Art?
Gene Royer
a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
If you say yes, then let me ask: What if it were a symbolic AIDS quilt
smeared with dung? Would that be acceptable to you?
I can hear the liberals' shit hitting the fan already.
What if it were Ronald Reagan's bust all smeared up? What if it were
Clinton's? Hillary's? Chelsea's? Algore's? Dan Rather's? Dianne
Sawyer's?
Should tax payers have to subsidize this kind *art* that cannot pay it's own
way? If it cannot support itself, does it really have any artistic value?
And if these *artists* get government money upon which to live and enjoy the
good life, shouldn't we striving writers have the same right? Bwah!
--Geno<born a conservative thinker>Royer
Paul Martin
> There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it displays
> a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
>
Not to me... not that the symbolic Virgin Mary is so important to me, but
that the disrespect shown to millions of people by befouling a symbol of their
faith is. It conveys the message that their beliefs are considered by this
artist to be unimportant. That in itself is a repugnant message, but when it's
funded by money paid out to the federal government by those people it becomes an
extreme insult.
> Should tax payers have to subsidize this kind *art* that cannot pay it's own
> way? If it cannot support itself, does it really have any artistic value?
No. To both.
> And if these *artists* get government money upon which to live and enjoy the
> good life, shouldn't we striving writers have the same right? Bwah!
Sounds good to me. Get a grant for me while you're at it, Geno...
Paul
--
"He that lives upon hope, dies farting"
-Benjamin Franklin
Paul Martin
Funny thing is, it's the same people who mooch
for tax-dollar support of art and science
because the average citizen doesn't think
they're worth supporting. If they'd chuck that
hideous Rauschenberg goat-in-a-tire thing out of
the Museum of Modern Art and replace it with a
life-size statue of Topsy-Curvy and offer a
fold-out map to the g-spot with every
subscription to the Smithsonian ... problem
solved.
Taken from www.fugly.net
Flornella
Should only art works that meet predetermined government parameters be
the only one's receiving public money? Is this not a form of censorship
as evil as Nazi book burning of the late '30's?
Flornella
WRITERLIST is a FREE marketing & information service for writers who
like to be published and make money! To join:
http://members.tripod.com/~Flornella
Wendy Chatley Green
:Let me ask a question:
:
:Should only art works that meet predetermined government parameters be
:the only one's receiving public money? Is this not a form of censorship
:as evil as Nazi book burning of the late '30's?
But *anyone* can smear fecal material on a statue. What
happened to years of perfecting one's craft, then using it to depict
the world/emotions/mythic ideals/et cetera?
--
Wendy (yeah, I know--)
Chatley (gov't support for the arts dried up their inspiration)
Green -- wcg...@cris.com
Stan (the Man)
>
> There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it displays
> a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
>
> smeared with dung? Would that be acceptable to you?
>
> I can hear the liberals' shit hitting the fan already.
>
> What if it were Ronald Reagan's bust all smeared up? What if it were
> Clinton's? Hillary's? Chelsea's? Algore's? Dan Rather's? Dianne
> Sawyer's?
>
> way? If it cannot support itself, does it really have any artistic value?
>
> good life, shouldn't we striving writers have the same right? Bwah!
>
Mayor Giuliani has held back the half million dollars in city money that
was to go to the museum because they refused to pull the exhibit.
Therefore, in this case, the taxpayers are not subsidizing it.
I haven't seen the exhibit in question, so I can't comment on whether or
not I would be offended. But, interestingly, neither has Giuliani.
Stan (and, who gives a rat's rump if either of us is offended?)
w.d. greene
Stan (the Man) wrote:
>
> Mayor Giuliani has held back the half million dollars in city money that
> was to go to the museum because they refused to pull the exhibit.
> Therefore, in this case, the taxpayers are not subsidizing it.
>
> I haven't seen the exhibit in question, so I can't comment on whether or
> not I would be offended. But, interestingly, neither has Giuliani.
>
> Stan (and, who gives a rat's rump if either of us is offended?)
I heard on NPR this afternoon that Giuliani's holding back of that funding
will likely end up in court. He has publicly stated that he's pulling the
money because he doesn't like the art. It is not clear that he has the
legal right to do that.
