Brooklyn Art Museum and the First Amendment
Luk
> >So - no gov't sponsored event (like a school for example) can display
> >anything supporting any religion (like the ten commandments for
> >example), but a gov't sponsored event (like a museum for example) can
> >display items which denigrate a religion (like a picture of the virgin
> >mary smeared with elephant dung).
Lord Sir countered:
> It is not smeared with elephant dung.
Mark went on:
> >How do you liberals live with yourselves and your contradictions?
Lord Sir, scornfully:
> How do you jerks live with your lies ?
Dear Lord Sir:
Where did I fall down? How was it that I failed?
I tried, really tried. - made every reasonable effort
but what happened? After being so careful so very
careful. It was in the news it was on the talk shows.
It was in the papers.
One said dotted. One said stained. How was I
to know wh...
It isn't my fault. You *do* see that..
What can I do to..........
What ?
?
Luk
Col Klink
> So - no gov't sponsored event (like a school for example) can display
> anything supporting any religion (like the ten commandments for
> example), but a gov't sponsored event (like a museum for example) can
> display items which denigrate a religion (like a picture of the virgin
> mary smeared with elephant dung).
>
I dont think all the liberals are wild about this "art" issue here, a
suprising number of them express some shame over it. This issue serves
to demonstrate the logical conclusion for some of their beliefs, just as
assault weapon possession is one of the undesirable things about
conservative beliefs.
If we would get a hold of the roles government is supposed to fill, and
more importantly, the roles it is NOT supposed to fill, we would have a
better situation overall. I am afraid that the government has moved so
away from its legitimate job that it is far too late to stuff it back in
its cage.
Unfortunately, the government has created so many financial and social
addicts (not to mention contributing to cigarette addictions), that few
could do without the biggest "dealer" that history has ever seen.
Col Klink
--
*************************************************************************
** "It is a capital error to theorize before one has all the facts..."
**
** Arthur Conan Doyle
**
*************************************************************************
Luk
Dog3 wrote:
> Luk, I have a question for you. If we pulled all of these
> funds, where would you like to see them distributed ?
EASY!
Back where they came from.
(the taxpayers)
But there is one thing. Somebody is going to have to
rebuild the military. During the current administration
Defense expenditures have dwindled to practically
nothing. But government spending on social programs
has soared. The rise in social spending has been masked
by the drop in defense spending (and by two large
tax increases).
In the past ten years, the Federal debt has doubled. The
increase would be higher if the military had been kept up.
Luk
Every9man
From: Mark Denman <mde...@pacbell.net>
So - no gov't sponsored event (like a school for example) can display
anything supporting any religion (like the ten commandments for
example), but a gov't sponsored event (like a museum for example) can
display items which denigrate a religion (like a picture of the virgin
mary smeared with elephant dung).
How do you liberals live with yourselves and your contradictions?
--
Mark Denman ~W.W.J.J.D.?~ <"what would judge judy do?">
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the 30's, Picasso drew many depictions of the Crucifixion that some might
think are blasphemous.
If the Brooklyn Museum were to put those drawings on display, do you think
public funding for the museum would be at risk?
IOW, do you think we would be having this First Amendment right discussion?
Barbara
Luk
> >What can I do to..........
> Well, you can keep quiet regarding things you really don't know anything about
> or actually learn more completely about them and then offer your opinions.
>
> LS
I promise this time I have learned my lesson
once and for all and it will never ever happen again.
Luk
Luk
> Luk, I have a question for you. If we pulled all of these funds, where
> would you like to see them distributed ?
>
> Michael
I answered, but want to add something.
In an ideal world, the total tax rate would be somewhere under
five percent I guess. Government would take care of roads,
defense, a first rate public school system and other basic
essentials. In such an ideal world I doubt you'd see many
conservatives objecting to a portion of that money going to
art museums or even to artists, providing they were serious
about their craft.
But - the total tax rate is more like 50 percent. I hear in
New York 60 percent is closer to the truth. New York
is where the Brooklyn Museum is.
That being the case, to see tax money being wasted on
art exhibits that feature excrement and desecrate
Religious symbols is not a happy thing. I'm not Catholic
and the Virgin Mary as a symbol isn't my thing. But it
is important to Catholics. Good art matters to me and
when I see what often passes for art now, I can understand
how Catholics must feel.
