Of course, I am doubtful of pure intentions on the part of Austrians in this case.

Hey, also, I noticed my previous comment was the 9,000th one. Is there an award, some gift or something to those that hit such even numbers?

 As a Muslim women I am disgusted by it. Just because you should be able to express your views, it does not mean that you can describe me the way you want to. What if I make a statue of an African American Man with a enormous size of a penis and call it ‘black power and then put it at the center of Time Square?’ Is not that racist or bigotry? Before liberating me, I think the artist should liberate himself from his orientalist views. 

Well, to many Turks, let alone an Austrian, Turkey is a land of contradictions. And, you should know that the particular contradiction depicted by this sculpture has been expressed, in both speech and writing, any which way in Turkey by Turks. It’s almost a cliche of a critique if you like. Actually, I would be surprised if a Turkish painter, say, like Bedri Baykam didn’t have a painting with the same theme.

<blockquote>I wouldn’t be offended or angry about this at all if the naked body had a flattering form</blockquote>

Agreed.  I spent a couple of weeks in Turkey.  Turkish girls/women are, to be blunt, hot  (course I have a weakness for Mediterranean girls in general, but that’s another story!). 

Anyway, Olaf should have spent a bit more time studying his subject in more ummm, uh, "detail".  Yeah, that’s it, detail ;). 

With regards to giving offense, please.  Who the hell is NOT offended these days?  That’s the problem, everybody is offended by nothing and everything.  People really really need to get over themselves.  Don’t people have better things to do with their time and energy?  When you live in a free and liberal society, chances are, somebody somewhere is going to offend you in some way.  Get.Over.It.  Many (Canadian) liberals (and most especially the NDP and "Taliban" Jack) and loony Québécois nationalists offend me every time they open their idiotic mouths.  Boohoo for me. 

It’s a piece of art, crappy art at that, trying to make a political point.  I agree it would have been much better had the author chosen Saudis and/or Iranians as the subject of his art, but I’m betting the choice of Turks has more to do with the fact than in Austria, there are probably far more Turks than there are other Muslim ethnicities.  So Austrians will associate Islam (and unfortunately for most sane Muslims, all its negative PR)  much more with Turks than say Saudis, Algerians or Pakistanis.

<blockquote>Of course, that’s typical for Austrians: they were more convinced Nazis than the Germans were (and Hitler himself was Austrian of course).</blockquote>
In a post where you are aiming to denounce bigotry and stereotype, this is not exactly the most fortunate of statements. As to the statue…meh. My only question is whether it’s meant to be shock-art or actual art. "Art" meant exclusively to offend or outrage annoys me, since my impression is that the "artist" only really wants attention and the accompanying bump in sales. On the other hand there is plenty of real art that produces controversy and I think that’s perfectly valid, and even necessary.

As a statement, it certainly seems valid, if rather unoriginal. The title does incline me to think in terms of "Look at me, I’m controversial!" but on the other hand, I have so much outrage-fatigue that I’m not inclined to give it much attention. Of course, I’m not a Turk. I can see how a Turk, especially a woman, would find it very distasteful, but I’m conflicted about how such situations should be handled. If you protest you give the thing attention and news coverage, which might be the aim of the artist, but if you don’t the thing stands.

I am not going to go on and be argumentative about this. Phin said it for me: people, including Turks, need to get over themselves.

Re: “Nihat is a Turk, but I find his reaction to be very surprising.”

Well, if you could read Turkish and if you checked out the reader comments on the Milliyet article you linked to, you would see what kind of reaction the majority gave, and what kind of social criticism the sculpture represented to the readers.

It is clear that Olaf Metzel does not know Turkish women well, not because of the headscarf he used on his "Turkish delight", but because of the body of his Turkish delight. I claim that we Turkish women have beautiful and well shaped body. Bu I understand him, he just did what he sees on German women (just kidding)

For the main issue, I believe that Metzel does it on purpose to get the reaction of Turkish people. But this time we did not fall for this trick. We just tell our discontent about this statue.
I hope they will be more respectful to our religion and our culture.