Jerry Kindall
flor...@webtv.net (Flornella) wrote:
> Should only art works that meet predetermined government parameters
> be the only one's receiving public money?
No art should receive public money, as far as I'm concerned. As far as
I can tell, most of the Western world's greatest works of art were
funded either by private patronage or by the Catholic Church.
> Is this not a form of censorship as evil as Nazi book burning of the
> late '30's?
Oh. Is this thread really over already? Or does one have to
specifically mention Hitler, rather than just Nazis, to invoke Godwin's
Law?
--
Jerry Kindall <mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com> Technical Writing, etc.
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/> We Wrote the Book!
When life throws you a curve, make lemonade.
Nemo
> Let me ask a question:
>
> Should only art works that meet predetermined government parameters be
> the only one's receiving public money? Is this not a form of censorship
> as evil as Nazi book burning of the late '30's?
>
> Flornella
First off, I am (as usual) full agreement with Gene Royer. Especially on
this subject. (My congratulations on Geno's analogy of the Aids quilt or
Clinton's bust being smeared with dung. We all know it would provoke
outrage, and deservedly so, but it exposes the latent hypocrisy of certain
people on this subject.)
Now, in answer to your question, _supra_, I would say NO, it's not as bad
as the Nazi's attempt to actually create a culture by directing Sociology,
Anthropology, various other sciences, and art toward a common ideological
goal to serve the political purpose of a particular political party.
Period. So there.
It's a faulty analogy. We are not in the same category as 1930's
Hitlerian Germany, so would everyone please stop trying to use it as a
scarecrow whenever genuine grassroots moral outrage is (and dammit, OUGHT
to be) expressed?
I recall a court case where a judge was cited as saying "the value of a
thing is what that thing will bring."
So it is with our work, and so it should also be with art. Let the
marketplace decide, and we'll have less trash offered up in our museums,
and you know what? Attendance at museums will pick up as a result. I'd
never visit that museum for any reason, but I *would* visit a quality art
exhibit elsewhere. How could I take my son to see crap like that? (Pun
very much intended.)
I have a basic rule of art. Call it "Nemo's Rule of Art": If I am
capable of outputting the same blobs, scratchings, or crude
two-dimensional depictions as was done by the artist...THEN IT AIN'T ART.
Why?
Because I'm no artist. Gimme a pencil and piece of paper and I'll prove
it to you. I'm worse than anyone you know--worse than a sixth grade kid.
Therefore, my rule is, if I can do what the "artiste" has done, then it's
junk.
Good art, like good literature, is something that takes years of practice,
and takes a certain talent in addition to the practice.
Would we not all agree on this?
Nemo
--
--
"Cave ab hominie unius libre.
Beware the man of one book."
--Benjamin Disraeli
Nemo
> Mayor Giuliani has held back the half million dollars in city money that
> was to go to the museum because they refused to pull the exhibit.
> Therefore, in this case, the taxpayers are not subsidizing it.
But the taxpayers will, and Giuliani will lose this one, because he fought
the battle the wrong way.
Ex-Mayor Koch was on the TV today and he explained it thusly: Once the
funding is approved, he can't yank it, Giuliani had to catch it before the
funding is approved, at an early stage.
A pity that Giuliani will lose this very righteous battle.
This has me upset, because it's nothing more than a blatant attack on our
culture (no, I'm not Catholic) that would not be tolerated if it were dung
smeared on a copy of the Koran, a Torah, or a picture of [insert your
favorite legally protected class here].
Hell, I'm tired of Judeo-Christian/Western/Roman/Greek/whatever values
being attacked relentlessly. When will it end? What do we have to do to
stop being made the target? Do we have to fight back, eh? We could do
that, ya know.
Nemo
<t...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> I heard on NPR this afternoon that Giuliani's holding back of that funding
> will likely end up in court. He has publicly stated that he's pulling the
> money because he doesn't like the art. It is not clear that he has the
> legal right to do that.
