The Holy Virgin Mary - by Chris Ofili's
flip-flop
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_460000/460711.stm
Museums condemn New York mayor
New York's leading museums have warned the city's mayor he is setting a
dangerous precedent in trying to block a controversial art exhibition.
The BBC's David Sillito: "This exhibition is meant to shock"
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
subsidy to the Brooklyn Museum of Art if it opens the show as planned on
Saturday.
The museum is seeking a court order to prevent the removal of the subsidy.
Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary
Mr Giuliani has branded the ''Sensation Exhibition'' of contemporary British
art an attack on Roman Catholicism and says it is ''sick and offensive''.
He is particularly outraged by a portrait of the Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili
which is decorated with elephant dung.
But New York's biggest museums, including the Museum of Modern Art and the
Guggenheim, say his threats will do lasting damage to the city's cultural
reputation.
And the leaders of two dozen cultural institutions in the city have signed a
letter protesting at the funding cut.
The directors of the Brooklyn Museum of Art say the mayor's tactics breach
the First Amendment to the US Constitution - depriving them of their right
to free expression.
And they say the exhibition will open as planned.
Change of heart
The controversy has also drawn in First Lady Hillary Clinton, who is
thinking of running for one of New York's two Senate seats.
Mr Giuliani says the painting is ''blasphemous''
A Democrat, she sides with the museum against Mr Giuliani, a Republican who
is also a Roman Catholic.
Mrs Clinton said that while she would personally boycott the show, the
museum should not be condemned for staging it.
Mr Giuliani hit back, accusing the first lady of supporting the use of
public money "to attack and bash the Catholic religion".
The New York Civil Liberties Union is planning a rally to back the
exhibition, while conservative Republicans are planning one against it.
Deal collapses
The legal action came after compromise talks broke down.
The two sides had been close to a deal whereby Mr Ofili's painting would be
removed and the gallery's public subsidy cut for the duration of the show.
Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail
But Mayor Giuliani said the agreement collapsed when members of the museum
board and staff "got real upset" about the negotiations, and what they saw
as a potential threat to the museum's artistic freedom.
Robert Rubin, the chairman of the museum's Board of Trustees, said on
Tuesday the lawsuit was "being undertaken in the interests of all public
institutions".
The lead counsel representing the city, Michael Hess, countered: "There's
nothing in the constitution that says that taxpayers should pay for an
exhibition of that disgusting type of paintings."
'No need to defend it'
Mr Ofili, who is a churchgoing Catholic and former altar boy, said the
elephant dung was a cultural reference to his African heritage.
He told the UK's Times newspaper: "I don't feel as though I have to defend
it. The people who are attacking this painting are attacking their own
interpretation, not mine."
The picture depicts Mary with dark skin, African features and flowing robes.
The exhibition also contains controversial works from Damien Hirst, Jake and
Dinos Chapman and other young British artists. It includes dead animals and
a sculpture made from frozen blood.
The show drew record crowds when it opened in London two years ago, and it
has also travelled to Berlin.
flip-flop
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
The United States Senate has taken sides in the row over a controversial
exhibition of British art at a New York gallery.
Senators agreed unanimously on Wednesday to a nonbinding measure calling for
the withholding of federal funds from the Brooklyn Museum of Art unless it
cancels the "Sensation" exhibit.
Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
$500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
"People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
The museum is seeking a court order to prevent the removal of the subsidy.
Mr Giuliani has branded the "Sensation" show of contemporary British art an
attack on Roman Catholicism and says it is "sick and offensive".
He is particularly outraged by a portrait of the Virgin Mary by Chris Ofili
which is partly composed of elephant dung.
Chris Ofili's The Holy Virgin Mary
On Wednesday, New York's biggest museums, including the Museum of Modern Art
and the Guggenheim, said his threats will do "lasting damage" to the city's
cultural reputation.
And the leaders of two dozen cultural institutions in the city have signed a
letter protesting at the funding cut.
The directors of the Brooklyn Museum of Art say the mayor's tactics breach
the First Amendment to the US Constitution - depriving them of their right
to free expression.
And they say the exhibition will open as planned.
Rudy vs Hilary
The controversy has also drawn in First Lady Hillary Clinton, who is
thinking of running for one of New York's two Senate seats.
Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
: US Senate joins art row
: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
...
: Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
: $500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
: Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
: "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
: draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
That pretty much sums it up.
The liberal free-speechers can fund the garbage, if they want.
: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
: subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
Can't blame him.
Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
In any case this whole thing is political(to use the liberal viewpoint in
favor of Hillary in a crazy place like NY).
: The museum is seeking a court order to prevent the removal of the subsidy.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
>
>: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
>: subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
>
>
>Can't blame him.
>
>Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
>
But neither can protecting any religion from free speech. The
constitution says flat out that the government can't favour or
disfavour any religion. By pulling their funds out of the museum,
they're showing favour to catholicism, sort of, but in a way, they're
discriminating against catholicism, since the artist is a devout
catholic and was merely using the dung as a representation of his
african heritage, by showing contempt for him, and the way he
practices his catholicism, they're discriminating against a catholic
at the same time favouring the official church.
Henry
>
> flip-flop (saty...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : US Senate joins art row
> : http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
>
> ...
>
> : Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
> : $500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
>
> : Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
> : "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
> : draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
>
> That pretty much sums it up.
Does the Government have the right to decide "what is politically
correct art"?
And set up a Soviet style Censorship Board that only passes "Soviet
Realism" or "American Realism"?
>
> The liberal free-speechers can fund the garbage, if they want.
Do you think that The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United
States of America is the enemy of moderates or conservatives and only
"liberal free-speechers" should defend the Constitution?
Are you a Communist?
> : Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
> : subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
>
> Can't blame him.
>
> Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
Will you help rewrite the Constitution so that Americans may not receive
art funding unless the Board of Censors decides that politically correct
non offensive religious art will be allowed?
Can we hire Censors from the former Soviet Union to do the job?
> In any case this whole thing is political
You bet. Mayor Giuliani out of art ignorance chose to censor the work
that HE did not like.
What if someone else bans art by some Indian or Hindu because HE didn't
like it?
Henry
> >: subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
> >
> >
> >Can't blame him.
> >
> >Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
> >
>
> constitution says flat out that the government can't favour or
> disfavour any religion. By pulling their funds out of the museum,
> they're showing favour to catholicism, sort of, but in a way, they're
> discriminating against catholicism, since the artist is a devout
> catholic and was merely using the dung as a representation of his
> african heritage, by showing contempt for him, and the way he
> practices his catholicism, they're discriminating against a catholic
> at the same time favouring the official church.
Thank you for your post. There was no protest from some people like
Mayor Giuliani when the award winning artist used elephant dung as a
medium for his art. There were some art ignorant people who heard, not
viewed, the art and believed it was offensive. It is not the function of
government to prevent citizens from viewing art. Thank God!
Séimí mac Liam
Henry wrote in message <37F3E1...@mindspring.com>...
>
>Will you help rewrite the Constitution so that Americans may not receive
>art funding unless the Board of Censors decides that politically correct
>non offensive religious art will be allowed?
This is a very convoluted question, so forgive me if I have mis-read it.
There is no need to rewrite the Constitution. I do not fine anything in the
Constitution that grants the Federal Government the authority to fund any
kind of art. And in the 10th Amendment we find that: "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." So
you see the government should not be funding this or any kind of art at all
and therefore to remove funding is a legitimate act, if any or all of the
funds withheld are Federal funds. Certainly those portions of the funding
which come from the Federal government may be withheld.
Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Henry
No one is complaining about Federally funded money or State of New York
Funds. We are talking about the Fist Ammendment to the Constitution
protecting free speech rights in which a Mayor is attempting to muzzle a
British art work.
The Mayor of New York arbitarily censored an art work because HE decided
it was offensive to HIM and threatened to withold funding for The
Brooklyn Museum as punishment.
Séimí mac Liam
Henry wrote in message <37F402...@mindspring.com>...
Who provided funding for it's purchase and/or display?
M. Ranjit Mathews
> > >: Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
> > >: subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
> Thank you for your post. There was no protest from some people like
> Mayor Giuliani when the award winning artist used elephant dung as a
> medium for his art. There were some art ignorant people who heard, not
> viewed, the art and believed it was offensive. It is not the function of
> government to prevent citizens from viewing art. Thank God!
Is it the Government's function to subsidize (what passes for) art ?
Henry
It is NOT the Governments function to censor selected works of art.
