Comments on: Intifada by Carlos No

By: Deborah

Deborah — Wed, 05 May 2010 23:23:54 +0000

Artists are not required to be politicians, but the fact that Israel is occupying the Golan Heights and the Palestinian Territories and not the other way around is the power relationship that some of the discussion of the piece obscures. One Palestinian put it to me nicely when he said “our problem is that we need boundaries, we need to be able to defend ourselves, to keep the Israeli army from cleansing us. So the issue of boundary is not just one of “different” viewpoints but of one side, Israel, expanding while the other, Palestine, is shrinking. Each side that is divided by the wall is not interchangable as the piece suggests. It’s often a good idea even if you are going to recontextualize something to first understand what it is you want to reframe it. Otherwise, it can come off as facile.

By: yes

yes — Tue, 04 May 2010 04:59:32 +0000

Yes! the Wall! its all about the Wall..concrete is so boring..but these is something new..more warm..

By: waleed Gamal Lotfy

waleed Gamal Lotfy — Mon, 03 May 2010 10:07:47 +0000

2nd: they are not playing games at all, this is an unbalanced religious war of existence. it shouldn’t be a ping pong table at all!!.

this is for now. but for art criticism: this is an amazing piece.

i really like.

By: waleed Gamal Lotfy

waleed Gamal Lotfy — Mon, 03 May 2010 09:58:38 +0000

i consider this work a deep CONCEPTUAL expression of what is happening in Palestine.
but obviously it lacks some important values related to the truth:
1st: the work demonstrates some kind of equality in the power and chances between the two parties PLAYING THE GAME!!, but actually there is no mean of comparison at all when it comes to comparing nuclear weapons used against civilians with stones used to defend themselves against the most professional well equipped unmerciful soldier on the globe!.

By: J

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:24:32 +0000

So many words to explain this work. But it doesn’t make it better.