>
Yeah, Giuliani will lose this one in part because he was honest about his
motives. Typical conservative fault. ;)
He should employ the tactics of the Left. Seek to fire the curator of the
museum by any means he can.
Then the message might trickle down.
Personally, I hope this thing gets worked out rationally. The best
solution would be:
1. Museum gets its funding.
2. Museum attendance declines precipitously as a result of "junk" art
3. Good artists express their "concern" about having their works
displayed alongside "junk" art, with consequent public outrage
and falling attendance
4. Curator of museum gets it through his thick skull not to put NYC
into this kind of position ever again. And he keeps his stupid job.
Viola! Everyone wins.
Except the dung smearing and head-decapitating artists.
Maggie Forest
wrote:
>First off, I am (as usual) full agreement with Gene Royer. Especially on
>this subject. (My congratulations on Geno's analogy of the Aids quilt or
>Clinton's bust being smeared with dung. We all know it would provoke
>outrage, and deservedly so, but it exposes the latent hypocrisy of certain
>people on this subject.)
It probably would, just as a picture of the Virgin predictably did.
Just a different subset of people, that's all.
I think it's a faulty analogy though. A better one would have been 'a
photo of the quilt'. (The bust is a better example). It was a _picture
of_ the Virgin, and one made by the artist in question as I understand
it. Not an Icon.
/mmy
Good communication is as stimulating as black coffee,
and just as hard to sleep after - Anne Morrow Lindbergh
Deck Deckert
> There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it
> displays a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung?
> Is that acceptable?
Yes.
> If you say yes, then let me ask: What if it were a symbolic AIDS
> quilt smeared with dung? Would that be acceptable to you?
Yes.
> What if it were Ronald Reagan's bust all smeared up? What if it were
> Clinton's? Hillary's? Chelsea's? Algore's? Dan Rather's? Dianne
> Sawyer's?
All but Chelsea have already smeared themselves with shit.
Deck
Steve Pritchard
Wendy Chatley Green wrote in message
<9NbyNxn8IaWca0HnhQscvNcjF8=T...@4ax.com>...
>For some inexplicable reasons, flor...@webtv.net (Flornella) wrote:
>
>:Let me ask a question:
>:
>:Should only art works that meet predetermined government parameters be
>:the only one's receiving public money? Is this not a form of censorship
>:as evil as Nazi book burning of the late '30's?
>
>happened to years of perfecting one's craft, then using it to depict
>the world/emotions/mythic ideals/et cetera?
I once used the "anyone can do that" argument against an artist. Their
response was that the person who did it was the one who thought to do it
and dared to do it, therefore that was the artistry.
I've never understood artists anyway.
Gene Royer
Paul Martin wrote in message <37F2C5A0...@vcu.org>...
I was going to suggest the same thing. But we need to keep the Mona Lisa
thing because it's worth a lot of money. Same with that statue of Elvis at
Graceland.
--Geno<who once went out with Art's sister>Royer
Gene Royer
Flornella wrote in message
<907-37F...@storefull-125.bryant.webtv.net>...
Let me ask a question:
Should only art works that meet predetermined government parameters be
the only one's receiving public money? Is this not a form of censorship
as evil as Nazi book burning of the late '30's?
Flornella
WRITERLIST is a FREE marketing & information service for writers who
like to be published and make money! To join:
http://members.tripod.com/~Flornella
You are obviously not from the United States. And Hillary RodMan Clinton
made the same idiotic error in a recent speech on the subject. Censorship
is when the government bans the presentation of ideas. It is not defined by
the government's funding it or not funding it.
No one here (yet) has suggested that it be banned (censored). Just that it
not be funded by taxpayer (read that MY) dollars.
--Gene Royer
Gene Royer
Here in the U.S. we have freedom of expression up to a point, and that point
is connected to the rule of law. Within the bounds of that law, let the
scribbler express him/herself, and let them sell their work to support
themselves.
Let the same people who claim it is so great be the ones to buy it and hang
it on their walls.
My guess is that no one will line up to buy it.
--Geno<not even those nitwit newzealanders>Royer
Nemo wrote in message ...