In the case of Mayor Giuliani, Mayor of New York, arbitrarily decided to
censor the work of a renowned black British artist because HE did not
like that work. The Mayor threatened to deny funding to the Brooklyn
Museum and punish the art going public. If that isn't blackmail, what
is?
Henry
I don't know. But even if it was purchased with public funds should the
Mayor have dictatorial powers to censor a work of art based on his
personal belief system and threaten to cripple funding to the museum?
Manu
>
> It is NOT the Governments function to censor selected works of art.
> In the case of Mayor Giuliani, Mayor of New York, arbitrarily decided to
> censor the work of a renowned black British artist because HE did not
> like that work. The Mayor threatened to deny funding to the Brooklyn
> Museum and punish the art going public. If that isn't blackmail, what
> is?
I would agree if public funding was not involved. After all,
there still are a few clubs that still excludes blacks and
other minorities. What I don't understand is the argument that
in public schools, students can't be taught about religion (or
insult other religions) whereas a public art gallery can insult
anyone. Seems like these art for arts sake is a sign of the
salman rushdie syndrome.
Séimí mac Liam
Henry wrote in message <37F493...@mindspring.com>...
My point is that the Federal government has no authority under the
constitution to fund art, so if the funding for this exhibit came from the
feds then it should never have gotten those funds in the first place. I am
not conversant with the constitution of the state of New York, but for
argument sake let's say that it also does not give the State the authority
to fund the arts. Then the only funds the museum should get are private,
county and city funds. One would then need to look at the authority for the
City of New York granted probably in it's charter. It may be that there is
no authority for any government funding of the arts, I don't know. But
these may be discretionary funds given or taken away by the chief executive
of the City of New York for whatever purpose he sees fit( Taking into
account his desire to be re-elected) The legal environment of New York City
is arguably the most labyrinthical in the U.S. The people who created it
probably can't tell you whether he has the legal right to withhold funding.
As to your Hypothetical question, Should the Mayor have the right? Depends
on who you ask. Cultural exhibits are a wonderful thing but I prefer to see
them funded from some source other than government because if government
funds them there will always be the danger of government defining what is
acceptable and what isn't whether it be by censorship or by promotion
doesn't matter. One is just the opposite side of the coin from the other.
If people choose what they wish to see and wish others to see by paying
admission or by donating funds then the law of averages will give a true
expression of the culture.
Henry
There was no insult of religion to begin with. The artist, a Black Roman
Catholic did the art work. A art ignorant mayor decided that the artwork
was offensive to HIM is trying to stop others from seeing it.
Who is to decide whether art is good or bad,insulting or not except the
individual adult viewers of art museums? Should it be hired censors like
in the former Soviet Union? Or should a mayor decide what you can see?
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
<ran...@realtime.net> wrote:
>
>Is it the Government's function to subsidize (what passes for) art ?
>
If the goverment wants any kind of culture, yes.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>
>I would agree if public funding was not involved. After all,
>there still are a few clubs that still excludes blacks and
>other minorities.
Sure, the KKK, Aryan Nations, Creators Rights Party...racist
organizations bent on genocide.
>What I don't understand is the argument that
>in public schools, students can't be taught about religion (or
>insult other religions) whereas a public art gallery can insult
>anyone.
But an insult is only the perception of viewers, or in the case of
Mayor Giuliani, a second hand account of the work, not the intent of
the artist, at least in this case. when you take things out of
context, anything can be an insult.
There's a painting in a church in Rome painted by a gay man. It shows
God touching a naked man whose penis is showing!
We should ban it, it's blasphemy, and insulting to christians!
Let's call for a ban of the Sistine Chapel!
ramk...@imap3.asu.edu
: > : http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
: >
: > ...
: >
: > : Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
: > : $500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
: >
: > : Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
: > : "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
: > : draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
: >
: > That pretty much sums it up.
: Does the Government have the right to decide "what is politically
: correct art"?
: And set up a Soviet style Censorship Board that only passes "Soviet
: Realism" or "American Realism"?
: >
: > The liberal free-speechers can fund the garbage, if they want.
: Do you think that The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United
: States of America is the enemy of moderates or conservatives and only
: "liberal free-speechers" should defend the Constitution?
: Are you a Communist?