Luk
Lo52964
asks
>Well, you can keep quiet regarding things you really don't know anything
>about
>or actually learn more completely about them and then offer your opinions.
>
>LS
I sort of agree with you, but he was close enough, I saw 60 Minutes, and
anyway what fun would that be.
You and I might be the only two left on the news group.
" Don't talk to me about justice, it is bad enough to be mixed up with the
law."
LO5 2964
ChevreTroi
writes:
>What percent of taxes is spent on art ?
>
>LS
I don't know about all arts funding together, but the NEA budget is equivalent
to five inches of a B-1 bomber.
What I see in this continuing debate is not the amount of money really, it's
the perceived elitism, and of course the age-old debate about the government's
role in supporting arts. The funny thing is that this debate only gets heated
when talking of the visual arts. I rarely hear the conservative "Kulturkampf"
quibble about funding of music, dance, theatre, poetry or folk arts...all of
which they do fund. Why is that?
I think it's because the visual arts have more ability to offend the bluenosed
and uneducated.
Here is a paraphrased quote from a founding father.......James Madison
I will study war so that my children can study science and engineering, and
then my grandchildren can study art and dance, which is the highest form of
learning.
Should the government support higher learning of it's citizens? I think so,
otherwise we would be a desolate society. We should all support the aesthetic
environment and government should promote an appreciation of our shared
culture. It isn't just a liberal thing. One staunch supporter of government
funding was Barry Goldwater.
All great cultures are remembered for the work of their artists. Many were
supported by the "government"( such as it was).
Chev
ChevreTrois
Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com> weaving baskets now........
Every9man
Barbara
Debby
don't know about you but I have to have that tinfoil collandar on my head to keep
out the x-rays..... Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Eleanor
wrote:
>In article <37EEB9...@pacbell.net>, Mark says...
>>
>>So - no gov't sponsored event (like a school for example) can display
>>anything supporting any religion (like the ten commandments for
>>example), but a gov't sponsored event (like a museum for example) can
>>display items which denigrate a religion (like a picture of the virgin
>>mary smeared with elephant dung).
>
>It is not smeared with elephant dung.
Huh?
From USA Today:
Thursday, September 23
New York - An art exhibit that features mutilated pigs floating in
formaldehyde and a DUNG-SPLATTERED painting of the Virgin Mary, has
every right to go on - but without a penny of city money, Mayor Rudy
Giuliani said.
[Emphasis added.]
From ABCNEWS.com:
N E W Y O R K, Sept. 27
....Speaking outside a Harlem school this morning, Clinton was the
latest to join the fray over the upcoming Brooklyn Art Museum exhibit,
which includes a portrait of the Virgin Mary embellished with ELEPHANT
DUNG.
[Emphasis added.]
From CNN.com:
September 26, 1999
Web posted at: 10:17 p.m. EDT (0217 GMT)
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cardinal John O'Connor on Sunday asked Catholics to
join him in condemning a painting of the Virgin Mary embellished with
a clump of ELEPHANT DUNG, while civil rights activists defended the
Brooklyn Museum of Art's right to show the piece.
[Emphasis added.]
>>How do you liberals live with yourselves and your contradictions?
>
>How do you jerks live with your lies ?
Just who is the liar here?
Mark Denman
>
> No one has made you pay for the production of this artists work
But yes they have -- through taxes which support the Brooklyn Art
Museum.
Oh wait, they didn't pay for the "production" did they?
Nope - but they are expected to pay for the display of the object(s).
--
Mark Denman ~W.W.J.J.D.?~ <"what would judge judy do?">
=======================================================================
the ALARUMS-L mailing list - a chatty forum about pencil and paper RPGs
http://lists.accglobal.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=alarums&text_mode=0
Desilets
Lord Sir wrote in message <7sp0u1$1n...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
>In article <37eff040...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, elli...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>Snip Snip Snip>
>Debby reported that she had heard that it was intended as a symbol for
>refeneration and ressurection based on African cultural associations with
>elephant dung. This sounds plausible and I can accept that something like
this
>was the intent to begin with.
Lord Sir:
You acknowledged my post earlier, but said you had no time to reply. Did
you read it? You asked that Debby back up her sources, she did not. If you
even read it, you ignore the artist's own interpretation and the entire
story of this * artist*
you say Debit's garbage sounds *plausible* . I
think you do not know what you are talking about.
Here is the copy from Salon Magazine:
Hi Lord Sir;
Before your compliments go to Debby's head, she is wrong.