The statue that we see over there is just a present version of racism after hitler.

can somebody explain me what the sculpture tells, what s point?

It is really interesting that some Turks found it as critisism. The thing is, there are many people in Turkey who are not happy with who they are.  When europeans humiliate turks, these "many people" show up and tell "yess, you are just like how europeans said". They think accepting everything europeans say makes them one of them, but it doesn’t.
In this example one non-turk person says it is an humiliation, which is very obvious, but a turkish guy says it is not. What is this person do is called adulation, not objectiveness.

I forgot to say that, i am not offended from that sculpture which is a production of a sick mind, cause this is a provocation. The existense reason of this sculpture is to make me angry, but i’m not. But i feel ashamed from that a turkish guy accepted it as a critisism. If these kind of people called turk, than i don’t want to be, if i am turk, they should not. But every other nation know us as turks, when these people adulate, i am called weak and characterless. I expect an apology here for the name of the others who think like me.

"Bekir: I think that even Turks are allowed to disagree on this subject. No? Passionately disagree even - notice how this Turkish person disagreed with me  - but there’s no need for anyone to apologize for having an opinion."
It’s not about agreeing with me, of course people can have different ideas. This is not what i am talking about. Let me explain it this way. That person told what he said as a "turkish person". When someone read it, they will think that Turks are a bunch of characterless people. I shouldn’t be called like that because of that person’s idea. Accept it or not, people generelize. When you go to  an airport they look at you and think about you "i can buy him for a few dollars". I guess you know something about freedom, if what does he do effect on me, than he has a responsibility on me. Is that clear?

Ha ha!
Mr. Galien maybe i opened that box but we share what we see.
Now, if there can be any ideas very differently and after i told my idea, why don’t you respect it then? This is my point of view. Why are you judging me because of what i said?

I guess this is how it works.

What is the difference between what did sculptor and Nihat do?
Why sculptor need to apology to tell his idea than if there is freedom of speech?
In my opininon, throwing dirt is some action, but accepting the dirt is a crime. That’s why i am offended from That person but not the sculptor.

So, when people reacting, nothing makes what they say is wrong. Is this what you say? Anyway, i guess i made my opinion clear.

I have tomatos in my hand rigth now, waiting for me to turn them something delicious. It’s already dinner time.
You should have yours,
Bon appetit!
Regards..

as a turkish woman and artist i do NOT find this work insulting at all. and i am disgusted by the fact that the sculpture was attacked and destroyed.
it was a sculpture, both technically and artistically beautiful, and the idea behind it, was hardly insulting to anyone. come on, a naked woman with a headscarf! that is what people have been discussing in turkey all the time for the last couple years! women have been reduced to symbols-if you are wearing a headscarf you are seen as nothing but the supporter of a certain political fraction, and if you are not wearing it, then you are portrayed as a member of the opposing fraction. the discussion of wearing a head cover or not has reduced the turkish women to nothing more than a sexual and political object and every turkish woman has to raise her voice against it. and if you ask me, this sculpture couldve contributed to that cause.
nevertheless people are becoming more and more fanatical and religious and nationalistic dogma is blinding them to such an extent that they do not wish to hear or see anything that contradicts them.
too bad we cant take criticism without getting "insulted" or "offended", isnt it a nice way to avoid any discussion though thanks to the newly implemented tolerance policies: "I am insulted and that is the end of discussion!!"

it is exactly this attitude, presented on the notes above (except for those of nihat) led the way to its destruction. you guys are all talking of bigotry, i dont see that in that sculpture, it is the depiction of a human body. yet in all your words i do sense the "bigotry" you are talking about: "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own."
an artwork is a solid execution of an intellect, an idea. art is in itself harmless. it reflects the inner thoughts and feelings of its maker. but in the end it is the viewer that incorporates his/her own feelings into it and therefore "labels", "ostracize" or "idolize" it.
in this case it is destroyed.
should one be insulted by an artwork, he/she should question his own mind first.
and you are talking about how all the turks you know are insulted. well i do not know how many you know, but from where i came were living about 70 million of them. of course in the course of my 29 years of life on this planet i managed to personally meet only a limited number of these.
so if we had a rope-pulling contest, my side would win. ok?
other than this, i do not see how the question of"how many turks you know" and "how many of them are insulted" fits into this topic.

