Monday, February 1, 2010

Tiger Woods Spoof-Gone To Far???

This weeks blog involves and interesting article about art and free speech. I would like you to answer at least 3 of these questions based on the following link; FDA Investigates Fake 'Unfaithful' Tiger Woods Gatorade - Slashfood

Now that you have read the article and watched the video on the Gatorade incedent respond to at least 3 of these questions:
Do you think that the "artist" should be charged with any crime?
Do you think that this is a form of free speech?
Do you think that any form of art is ok as long as no one is injured?
Do you think that this would qualify as art?
Do you think that this is more of a publicity stunt for the artist to make a name for himself?
Do you think that Gatorade should have dropped Tiger from their advertising?
Do you think there was a better way to have presented this art?

34 comments:

  1. Hello. I think it is free speech to do that but to sell the bottles without Gatorade's written consent should be illegal. That is the only thing wrong with it. If someone made their own bottle and own label then nothing would be wrong. The art part of the situation is really creative. I would like to have a bottle like that. I also think the nation has over reacted with the tiger situation. He messed up, no body is perfect. Life Goes On.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i think it is free to speech. it is a good way to present their art. they should not drop their advertising of tiger

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well hello there, I do not believe that the artist should be charged with a crime. What he did was innocent and he had no intentions of hurting anyone. Yes this is a form of free speech because he is getting out what he wanted to say. This is most def not a publicity stunt because he wanted no recognition and put someone elses e-mail address.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No he should not be charged with any crime. Any for of art should be ok since no one was injured. Yes it should count as art since he made the picture.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it is free speech for the artist person, but i think tiger has has enough trouble from people and this is just another guy that never wants anyone to forget this. I guess it qualifies as art but they could have been more creative with the design. I also think it was just a publicity stunt for the artist to get his name out eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey. I don't think that the artist should be charged with any crime. There is nothing wrong with expressing a though or idea as long as no one was hurt. I think that people are over reacting.
    Yes. I do think that art is a form of free of speech. It's a way to express how you feel about something.
    I do think that this would qualify as a form of art. It was a simple design to make a point.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think that it is freedom of speech but they can't use gatorade products, or logo because that is copyright infringement. I guess it could be considered art but they way they expressed how they obviously feel is wrong and could have been done differently. i think art is ok if nobody is injured but if you do something like that its hard not to injur anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  8. i think he shouldnt be charged with a crime because he created his own labvel and he didn't steal anyone elses idea.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that it is free of speech. But I don't think that they should be able to use gatorade logos becasue it's like copying. The fell of it is wrong, but they can consider it art if they feel. The artist shouldn't be charged with any crime becasue he wasn't doing anything to hurt anybody. That's just how he expresses himself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. i agree with derek about the bottle but he shouldnt have sold them even thou we all know he telling the truth about tiger woods. but it still is illegal to sell someone else product with there concent

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think he had every right to voice his opinion, but I don't think it was right of him to plant the bottles in stores. Of course it will raise questions, and with the way the world is today, people everywhere will jump to one conclusion, and only one. He must be a terrorist. Planting poisond gatorade bottles to kill inocent people everywhere! I honestly doubt that was his master plan, I think he's completly harmless, he just wanted to make a statment. But hopefully next time he won't be so dumb about it! Haha. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ha i think its funny.
    I dont think the artists should be charged of a crime. unless the gatorade bottles sold a lot and made a lot of money. then the artist should have to pay some fine or something.
    Yes gatorade should have dropped Tiger. He was suppose to be a spokes model and his behavior with those other women that weren't his wife was uncalled for.
    Yes, i do believe that its a form of free speech. He is only expressing his opinion. I could make tee shirts like that and sell them and it would be considered my fredom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wish i would have thought of that =)
    I do not think that he should be charged with any crime because it is funny and it is easy to fix. I dont think that any form of art is ok...some things that people call art is just an excuse to do something stupid. I think it is mostly a publisity stunt but if i would do it it would just be for a laugh or two...