The artist is not African, he is British. He spent a whole of 6 weeks in
Africa , the rest of his art career in England. This whole art exhibit has
been described more of a social satire and not a cultural connotation. I
have no idea where she got that idea. I quote from another AP article this
morning : .."The artist has said he used the pornographic images because
classical images of Mary are often sexually charged."
From Feb 1999 Salon Magazine
"Modern art is a load of bullshit"
-----------------WHY CAN'T THE ART WORLD ACCEPT SOCIAL
-------------------SATIRE FROM A BLACK ARTIST?
BY BENJAMIN IVRY
British artist Chris Ofili hardly looks the type to foment revolutions: A
handsome, diminutive man, the 30-year-old looks African, but he was born in
Manchester and has spent his entire art career in England -- except for six
weeks in Africa, where he got the idea to use elephant dung as a substance
in his art, for its sculptural qualities and metaphorical resonance. Not
straight out of the elephant, mind you, but chemically treated to avoid
putrefaction, odor and flies -- unlike the gruesome work of his colleague,
British artist Damien Hirst, whose cross-sectioned cows and other rotting
animalia have offended gallery goers for some time now. In contrast to
Hirst's putrefyingly sinister work and aggressively grubby persona, Ofili is
self-confident and good-humored, given to disarming asides in interviews,
such as his declaration about his sculpture "Elephantastic," which displays
a sculpted cock and hairy balls: "My balls are hairy."
Yet when Ofili recently won 20,000 pounds sterling as part of the Tate
Gallery's noted Turner Prize, reaction was ill-humored indeed: The Web site
ArtNet snobbily commented that Ofili is "known for garishly colored,
ethnic-naive paintings with chunks of elephant dung attached to their
surfaces." The assessment echoed a Brit tabloid's headline about a previous
show at the Royal Academy featuring Ofili's work: "Foul Porn Invades Brit
Art Gallery." An enraged British military draughtsman dumped a wheelbarrow
of cow manure on the sidewalk in front of the exhibit, to prove that "modern
art is a load of bullshit." It's a sentiment with which Ofili himself might
agree.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that what has offended some people about
Ofili is not just the elephant dung, but the combination of a black artist
and dung. The military draughtsman admitted that while he was no fan of
Hirst's dead animals, Ofili's dung was "the final straw." Yet Ofili is, in
addition to being an imaginative artist, also a humorist and social critic
of the art scene. He placed boxed ads in the tony Brit art magazine Frieze
that read, simply, "Elephant Shit," amid ads announcing other art shows. He
used lumps of dung to prop up some of his paintings. "Somehow it makes the
painting feel more relaxed, instead of being pinned upon the wall like it's
being crucified ... [The painting can] stand in its own shit and watch the
other paintings being crucified on the wall." He has placed dung in a paper
bag for his installment "Bag of Shit," and in 1993, held a Shit Sale in
Brick Lane Market in London. He has played with the street parlance of
"shit" as drugs, and the fact that some people have assumed he was selling
drugs because of his dreadlocked hairstyle -- hence his work "Shithead": a
piece of elephant dung, which resembles hashish, incorporating his own hair.
Ofili is all too aware of ethnic categorizing in the art world, which
expects a black artist to be naive, tribal or shamanistic, and so declares
about his six weeks in Zimbabwe: "It's [a] great country, but it's a foreign
country for me and the idea of looking for your roots and stuff is
ridiculous." He sees his success of the moment as having a token aspect, due
to the fact that "maybe there aren't many good artists that coincidentally
happen to be within the mainstream category of a British artist: white,
heterosexual, more often than not, men." Ofili's art, despite its serious
treatment of problems of culture and "sexual stereotyping," as the Turner
Award citation points out, is also often amusing. The Turner Prize, despite
its traditional-sounding name, has only existed since 1984 and was judged
this year by a hardly academic small group that included Pet Shop Boy Neil
Tennant and offbeat author Marina Warner.