At best I am an anti-communist.
I don't beleive in state funding for insulting one/any religion. Even
private funding for 'art' that offends gets into trouble and law suits
are the rtecourse as has been vitnessed recently.
: > : Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
: > : subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
: >
: > Can't blame him.
: >
: > Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
: Will you help rewrite the Constitution so that Americans may not receive
: art funding unless the Board of Censors decides that politically correct
: non offensive religious art will be allowed?
Political correctness has become the new disease practised by one and all
interested in public life chosing who they don't want to offend very
careful, except some rustic radical dudes like Jesse Ventura ;-)
: Can we hire Censors from the former Soviet Union to do the job?
:
: > In any case this whole thing is political
: You bet. Mayor Giuliani out of art ignorance chose to censor the work
: that HE did not like.
: What if someone else bans art by some Indian or Hindu because HE didn't
: like it?
If the art is made of dung and buttocks and the intent is to insult... it
doesn't matter if the art is Indian or Hindu... those offend will take
the legal course as it happened recently.. and the artists or their
supporters are made to renege(modify to not offend) their art.
Regards,
Rama.
--
: >(to use the liberal viewpoint in
Manu
>
> There was no insult of religion to begin with. The artist, a Black Roman
> Catholic did the art work. A art ignorant mayor decided that the artwork
> was offensive to HIM is trying to stop others from seeing it.
> Who is to decide whether art is good or bad,insulting or not except the
> individual adult viewers of art museums? Should it be hired censors like
> in the former Soviet Union? Or should a mayor decide what you can see?
There already are laws like that. For example, I believe there
are laws regarding pornography, particularly if it involves
children. How does one decide X is pornography whereas Y is art?
(I've seen nude "art", so clothing is not necessary). Mayor should
be able to decide what people can see in an art gallery funded
using money collected to run the city. If you don't want mayor to
interfere, don't ask for public money.
Manu
>
That depends on whether sistine chapel is funded using public
money. If it is, and if the public doesn't like it, it should
be banned. If it is funded using private money, anything goes.
There are tons of strip clubs in most american cities, and most
of them are quite popular. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind
that more people visit a strip club than a museum. So, it is
quite reasonable to propose that strip clubs really are centers
for "performing arts". So, do you think cities should fund strip
clubs as well?
knick-knack
By DAVID HOLDEN
Times Staff Writer
09/25/99
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/Sep1999/25-e23727.html
An engineer who says he was discriminated against because he is an American
Indian is suing The Boeing Co. for unspecified damages.
A federal jury is scheduled to hear this and other allegations in a trial
beginning here Monday in U.S. District Court.
Mark Barfoot, a member of the Ondaga nation, sued Boeing in 1997.
Barfoot started work for the airplane manufacturer in Huntsville in 1990 as
an engineer. Immediately after he was hired and until he was laid off in
1994, he was subjected to harassment because of his national heritage.
Barfoot was laid off six months later.
The harassment had taken the form of derogatory remarks, which included war
whoops and other demeaning gestures.
His supervisors knew about the harassment and even participated in it.
After he filed the EEO complaint, he says, he was retaliated against. He was
ostracized by managers and co-workers and isolated from normal work
activities. Meanwhile, his work received low performance marks from his
superiors.
Boeing has been involved in other discrimination litigation this year. Some
Huntsville workers joined about 20,000 African Americans, currently or
formerly employed by Boeing, who were eligible to share in a $15 million
settlement of a class-action lawsuit reached with Boeing this year.
Workers in Washington and Philadelphia claimed Boeings hiring and promotion
practices were unfair to African-American employees.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>There are tons of strip clubs in most american cities, and most
>of them are quite popular. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind
>that more people visit a strip club than a museum. So, it is
>quite reasonable to propose that strip clubs really are centers
>for "performing arts". So, do you think cities should fund strip
>clubs as well?
This is a good point. No, I don't, but on the other hand, public
funding wouldn't be needed for a strip bar, because there's bound to
be a clientele before the thing even opens. Whereas, a showing of
paintings is not likely to be so instant in finding it's clientele...
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
>If the art is made of dung and buttocks and the intent is to insult... it
>doesn't matter if the art is Indian or Hindu... those offend will take
>the legal course as it happened recently.. and the artists or their
>supporters are made to renege(modify to not offend) their art.
