha. I only read the first sentence of whatever mentally unbalanced gibberish that was (You’re having such a pant-shitting seizure you posted that nonsense twice.)

And to that sentence: no you don’t. I doubt you’ve even been to something as pedestrian as an art walk let alone kept up on the Don’t-Give-a-Shit’d-ness that is art scene in this town.

The fact you actually think that “art critics” have any power at all? Hahahahaha. After Graves left there AREN'T any full time critics, dumbfuck. Any Seattle artist reading this is laughing at you right now.

Anyway. You showed your ass. You have no idea what you’re talking about. But please slam your paws on a keyboard randomly for another hour or two so we can ignore that shit two. It will be the closest you come to “art.”

52

I also attended Art Walk and just happened to stumble into this show. The artist was present, although I did not speak with him. The paintings are presented as what we used to call ‘transgressive art’, meaning the point of the piece was to present something difficult to observe or take in for the purpose of illustrating another deeper or more esoteric point. Robert Mapplethorpe was the master at this, so was Heather Hughes, and Andres Serrano, some have even called Seattle’s Nazi artist Charles Krafft transgressive. These paintings DID make me feel uneasy, anxious, scared, and threatened. That was the point! The point of this art was to help people understand how disturbing and threatening these people are. It worked, at least for me. I’m white, a minority, and have been threatened by these people. The art brought those feelings back, but I was safe and knew I would not be hurt. I could focus on my feelings, instead of any physical threat. Artistically, I thought it was a good call for the gallery, and provided an example of how transgressive art has been important in changing attitudes and exposing evil. I even thought that artistically, his method of rendering effectively recreated the threatening and mailicious activities.

53

@51 Hmm. Art critics certainly have power IN THE ART WORLD. Some time art critic in The Stranger, probably not so much. One might excuse an ass like Giuliani or Dr. Zaius for expressing the opinion that 'someone was offended (Catholics, local DJ of color) so the work should not be shown'. No excuse for an art critic to be pushing this however.

54

All the white supremacists pretending to be art critics. Lovely.

57

We all know Dylan Roof is one of the most evil pieces of shit ever to live but this artist has every right to do as he pleases. Maybe he did this on purpose hoping for a reaction and it looks like he got what he set out for. Censor these nuts DJ now go play some Lil Pump for the crowd of sheep at Chop Shit.

58

I have followed the "commentaries" link and read the initial artist's statement, the statement on controversy, and the questions and answers. The artist is repulsed by his own paintings - not that uncommon for those artists exploring evil, and this is one in a series by this artist - and fully expects others to feel the same, but recognizes that some fraction of observers of any form of evil will be elated at the representation.

To me, this is thought provoking art, and I am dismayed that some seem to be so repulsed that they ascribe feelings to the artist that he does not profess to have (and his words ring sincere to me) and respond vitriolically. He invites dialogue, not violent confrontation, but perhaps this just reflects the society in which we live today.

59

Well this whole thread ended up in the dustbin. sigh

@55 - Look, I tend towards the Woody Allen school of dealing with ACTUAL Nazis ("get some bricks and baseball bats and go have a good talking with them").

HOWEVER, history teaches us that the street fighting in early Nazi Germany against fascists by anti-fascists largely served to polarize the sides, a situation which the Nazi leadership handily exploited.... much like Twump/ GOP/ KKK/ et.al. exploits American subgroup animosities against each other... to whom's benefit exactly?

SECOND POINT: Please tell me precisely WHO the Nazi is in this situation, since we've gotten all Godwinny at this point. Who? Who are you going to beat up to 'teach a lesson'?
WHO?

The artist is a young, not-very-well-thought-through nitwit, not a Nazi. At least not obviously a Nazi. Maybe he is, but I can't tell from this distance. He seems like a neophyte, at best.
No Nazi (to my knowledge) has stepped up to buy this poorly-executed art.
Mr. Mohr isn't a Nazi.

And the Gallery --well, i can't say-- but is probably not run by Nazis.
Soooo... what's your point exactly?

@58 - Well indeed. We live in a world where white supremacist philosophies are passed around like secret cookies in both the police and military, and where black men could die from having a "light out" on their car. So yes, violent confrontation is a VERY NORMAL occurrence in the society we live in. It is no surprise that someone would have an extremely agitated reaction to the apparent honoring of virulent racists. The artist's bubble which prevented him from considering that aspect is... well, his own.

Hopefully this is a good education for him.

60

@59 - yes, the artist was naive to think this series of paintings would receive the same response as his previous two depicting evil, admits that in his responsive statement, and has taken down the price tags as requested

In hindsight, perhaps these paintings should have been displayed with clear Plexiglas covers, and tarps to catch the mud made available in buckets for observers to hurl - I'm not kidding here; having an outlet for a physical response might be just the ticket to get past that initial feeling of disgust and move into a deeper exploration of how these evil men came into being and exactly what we should do about that, and more fully reflect the artist's proclaimed belief that his subjects are abhorrent.

61

Call me naive, but the title of the exhibit was 'Angry White Men'.

The people depicted, the paintings don't make them look like arian supermen the way the real nazis depicted their white men, instead they look angry, drunk or high and honestly quite stupid.

Perhaps the artist was simply trying to depict these people for who they really are or who he thought they were.

The main protagonist of this article, the DJ, responded in a way I'm thinking most artists would want... with an emotional response.

Who would buy paintings like this, I have no idea. But we all see and hear things we disagree with every god damned day. To me this situation is no different.

62

I happened to be outside 110 when this DJ had his fit. Don't believe everything you read. He asked no questions. He went in, verbally assaulted the artist and then stood outside yelling at art goers. The artist even stepped outside and asked if the DJ would like to talk about it. All he did was yell more nasty things. After a bit a young man was about to enter the gallery and the DJ immediately began yelling at him calling him a racist. I watched this for quite some time. Rather entertaining. The newcomer asked how he was racist, DJ was yelling about the Dylan portrait and asked ol'boy if he knew who that was. Guy said no. DJ educated him about the church shootings. When the guy shrugged, he jumped back on yelling he's a racist. Guy asked again "how am I racist." DJ told him he dresses like a racist. Dude was in black pants and a flannel, if that's what racists look like, Seattle is stocked full. The DJ would interrupt ol'boy every time he went to speak, finally the guy gave up and said "you must be a millennial?" DJ seemed shocked more by that than the art. Whole conversation shifted. Flannel man explained that everytime he attempts to speak the DJ yells over him, not allowing an educated back and fourth. DJ spouted off that he's educated, that he has a masters degree. Flannel man asked "in what?" DJ flipped out even more, said "it doesn't matter my degree," and stormed off. If it didn't matter, why'd you bring it up? Made the art walk worth the trip for me.

64

You know who else demanded offensive art be burned?


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.