Still, one of the last taboos for black artists is that of laughter: We are
accustomed to somber, portentous and grandiose personalities like Nobel
Prize-winner Toni Morrison. But what can prepare a gallery-goer for Ofili's
works, which carefully offer a scroll with the name of the elephants from
British zoos who donated the material -- Liang-Liang from London Zoo, Geetza
or Eza, the latter two, Ofili explains, being "the same elephant, in fact,
but it's got two names." With the celebratory gusto of Laurent de Brunhoff's
Babar the elephant books, or F. Poulenc's orchestral suite they inspired,
Ofili follows the elephants, not just for joy but for decorative power. He
points out: "I'm interested in ideas of beauty ... and elephant dung in
itself is quite a beautiful object. But a different sort of beauty. And I
want to bring the kind of beauty and decorativeness of the paintings
together with the apparent concept of ugliness of the shit and put them
together and try and make them exist."
But if some Brits seem unhappy with the idea of a droll black artist, the
American art scene can be even more humorless. A recent Whitney Museum
retrospective of gifted African-American artist Bob Thompson (1937-1966), an
inspired combination of Nicolas Poussin, Emil Nolde and James Thurber,
produced an admirable catalog published by the Whitney and the University of
California Press. However, critics focused mainly on Thompson's death by
drug overdose in his 20s, comparing him to Jean-Michel Basquiat, with whom
he had nothing in common apart from being black. Thompson's art was given a
murky, ill-focused cataloging by an unknown and unidentified Africanist
scholar named Shamim Momin. But it cries out for analysis by someone as
astutely entrenched in the Western art tradition as he himself was.
What brings creators like Thompson and Ofili together is more than their
insistence on individuality, and the humor and beauty of their work; it's
that they both refuse to be pigeonholed in any way. The brouhaha following
Ofili's prize shows that his social satire is needed more than ever in the
art world today. Not that he was humbled at all by the violent reaction --
as he climbed the rostrum to accept his Turner Prize, he reportedly
deadpanned: "Thank God. Where's my check?"
SALON | Feb. 10, 1999
I grew up in NYC and concede Debby was correct in NY having a
larger Catholic population than Jewish. NYC is far from a Jewish town.
For NYC demographics:
http://post.sunyit.edu/rashids/demo2.htm
Desilets
Lord Sir tosed out candy to:.
>Well, Debby, every once in a while you really pleasently surprise me.
>
>You went from your initial reaction to gathering more facts and information
and
>learned something new , opened your mind, drew new conclusions and shared
the
>information with us. Thanks. I had a feeling the elephant dung had a
cultural
>connotation which we are unfamiliar with. It won't surprise me if there is
a
>similar cultural connotation to the use of sexual organs in the art work.
>
>Too many people are simply too quick to pass judgement on things they
really
>just don't fully understand.
>
>LS
>
>
>
>In article <37EF7B64...@injersey.com>, Debby says...
>>
>>Dear Doctor Pete: First of all the only "circus" is by Gulliani himself.
He says
>>he
>>wants to shut down the museum and fired the Board of Trustees. I really
think he
>>is
>>going too far. Second we all knew it was elephant dung, but I didn't know
the
>>symbolism until last night. The painter is an African who is Catholic.
Elephant
>>dung in Africa is the symbol of reserection and regeneration and he wanted
to
>>make
>>her a Black Maddona which is the way Africans would like to see our lady,
but
>>why
>>the penises and vaganias is beyond me.... But I am not offended anymore by
this
>>painting now that I know more about it. As far as the dead animal heads,
well
>>it's
>>not something I want to see but how many people keep stuffed deers heads
and so
>>forth on thier walls:) The SK pictures would not offend me at all.
Debby
>>S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
>>
>
>
>To me, it is these types of subtle meanings and associations that differ
from
>our own associations which call into question our limits of knowledge and
>understanding and can give art a special quality to make us think more
deeply
>and differently and educate ourselves about the world of meaning and ideas
>beyond the tip of our own upturned noses.
>
>I don't think it was done simply to offend small minded Americans (though I
>think that's always a good idea in itself and encourage such art).
>
>Despite the limited understanding and pedestrian tastes of the general
public,
>artists are and should remain free to make whatever work they want using
>whatever materials they want.
>
>No one has made you pay for the production of this artists work.
>
>Meanwhile, who is the liar ?
>
>LS
>
Every9man
definition of "art":)
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
>
> Dung/excrement has a symbolic/spiritual meaning in Alchemy as well. It also
> had a particular meaning to and in the writings of Freud and to De Sade and in
> the works of many other authors and artists.
>
> I am not so quick to dismiss alternative ways of understanding an artist's
> intentions, especially based on such sketcy infrormation mixed with knee-jerk
> hysteria.
