The poster, which was unveiled a month back, is an artist’s take on what he calls the “horrors” of the American lifestyle.
“This art provocation is a form of violence
against the sensitivity of many people,” Norbert Napieraj told The Associated Press.The Prosecutors, however, claim that the poster is art which does not violate the country’s laws against glorifying Nazism.
The poster has been vandalised twice since it was put up but gallery director Maria Czarnecka said that she does not plan to remove it.Czarnecka told The Associated Press, “Art should be provocative and controversial.”
She insists that the poster does not intend to propagate Nazism but instead wants to explore “symbols and how they work.”
I admit that I find this work fairly unimaginative, it reminds me of the sort of thing you see first year art students creating as they rail against the status quo. it’s angry and designed to offend. the good news is that this time it isn’t the nude that’s causing the furor- thank goodness for that! I agree that art should be ‘provocative and controversial’, that is one of the many points of art, but there is a fine line between designing something to be provocative and creating it in order to offend people. The massive swastika does seem to glorify nazism – how can it not? it’s the first thing you see. it’s the primary focus. perhaps adding more symbols to reinforce their key concept may detract from the implied glorification, I don’t know, but it seems a little inflammatory to me.
I’ve always wondered about artwork like this. when the message is so blatant, and the intent is worn on it’s sleeve (frame?) what is there to ponder? what makes you return to the work? what makes it relatable to people?
Jennie's Palette 
I think the image is sphomoric, at best. Yes, we get it. Disney was purported to be a Nazi sympathiser, and the USA is no where as wholesome as their hard working spin doctors would have us believe. Sophisticated audiences don’t need laugh tracks to tell them where the comedic value lies. The same message could be communicated with a lot more subtlety and less confrontation if the artist could get beyond tit and fart jokes and engage in a little bit of sophistication. The real, supposed message, of this image is threatend with being subsumed by the, righteous, indignation and affront, of many viewers.
Have to admit, personaly I aggree with you boath, its a pretty ignoraable bit of art. However additionaly, it worries me that people get so worked up about the evil in simbols that they resort to vile acts themselves, attributing evil to the image itself rather than seeing the symbol as what it is: visual word that has come to represent evil.
Getting angry at a public swastika theese days might be fine if your in germany or poland. Everywhere else its about as deep and profound as just writing the word evil on the wall, getting furious about it just seems a little dumb.
Find myself agreeing with your analysis, especially the final paragraph. I think the apparent desire of the artist to shock and offend completely swamps what should be the main message of the piece. If I was talking with the artist, I’d say: “Yeah, we get your point, but you’ve expressed it in such a crude, clumsy and unsophisticated way that I no longer care for whatever it is you’re saying.” (I bet he types in all-caps.)
LSCUDO Good point. I hadn’t thought about it quite that way. 🙂