    ReplyDelete
  14. I highly doubt that this guy did it to get publicty he did it in a very quiet manner. This is a form of free speech he should have expected a bunch of crap to be made about him he certainly wasn't just gonna get away with it! Gatorade should drop him from their advertising kids look up to these athletes and he is not a good influence for anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I thnink this is a form of free speech because people can write or say anything they want. I think is would qualify as art because it was creative, and the artist was just doing it to get his name out there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The artist should not be convictied of this crime. Tiger did what he did and they are only speaking out the truth.
    Gatorade should not quit advertise Tiger because he made a mistake.
    This is free form of speech. Tiger did what he did and they artist have a right to speak out.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I believe it should be art. Its stupid for the guy to get into trouble. Ridiculous. But then again, they shouldnt be including anyone specific.

    ReplyDelete
  18. i think that absolutely any form of art should be accepted as long as no one is harmed. just as this situation. as long as the actual gatorade was not tampered with, who cares if he changed the label. i think its funny.

    i think that it is very possible that the artist only did this to make a name for himself. if that is what he was going for, he is getting it.

    i dont know exactly how i feel about if gatorade should stop the tiger advertising. in some ways i think yes but in others i think no. i think that everyone is talking about tiger because they didnt necessarily accept it, but truthfully i think that cheating happens A LOT more than anyone really thinks. it is up to gatorade whether they want to stop using him in their advertisements, but i wouldnt stop. i dont think his personal life should come in any contact with his business life and its no ones problem but him and his wife.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is dylan, I thought it was alright. I Would agree with everything maggie said.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, this is one creative form of art I would say. Yes, it could be qualified as art, just in a different form. It is odd though where they decided to put it.

    No, the artist shouldn't be charged for the crime, as long as they didn't do anything wrong. They just changed a label, not like the whole bottle of gardtorade. I think it would be okay in some situations.

    I think any form of art is okay if no one is hurt. But as long as it is appropriate. It shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings and such. And also it shouldn't offend a company or anything.

    I also agree a lot with what Maggie is saying about the whole tiger woods advertizing....Just like how everyone elses job is seperate from their real life.

    ReplyDelete
  21. honistly i think this is hilarious. its very creative of the artist and since he's planning more stunts like this im eager to see wat he comes up with next. he shudnt be charged with any crime as long as he didnt mess with the actual drink. and it still said gatorade on it so they were still recognizeable.

    everyone has blown the whole tiger thing out of proportion and i think he just needs to lay low for a while but gatorade can still use him it just wudnt b a good idea to have him in a comercial any time soon. haha

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think this is awesome, and he shouldn't be charged. It's great art because he exemplified what was on his mind. As long as the liquid inside of the bottles was still Gatorade then he should not get into trouble. I think he must have bought them sometime unless he was an employee. Either way I think this art is great. I don't think it was a publicity stunt either because he is remaining anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Do you think that the "artist" should be charged with any crime?
    I think if he is caught that by law the person should be punished, because they could have accidentally made the gatorade harmful.

    Do you think that any form of art is ok as long as no one is injured?
    Yes, because art to some people is there only self expression.

    Do you think that Gatorade should have dropped Tiger from their advertising?
    No, because all the stuff that has happened was his personel life, which the gatorade company doesn't even need to know about.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi, this is Bo Bae!
    Here's my answers.




    1. Do you think that the "artist" should be charged with any crime?
    Yes. The artist should be charged with crime cause in fact he uses the product as his art work but that can affect other people in bad ways. And the company has disadvantage of that.
    2. Do you think that any form of art is ok as long as no one is injured?
    No, i think it doesn't matter of physical injury. When the art hurts someone's reputation or something that's important in this society, then it should be punished or banned.
    3. Do you think that Gatorade should have dropped Tiger from their advertising?
    I'm not so sure about that. If Tiger intended to show his new form of Gatorade to the company then he should be dropped out from advertising. I guess the company doesn't want to use someone who makes fun of the product of the company.