One of the reasons you're missing the point, LS, is that you
fail to acknowledge that elephant dung is not the only
objectionable entry to the exhibit. Offensive material is the
stock and trade of this collector, and it has become the habit
of museums to display such "art".
Luk
Luk
> >One of the reasons you're missing the point, LS, is that you
> >fail to acknowledge that elephant dung is not the only
> >objectionable entry to the exhibit. Offensive material is the
> >stock and trade of this collector, and it has become the habit
> >of museums to display such "art".
> I have not missed any point, nor failed to acknowledge anything whatsoever.
You always miss the point, LS. But, knowing how you
sulk when I fail to reply to your insults, I'll try to stay awake
long enough to get this typed.
> I don't care if every object in the show offends someone. (Though I read that
> only five or six objects to be exhibited have caused any offense of delicate
> sensibilities.)
Not that it matters, but they showed way more than that
on TV tonight and they were pretty disgusting.
> Elephant dung and sexual organs and dead things are simply not offensive to me.
> In fact I can learn things from all of these types of things in certain
> contexts. It is a knack I have which you don't. Deal with it.
I don't have as much learning to catch up on as you do.
> Different people have different sensibilities and find different things to be
> offensive. I, for instance, find your rubberstamp repitition of rightwing
> jargon extremely offensive, more offensive than sitting in a vat of elephant
> dung (though very similar).
Thank you for providing that mental image.
It'll help keep me awake.
> Yet, I am not insisting that you be stopped from expressing your dismally
> limited regurgitations.
You've always been big about that.
> You, on the other hand, want to impose all kinds of limits on free expression as
> well as other individual rights and freedoms. If I have any say in it, the
> types of repression you stand and speak in favor of will never come to pass.
I would again remind you how little interest I have in
limiting anyone's free expression so long as the cost
isn't dumped (no pun intended) on the taxpayer, but
your limited brain doesn't seem willing to take it in.
> Furthermore :
>
> No museum has develped any such "habit" of showing only offensive work.
>
> Unless you are fully qualified and directly involved in the process of making
> and/or displaying art in a museum or gallery context, whatever you think (or
> have to say about what is or is not art, what should or shouldn't be shown,
> etc.), is merely your personal opinion and carries no weight with me or anyone
> else.
If I said I was directly involved in the process of producing artwork
for galleries (or museums), I feel quite certain you'd remain equally
disinterested in my opinion. Which is why I find no reason to
provide such information.
> You cannot decide for me what I should have access to.
Translation: "You cannot decide whether part of your
income should be taken from you and transferred to me for the
purpose of displaying the worthless art I produce."
> Your taste and sensibilities are not the deciding factor in
> what is or is not art.
Am I entitled to an opinion as to how my money should be
spent?
> In fact, one of the reasons we have museums is to make sure even works which may
> be potentially offensive and of no interest to the average citizen will still be
> available for those citizens who have an interest in such things.
If that's really why we have museums, it's about time we
got around to talking about it.
> Now, don't you have a Bush fundraiser or a stock deal to attend to ?
The stock market is down this week. Best not
pay too much attention to it.
> Aren't you tired of slumming yet ?
Yes.
> If not, think on this : do you use cosmetics?
I don't need them yet.
> Facial masks ?
Only on Halloween.
> Shampoo ?
I do use shampoo.
> If so you might want to wonder at the fact that you are in most cases smearing
> urea - and sometimes ... dung - all over yourself when you so partake.
I always make sure there's no dung in my shampoo.
If I make indian yellow out of cow urine, does that count?
> Let that mush around with your delicate sensibilities for awhile.
>
> I think it is hilarious !
Whatever floats your boat.
Luk
Kurt Sims
<lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Translation: "You cannot decide whether part of your
> income should be taken from you and transferred to me for the
> purpose of displaying the worthless art I produce."
Do you think that artists really take up that much money from your pocket?
What is the percentage of taxes going to support visual arts (I don't
know)? How much did the pentagon pay for toilet seat upgrades this
year? Wasn't it $500/seat af couple of years ago?
Or, do you think that the excess from these purchases is going into "black
operations" instead of some bloated contractors pocket?
I'm a scientist not an artist but I would much rather look at some dung
encrusted heap of junk (I don't really like it) all day than think about
some of the idiotic pork-barreling going on at all levels of
administration.
Kurt
--
To reply by email please remove the two spams out of my return address.