>
In other words, censorship, and limiting self expression. I personally
would rather be insulted by an art exhibit than attacked by a
frustrated artist whose need to create and express his hatred for
me,due to censorship, has been repressed.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>ayor should
>be able to decide what people can see in an art gallery funded
>using money collected to run the city. If you don't want mayor to
>interfere, don't ask for public money.
Nonsense, the mayor doesn't own the museum, it's a public building,
therefore, if an exhibit is shown that he disapproves of, he can
boycott, protest, and otherwise express his disfavour, but to cut
funding for something that serves the public simply because he's
offended by a single exhibit reeks of fascism.
Manu
>
> therefore, if an exhibit is shown that he disapproves of, he can
The "public" who owns the building elected him to make such
decisions for them. Sort of like the CEO of a company. If CEOs
can make decisions that they deem right for the company, so can
the mayor. If they don't like his decisions, don't elect him next
time. It becomes fascism only if the mayor decides to shut down a
privately owned and funded museum.
Henry
Would it be okay if the mayor decides to fire Indians,Hindus or British
employees just because he is a CEO?
Henry
>
> "Rev. Carroll D. Kraston" wrote:
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I would agree if public funding was not involved. After all,
> > >there still are a few clubs that still excludes blacks and
> > >other minorities.
> >
> > Sure, the KKK, Aryan Nations, Creators Rights Party...racist
> > organizations bent on genocide.
> >
> > >What I don't understand is the argument that
> > >in public schools, students can't be taught about religion (or
> > >insult other religions) whereas a public art gallery can insult
> > >anyone.
> >
> > But an insult is only the perception of viewers, or in the case of
> > Mayor Giuliani, a second hand account of the work, not the intent of
> > the artist, at least in this case. when you take things out of
> > context, anything can be an insult.
> > There's a painting in a church in Rome painted by a gay man. It shows
> > God touching a naked man whose penis is showing!
> > We should ban it, it's blasphemy, and insulting to christians!
> > Let's call for a ban of the Sistine Chapel!
>
> That depends on whether sistine chapel is funded using public
> money. If it is, and if the public doesn't like it, it should
> be banned. If it is funded using private money, anything goes.
>
> of them are quite popular. In fact, I have no doubt in my mind
> that more people visit a strip club than a museum. So, it is
> quite reasonable to propose that strip clubs really are centers
> for "performing arts". So, do you think cities should fund strip
> clubs as well?
Public Libraries use public funds. Do you think Mayor Giuliani can or
should order the removal of books from the libraries because "HE" finds
them "offensive"?
Henry
>
> Henry (her...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> : ramk...@imap3.asu.edu wrote:
> : >
> : > flip-flop (saty...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : > : US Senate joins art row
> : > : http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_461000/461632.stm
> : >
> : > ...
> : >
> : > : Independent Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire said the museum had received
> : > : $500,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts in the last three years.
> : >
> : > : Sliced cow in formaldehyde: But is it art ?
> : > : "People can do what they want to do and they can draw what they want to
> : > : draw," he said, "but the government doesn't have to fund this garbage."
> : >
> : > That pretty much sums it up.
>
> : Does the Government have the right to decide "what is politically
> : correct art"?
> : And set up a Soviet style Censorship Board that only passes "Soviet
> : Realism" or "American Realism"?
>
> : >
> : > The liberal free-speechers can fund the garbage, if they want.
>
> : Do you think that The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United
> : States of America is the enemy of moderates or conservatives and only
> : "liberal free-speechers" should defend the Constitution?
>
> : Are you a Communist?
>
> At best I am an anti-communist.
>
> I don't beleive in state funding for insulting one/any religion.
And who decides what "insulting one/any religion" is? Mayor Giuliani?
A group of hooded censors? The NKVD?
How about American adults under the First Ammendment look at the art
work and decide for themselves? Or are you willing to surrender your own
judgement and let a censor "purify" the art first?
> Even
> private funding for 'art' that offends gets into trouble and law suits
> are the rtecourse as has been vitnessed recently.
>
> : > : Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has threatened to cut off the city's $7.2 million
> : > : subsidy to the museum if it opens the exhibition as planned on Saturday.
> : >
> : > Can't blame him.
> : >
> : > Insulting (any) religion as an art form need not be funded by the state.