>In article <907-37F...@storefull-125.bryant.webtv.net>,
>flor...@webtv.net (Flornella) wrote:
>
>> Let me ask a question:
>>
>> Should only art works that meet predetermined government parameters be
>> the only one's receiving public money? Is this not a form of censorship
>> as evil as Nazi book burning of the late '30's?
>>
>> Flornella
>
>
>
>
>First off, I am (as usual) full agreement with Gene Royer. Especially on
>this subject. (My congratulations on Geno's analogy of the Aids quilt or
>Clinton's bust being smeared with dung. We all know it would provoke
>outrage, and deservedly so, but it exposes the latent hypocrisy of certain
>people on this subject.)
>
Gene Royer
Marty Fouts wrote in message ...
>Gene Royer filled the aether with:
>
>> There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it
>> displays a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that
>> acceptable?
>
>wrong, Geno. The painting is *not* smeared with elephant dung. There
>are two balls of dung, which, in the culture of the artist, happen to
>be positive symbolic signs. These balls are used to support the
>painting, and also carry textual messages.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Should tax payers have to subsidize this kind *art* that cannot pay
>> it's own way?
>
>taxpayers, one way or another. Shall we, while we are disembowling
>the NEA, also remove the tax breaks that corporations get for planting
>corporate art on their lawns?
>
>> If it cannot support itself, does it really have any artistic value?
>
>
>> And if these *artists* get government money upon which to live and
>> enjoy the good life, shouldn't we striving writers have the same
>> right? Bwah!
>
>ways.
>
>You really ought to get your facts straight once.
You are a hoot, Marty. A bit dull, but a hoot, nonetheless.
--Geno<in fact, you're quite a bit dull>Royer
James Meirose
>
> There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it displays
> a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
>
> smeared with dung? Would that be acceptable to you?
>
>
> Clinton's? Hillary's? Chelsea's? Algore's? Dan Rather's? Dianne
> Sawyer's?
>
>
> And if these *artists* get government money upon which to live and enjoy the
> good life, shouldn't we striving writers have the same right? Bwah!
>
jMonkey
Pat Marcello
Gene Royer <sir...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7sucjc$pd6$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it
displays
> a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
Absolutely not! And it's not because I was raised Catholic, either. I
simply believe that the art world is leaning toward the ultimately
perverse.
I covered an International show for the Carnegie in Pittsburgh about four
years ago, which included photographs of dismembered baby dolls, some
dripping blood. Much of the modernist stuff was interesting, and I enjoy
viewing the outré now and again. But I don't enjoy artists blatantly
exhibiting their psychoses, and getting big money to do it.
What is the definition of art, after all? I see it as a material
appreciation of beauty or thought. To me, an exhibit such as the New York
show is the complete antithesis of appreciation. It's more like the
promotion of hatred, violence, or evil.
Sorry. Can't hang with that. Bully for Giuliani. It's about time someone
stood up and said, "No more."
--
Pat M. Society is in dire need of healing if that shit, and I mean that
literally, is considered art.
Write On!
www.patmarcello.com
Pat Marcello
Marty Fouts <usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote in message
news:wk7ll8h...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com...
> Gene Royer filled the aether with:
>
> > displays a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that
> > acceptable?
>
> wrong, Geno. The painting is *not* smeared with elephant dung. There
> are two balls of dung, which, in the culture of the artist, happen to
> be positive symbolic signs. These balls are used to support the
> painting, and also carry textual messages.
As I understood it from the news report I heard, she is also covered by
profane writing, Marty. If the artist is Catholic, his negative approach
makes more sense to me. However, I still can't condone his "artistic"
style.
I think the world is confused about what constitutes art. No talent
"artists" have taken over, IMHO. Just because they're willing to exhibit
works to shock and dismay doesn't make them artists.
My in-laws are both fine artists. Hell, they're exquisite artists. My
mother-in-law could decorate the world with five dollars at the Goodwill
because she has the most magnificent sense of beauty. And no, I'm not
writing this to make up for yesterday's comment. ;-) It's the truth.
Although my father-in-law had commercial success, neither of them has been
very widely received by the curators and gallery owners. They're considered
passé in style and content. It appalls me. And no, they're not amateur
painters. Both are academy trained and extremely talented.