    4.Do you think there was a better way to have presented this art?
    I think they should create different form of Gatorade not like same one as original. They should have used creative design for their work. Not complete Gatorade.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think that the artist should be charged because it is tampering with a food product. If he or she was to sell the bottles on their own instead of planting them in grocercy stores.

    A better way to display his art would be in a gallery or online. Otherwise, what he was doing is tampering with a food product, which is illegal.

    I don't think Gatorade should drop Tiger from their label because his personal exploits do not take away from his golf prowess.

    ReplyDelete
  26. He should be charged, only because its tampering with a food product. I dont think its a free form of speech, he should do other works that are more productive and not illegal. I think its oky has long has no one is injured. I dont think it qualifies as art, go draw a pic or something. Yes it is, he deff used this to get his name out. ItS genius, i mean were having a blog about him in earlham.lol. he deff got his name out.
    Tiger should be dropped and he will be. He's a coward and has hidden from the public since his incident.
    Yes present this art online or in a gallery. Dont tamper with a food product.
    By, John G

    ReplyDelete
  27. HEYY!
    Yes I think that this could qualify as art becasue they are expressing their feelings and that was you do in art you express your feelings in the art pieces that you do.

    Yes I think it is a form of art in no one gets injured or not.. but the idea is that it is tampering with drinks and their could be bacteria on the bottles and it could get people sick..

    I don't think should have dropped because that was his personal life that had nothing to do with his career.

    ReplyDelete
  28. i definately think that he should be charged. isn't it a criminal offense? -this is tacky. you are all intitled to your opinion, but that was just rude.It just make him look shallow and stupid.and ignorant.

    No, i don't think that it qualifies as art, because all you're doing is humiliating people. Obviously Tigar did wrong, but that was just over the top. It's rather pathetic..All he is doing is being a jerk. that's not art. he is trying to be funny.

    I absolutely think it was a publicity stunt. He wants attention, and he knew that this was a prime oppertunity because everyone is dissing tigar.He got the attention he wanted, didn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't think he should be charged with any crime. On the other hand if he had tampered with the product then I think he should.

    I think it is a form of free speech. The magazines post Tigers Life in several articles, and i don't see why this is any worse. It's also ironic that Tiger is the spokes person for gatorade.

    I do believe that any form of art is okay as long as no one is injured. Although I'm sure that this hurt tiger woods emotionally.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't think that anyone should have done that, but no one should be charged. Art-wise, I think it's kinda cool. Someone was expressing their opinions about it. I dont think Tiger should be dropped unless he wants out. What he did is his own business, and everyone else should stay out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I dont think that they should be charged. If there was alot of money that was decreased because of this i think that the person should get some kind of charge. I dont really think that they should be charged for any kind of crime unless someone is injured from what they did. but i also think that they should be charged for changing a product that is already made.

    I think this is really creative and it could be counted as art. And they made art in their own way,and that this person can show his art in his own way.

    I think that this is free speech. I think that this person can do this to show how he feels about tiger woods. Everyone has a diffrent way to show how they feel about something. So I think that he has the right to do what he did.

    ReplyDelete
  32. i think that this is a freedom of speech and it should be allowed. he shouldnt be charged with any charges because it wasnt really a crime. i think that it was a form of art. it wasnt hurting anyone and it was funny and therefore i think it should be ok and allowed. i dont think there should be any charges aginst him.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yes it is a form of freedom of speech. No one got hurt, maybe Tiger but that's his own fault. That's the price you pay for being a famous person, people will talk about you and make jokes.
    Personally i think it is hilarious, it was the best way you could make that a point, you couldnt have done it on anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think it was a great way for that guy to express his feelings on Tiger's affairs. I don't see any reason for them to charge him for his form of art mainly because no one was hurt from it. There probably was a better way for him to show what he thought but it wouldn't have been nearly as funny.

    ReplyDelete