>
> : Will you help rewrite the Constitution so that Americans may not receive
> : art funding unless the Board of Censors decides that politically correct
> : non offensive religious art will be allowed?
>
> Political correctness has become the new disease practised by one and all
> interested in public life chosing who they don't want to offend very
> careful, except some rustic radical dudes like Jesse Ventura ;-)
>
> : Can we hire Censors from the former Soviet Union to do the job?
>
> :
> : > In any case this whole thing is political
>
> : You bet. Mayor Giuliani out of art ignorance chose to censor the work
> : that HE did not like.
>
> : What if someone else bans art by some Indian or Hindu because HE didn't
> : like it?
>
> If the art is made of dung and buttocks and the intent is to insult..
And how do you know that the artist Olifi "intended" to insult?
Do you really believe that a devout Catholic would intend to insult the
Virgin Mary?
And if he did should his First Ammendment rights be denied?
>. it
> doesn't matter if the art is Indian or Hindu... those offend will take
> the legal course as it happened recently.. and the artists or their
> supporters are made to renege(modify to not offend) their art.
>
Manu
>
> Public Libraries use public funds. Do you think Mayor Giuliani can or
> should order the removal of books from the libraries because "HE" finds
> them "offensive"?
I'm yet to see "hustler" in a public library. Obviously, someone
is making such decisions. Hustler is far more popular than the
usual junk in public libraries.
Manu
>
> Would it be okay if the mayor decides to fire Indians,Hindus or British
> employees just because he is a CEO?
too good.
SdivaD
revca...@godihatespamhotmail.com (Rev. Carroll D.
Kraston) wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 14:40:41 +0000, Manu
> <ksm...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >I'm yet to see "hustler" in a public library.
> Obviously, someone
> >is making such decisions. Hustler is far more popular
> than the
> >usual junk in public libraries.
> Penthouse, and the like
> in a library before. Not to mention many libraries
> have web stations,
> where you can sign up for like a half hour on the net,
> and unless
> voters called for censorship software, a person can
> jump on there and
> look at whatever filth catches their fancy...
The point is public libraries do not subscribe to adult
magazines like Hustler even though they are popular. This
means some one is making the decision to not subscribe.
And, thats the point Manu is making.
I join this discussion late, but Rudy is right. The artists
are taking too much illegal drugs and getting all these
crazy ideas about art. The artists should not be supported
with public money if the artists are taking illegal drugs
and coming out with crazy weirdo art. many of these artists
need psychological help and definitely need to be admitted
to drug rehap centers.
SdivaD
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
Manu
>
First of all, computers are a recent thing (ie, the web). People
still haven't figured out how to control that, so it really can't
be classified as a feature of the library. An employee in mayors
office can also look at whatever they want.
Secondly, I was just using hustler as an example. It certainly
isn't the limit. How about child pornography? Certainly there are
laws regarding that, even on the web. All I'm saying is that the
totally free society is a myth proponents of fake art wants people
to believe.
SdivaD
revca...@godihatespamhotmail.com (Rev. Carroll D.
Kraston) wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 23:39:58 +1700, SdivaD
> <sdivadN...@india.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >The point is public libraries do not subscribe to
> adult
> >magazines like Hustler even though they are popular.
> This
> >means some one is making the decision to not
> subscribe.
> >And, thats the point Manu is making.
> the library.
> >
> >I join this discussion late, but Rudy is right. The
> artists
> >are taking too much illegal drugs and getting all
> these
> >crazy ideas about art. The artists should not be
> supported
> >with public money if the artists are taking illegal
> drugs
> >and coming out with crazy weirdo art. many of these
> artists
> >need psychological help and definitely need to be
> admitted
> >to drug rehap centers.
> your views...
> You wouldn't know art if it bit your ass. Art is all
> about self
> expression, and that includes "crazy, weirdo, drug
> induced"
> things...just as it does religious things. That may be
> part of your
> problem, you obviously don't even have a basic idea
> what art is, as a
> language, and thus anything that appears "different"
> to you, you are
> quite happy to lie about, including other religions,
> art, etc...
Try displaying your muslim Mohammad screwing a camel or a
little 6 year old girl in public while others are watching,
in a modern art exibition and see what happens to you and
that museam. Or, try portraying your muslim god allah as a
camel in a museam, and see what happens.