the question is not how many of your friends are insulted
it is the question of whether they should be insulted.

but it still is not a matter of how many people do think it is insulting. numbers and statistics never provide a good basis for any argument.
artists have always criticized and questioned the society and its values, and they always will. people have always tried to shut them up and well, look at history, they never could.
i recommend everyone to check the art galleries in turkey and see how harshly similar situations are being criticized there, by turkish artists themselves. i wonder how many of the turks that have been insulted by a bronze sculpture, have seen their own artists’ works in contemporary exhibitions. how many of them can cite names of 10 contemporary turkish artists? same goes for the immigrant turks in europe.
don’t you think that german or austrian artists never criticized themselves either? i seriously wonder how many exhibitions does this "insulted" crowd see per month, both by native and international artists? menheer v/d Galien, you have a dutch-sounding surname i presume you do know how any sort of dogma is often easily criticized and discussed over in holland, openly and neither sides getting offended by it.
anyways, thats all from me, as i dont see a good argument going around, everything has concentrated on what a horrible offending sculpture it is.
these are my thoughts as a turkish artist living in europe, as a woman on this planet who is sick of politicians and religious institutions all over the world, that think they have a right to shape women-maybe they think it is easier to control them this way?

Eyvallah.

There is a luxury in self-reproach. When we blame ourselves, we feel noone else has a right to blame us -Oscar Wilde

"but it still is not a matter of how many people do think it is insulting. numbers and statistics never provide a good basis for any argument."

So, you are not insulted, and that is the end of the discussion. is this sounds familiar?

What most of the Turkish intellectuals (for 26 years of my life on earth, i had chance to meet lots) offended not because of the sculpture’s form. It was "what it was all about".
We need some definitons here. Let’s start with the art. Tolstoy identified art as a use of indirect means to communicate from one person to another (these are not my words; so we don’t need to ask any other individual’s idea. As one of the greatest artists of all time said that of course). So, when you give life to something artistic, it means you are trying to reach someone, in this example it is a nation (is this an assumption or sculptor was really did it for herself (himself)? Let’s ask ourselves, isn’t there any other topics to play with. I think there are billions of, so, find out the real intension. The question is, why is an Austrian sculptor bothered with the Turkish problems.). Let’s see what did the sculptor said to the Turkish nation. "You wear a headscarf, you tell that you are loyal to your culture (i’m sure (s)he thinks that it’s in Turkish culture, which is not) and believings, but the fact is, you are just selling yourselves. You are a bunch of fakers and cheaters." Let’s see what does the Turkish artist read from the sculpture: "and the idea behind it, was hardly insulting to anyone. come on, a naked woman with a headscarf!"
Is there any metaphors here? I don’t think so. Any looking deeper?

Let’s look at the definiton of dogma. Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.
Hmm, we should really think about it.

The alternative definition of art could be something like this, according to writings above: "art is a communication and expression way of human mind which can not be bounded by anything, even it bounds anything other, inspite of the results". Does it sounds dogmatic, or it’s just me?

I think i read something like "dogma is blinding them", above.
*******************
Once Russell said, human beings doesn’t have the luxury to live by themselves. They are all connected and responsable from eachother. A writer can not write a book with the intension of not showing to the others.
We are responsable from what we do, according to Russell, even to eachother. You can’t expect an action without a reaction. This is the third principle of Newton. This is the nature. We are not living in spiritual, disinfected, isolated lanterns. Trying to make people to leave thier beliefs and egos is not a civilized action. Trying to humiliate them is even worst.
Ignoring the others reaction is a behaviour which elitists do, as a result of believing having the best idea.
These people reminds me 19th centuries Jon Turks. What they best do is talking, talking but not getting any results. When you touch them, they talk like forever, but say nothing.

Just like can.