OTOH, we have people drawing blank space or forming it with resins, such as
the area under a chair. Big bucks for that. Yet, I can see the concept and
I can relate to the fascination. What fascination can you gain from seeing
religious symbols or babies or even gutted animals upheld as art?
--
Pat M. Someone explain that to me. In plain English.
Write On!
www.patmarcello.com
Gene Royer
Pat Marcello wrote in message
<7svnj5$3ouo$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
Of course, I agree with everything Pat has said.
My main point (as a conservative American and not as an art critic) is that
I don't want to support someone else's livelihood whether be legitimate art
or crap. Whether this be art or not is irrelevant; and even if it is,
should art get a free ride?
geNo!
Damn I'm clever.
moira d
<7svd9b$fc$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>:
>I was going to suggest the same thing. But we need to keep
>the Mona Lisa thing because it's worth a lot of money. Same
>with that statue of Elvis at Graceland.
You know what burns me but good? I mean
*really* burns me?
The fact that Geno can troll and get all kinds
of earnest and spirited discussion rolling in this
NG, as well as all the usual rants and diatribes,
and people who post stuff about writing get ...
what?
one? two posts to their threads? If that?
And people have the gumption to *complain* about
geno!
Look at the patterns! Can't anyone else see ?
--
I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.
Pat Marcello
>
<snip>
> Of course, I agree with everything Pat has said.
As it should be.
>
> My main point (as a conservative American and not as an art critic) is
that
> I don't want to support someone else's livelihood whether be legitimate
art
> or crap. Whether this be art or not is irrelevant; and even if it is,
> should art get a free ride?
But here's where we part company, Geno.
If the arts aren't subsidized, then we may have no artists. That's a
problem, IMHO. Making a living in this or the painting or the film or
ballet biz is very difficult. Without subsidy, not many budding artists can
afford to work up to the point where they can support themselves.
My objection would be that they're giving the money to the wrong people.
Many of them wouldn't know talent if it bit them on the eyelid.
--
Pat M. Give some of that funding to me, damn it!
Write On!
www.patmarcello.com
The Stewarts
<usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>The artist *is* a Catholic, and, in the culture from which the artist
>comes, the particular use of elephant dung *is* considered
>appropriate.
SNIP
>If you are going to fight back, you should probably pick a battle over
>something meaningful, rather than over a stupid misunderstanding blown
>out of proportion.
>
Marty,
Would you explain these points a little more? What is the artist
trying to say with this particular use of elephant dung that it would
be considered appropriate in his/her culture? What is the
misunderstanding?
Jean
The Stewarts.
Reply to the group or use the address below.
ste...@nb.net
Deck Deckert
> You know what burns me but good? ...
> The fact that Geno can troll and get all kinds
> of earnest and spirited discussion rolling in this
Conservatives are the scum of the earth. They lie and cheat. They bought
the U.S. Congress and White House with their legal bribes and use them to
steal money from the poor and middle class to make billionaires richer and
feed an insatiable war machine. They have gutted the Constitution and
destroyed the Bill of Rights with their War on Drugs which is maliciously
aimed at the poor and minorities. They are in legion with the Devil.
De (God I'm good) ck
(How's that, Moira?)
Deck Deckert
> What is the definition of art, after all? I see it as a material
> appreciation of beauty or thought.
Art as pretty wallpaper.
The best art challenges our perceptions and assumptions.
Deck
w.d. greene
>
[snip]
>
> If the arts aren't subsidized, then we may have no artists. That's a
> problem, IMHO. Making a living in this or the painting or the film or
> ballet biz is very difficult. Without subsidy, not many budding artists can
> afford to work up to the point where they can support themselves.
>
> My objection would be that they're giving the money to the wrong people.
> Many of them wouldn't know talent if it bit them on the eyelid.
But there's the rub.
I too support public finding for the arts. There's public funding for
all kinds of things I don't want to personally fund but nobody asks
me. I want public funding for the arts. If you don't like it,
tough. Do you best to elect someone who will do away with it and I'll
do my best to elect someone who will maintain it. Democracy in
action.