Why should people not be ouraged by the insulting portrayal
of their gods, saints or whatever. I would not blame a
catholic getting upset and demanding his/her elected mayor
to not support the museam which displays Mary, mother of
Jesus as a figurine made out of elephant dung.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>First of all, computers are a recent thing (ie, the web). People
>still haven't figured out how to control that, so it really can't
>be classified as a feature of the library. An employee in mayors
>office can also look at whatever they want.
Well, I don't know where you live, but the library here has several
computers for using the net, and the one in Portland Oregon has them
all ove the library, if that's not a "feature", I don't know what is.
>
>Secondly, I was just using hustler as an example. It certainly
>isn't the limit. How about child pornography? Certainly there are
>laws regarding that, even on the web. All I'm saying is that the
>totally free society is a myth proponents of fake art wants people
>to believe.
What are you saying? This appears to go one way, then finishes up with
a statement that's at best subjective.
There's laws about child porn, obviously, because children are harmed
by that.
Nobody's having their lives shattered by a painting of Mary made with
elephant shit...nobody's going to need therapy, nobody's going to die
from seeing it.
I still don't understand your last point at all. Art is art...there's
no such thing as "real" or "fake" art...if anything all art is "fake"
because it's manmade, and another word for "fake" is "artifice"...note
the first 3 letters..ARTifice....I've never seen fake art.
I've seen art that was a forgery of another artist's work, I've seen
very commercial versions of art, I've seen art meant to look fake and
plastic, but there are so many types of art, some of them totally
dependent on the individual artist, that it's impossible to say which
is fake and which is real, just as "good" or "bad" art is entirely
subject to personal taste. In this country, art is protected free
speech, so while there are certain things you can't do, art is one
thing you can do to make your statements....whether you're Robert
Maplethorpe, or one of those guys that paints landscapes..
Manu
>
>
The point is that there still are some subjects (like child
pornography) that is taboo. In other words, there are magazines
like hustler (and perhaps underground magazines about child
pornography) that no public library will touch. In other words,
there are limits to what is covered under first amendment that
is purely subjective.
Manu
>
> computers for using the net, and the one in Portland Oregon has them
> all ove the library, if that's not a "feature", I don't know what is.
My point was that the internet is a recent phenomenon. The web as
we see today came about in 1994 or so. Before that, there were ftp
sites and newsgroups, but they were not easily accessible and therefore
few paid attention. Since the web is so new, the world
is yet to figure out a way to control it (if you sensor sites in
US, one can always go to Europe or Asia and so on).
> What are you saying? This appears to go one way, then finishes up with
> a statement that's at best subjective.
My point is that there is it is purely subjective to decide one
is acceptable and one is not (say child pornography is bad whereas
all other kind of pornography, however disgusting, is ok). The
same applies for art also. In my perspective, the "salman rushdie"
approach for art is just a publicity stunt.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
<sdivadN...@india.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>Try displaying your muslim Mohammad screwing a camel or a
>little 6 year old girl in public while others are watching,
>in a modern art exibition and see what happens to you and
>that museam. Or, try portraying your muslim god allah as a
>camel in a museam, and see what happens.
Well, I own neither Allah nore Muhammed, and I'm not a muslim, so I
don't get why you're refering to meas though I am.
But anyway....
>
>Why should people not be ouraged by the insulting portrayal
>of their gods, saints or whatever.
I'm not saying they shouldn't, but insult is in the mind of the
reciever. It has no basis in fact, and certainly is nothing to base
museum funding on.
>I would not blame a
>catholic getting upset and demanding his/her elected mayor
>to not support the museam which displays Mary, mother of
>Jesus as a figurine made out of elephant dung.
Neither would I, but to my knowledge, that hasn't happened.
The artwork in question is a painting, not a figurine, and the artist
uses african elephant ding in his work, not *just* this painting, but
many others that he's done, to express his heritage. So he painted an
african version of Mary, with dark skin, african features, and
surrounded by "angels" made from pictures of buttocks...it just
happens that he used his signature paint(the dung) for Mary's
skin.Yes, it could be shocking to some people, but some people could
find the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel shocking as well, with Adam's
penis hanging out in plain site...or the famous statue of
David...taking religious figures and exposing their genitals, some
could find that rather blasphemous, but we can't, especially in a
country where free expression is part of the foundation, even
unpopular expression, base policy on whether or not something that is
harmless is "shocking" to such and such group.
Is India going to ban the practices of Aghori just because someone is
shocked to see a man smear himself with grave ashes?
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>"Rev. Carroll D. Kraston" wrote:
>>
>>
But child pornography is illegal, so they wouldn't touch it, just like
they don't kill people in the basement. Hustler isn't illegal. Can you
say with absolute certainty that *NO* library in the U$A has EVER had
a subscription to Hustler? I can't. In fact, I've heard about
libraries that do or did...though I've only seen Playboy and Penthouse
in a library. I can tell you that Penthouse is pretty "naughty"...we
aren't just talking naked women here, we're talking lesbian
poses...though of course, Hustler goes further than that. But
seriously, can you honestly say that no library in America has a
subscription, or ever had the subscription at one time?
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>My point is that there is it is purely subjective to decide one
>is acceptable and one is not (say child pornography is bad whereas
>all other kind of pornography, however disgusting, is ok). The
>same applies for art also. In my perspective, the "salman rushdie"
>approach for art is just a publicity stunt.
Salman Rushdie just wrote a novel with a fictional account of what
Muhammed went through...that's all it was, fiction. The only publicity
that came from The Satanic Verses actually didn't come from him, but
from the Ayathollah. None of us would have even heard of the Satanic
Verses if the Ayathollah didn't publicly denounce it, and call for
Rushdie's head. Then Rushdie spent years in hiding, because there was
a possibility of getting killed. That's not planned publicity, that's
simply religious fanaticism(rather than the authour) generating
publicity for something they hate. The same thing happened with the
Sensation exhibit, I bet if Giuilliani never made such a stir, there
wouldn't be the record number of people flocking to the exhibit. Or
Marilyn Manson, I've seen much more shocking band performances, but
because the religious nuts protested so much, and made up stories
about what happens at Manson shows, more people got into
them...otherwise, they wouldn't be the stars they've
become.....course, in Manson's case, Manson was fully aware that this
would happen, and took advantage of the Christian Right's "If we hate
you, we will advertise you for free" stance on "satanic" things...but
he's theexception to the rule, and it can't be argued that the
Christian Right lied about him...
Manu
>
> Muhammed went through...that's all it was, fiction. The only publicity
> that came from The Satanic Verses actually didn't come from him, but
> from the Ayathollah. None of us would have even heard of the Satanic
> Verses if the Ayathollah didn't publicly denounce it, and call for
> Rushdie's head. Then Rushdie spent years in hiding, because there was
> a possibility of getting killed. That's not planned publicity, that's
> simply religious fanaticism(rather than the authour) generating
I don't know exactly when the satanic blablah was published
(sometime in 1988 I assume), but by that time muslim response to
a novel like that was well known. There were riots in bangalore
(in 87 or 88) when an english translation of a malayalam short story was
published by deccan herald. IMO, he planned this from
the very beginning. The art in question also looks like something
done deliberately to take advantage of people's anger.
Rev. Carroll D. Kraston
wrote:
>I don't know exactly when the satanic blablah was published
>(sometime in 1988 I assume), but by that time muslim response to
>a novel like that was well known. There were riots in bangalore
>(in 87 or 88) when an english translation of a malayalam short story was
>published by deccan herald. IMO, he planned this from
>the very beginning. The art in question also looks like something
>done deliberately to take advantage of people's anger.
And it *could* be, however, there's no real evidence that it *is* the
case, or at least you've not presented any.
How aware was Rushdie of fanatical muslims at that time? Have you read
the book?I haven't, but perhaps he was commenting on another subject
using Islam as an example or metaphor, and at the time of writing,
wasn't aware of how it may be percieved.
Or perhaps he planned for a controversy, in which case, it worked, and
that makes him an effective artist.
As far as the Sensation exhibit goes, I see nothing there (from what
I've read of it, and seen of it in pictures) that seems *that*
shocking. And even if it were designed to shock, or anger, if it does
it's job, it's effective art. Art is SUPPOSED to cause a reaction in
the person who looks/listens/reads/smells/feels it....art that doesn't
cause some sort of reaction, whether positive or negative, is a
failure.