The real difficulty comes when we try to answer Pat's problem of
giving money to "the wrong people." Wrong according to whom? Who
decides and by what standards? Can someone be wrong once and still be
redeemable? How about twice?
Flornella
Flornella
can get the government ot subsidize such art?
Smokey
The Stewarts wrote:
> On 30 Sep 1999 01:24:08 -0700, Marty Fouts
> <usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>
> >The artist *is* a Catholic, and, in the culture from which the artist
> >comes, the particular use of elephant dung *is* considered
> >appropriate.
>
> SNIP
>
> >If you are going to fight back, you should probably pick a battle over
> >something meaningful, rather than over a stupid misunderstanding blown
> >out of proportion.
> >
> Marty,
>
> Would you explain these points a little more? What is the artist
> trying to say with this particular use of elephant dung that it would
> be considered appropriate in his/her culture? What is the
> misunderstanding?
>
> Jean
>
I'd like to know the same thing as Jean.
My knee-jerk reaction is that the artist is using a symbol of a peoples
religion, smearing it with elephant dung, and calling a religious statement
art. I'm thinking it's done with the sole intent to get a reaction more so
then for the purpose of art.
That is my knee-jerk reaction.
Not that art isn't supposed to make a statement. But I don't believe art
should be used as a way to deface or devalue things that have symbolic
meaning to other people. Take flag burning, could an artist set up an
exhibit of flags, set them to fire and call it art? Or would that be a
political statement? What's the defining line, or isn't there one where art
is concerned?
Which brings me back to, what is it the artist is trying to say that has
been misunderstood?
Smokey
Patrick McNamara
>In article <907-37F...@storefull-125.bryant.webtv.net>,
>flor...@webtv.net (Flornella) wrote:
>
>> Should only art works that meet predetermined government parameters
>> be the only one's receiving public money?
>
>I can tell, most of the Western world's greatest works of art were
>funded either by private patronage or by the Catholic Church.
Yep. Eliminate tax funding for any art, and the debate about what's acceptable
goes away; the decision is left to the individual patron, where it belongs.
And there's also no longer a debate about how a person's freedom of expression
is suppressed when he's no longer publically paid for his expression.
>
>> Is this not a form of censorship as evil as Nazi book burning of the
>> late '30's?
>
>Oh. Is this thread really over already? Or does one have to
>specifically mention Hitler, rather than just Nazis, to invoke Godwin's
>Law?
>
What's Godwin's Law?
--
Patrick McNamara
moira d
<7svueq$2ipk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>:
>
>If the arts aren't subsidized, then we may have no artists.
>That's a problem, IMHO. Making a living in this or the
>painting or the film or ballet biz is very difficult.
>Without subsidy, not many budding artists can afford to work
>up to the point where they can support themselves.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnoooooooooooooo. not
necessarily.
Can *you* turn off your art? Can anyone, who has
the call to create, NOT create?
Art will find a way. Patrons will appear or not,
but there will always be art.
--
moira
If it's true that we are here to help others, then what
exactly are the OTHERS here for? -- Steven Wright
Jabelson1
>There
>>are two balls of dung, which, in the culture of the artist, happen to
>>be positive symbolic signs. These balls are used to support the
Money signs that is! The "artist" is from London!
jeff
Jabelson1
>The best art challenges our perceptions and assumptions.
Like dogs playing poker?
Paul Harwood
>Conservatives are the scum of the earth. They lie and cheat. They bought
>the U.S. Congress and White House with their legal bribes and use them to
>steal money from the poor and middle class to make billionaires richer and
>feed an insatiable war machine. They have gutted the Constitution and
>destroyed the Bill of Rights with their War on Drugs which is maliciously
>aimed at the poor and minorities. They are in legion with the Devil.
>
>De (God I'm good) ck
>
>(How's that, Moira?)
Best damned fiction writer on the newsgroup, I'd say.
Paul Harwood
Of course, I'm not moira ...
Gene Royer
moira d wrote in message <8E514ADF5nipplesdotcom@news>...
>sir...@mindspring.com (Gene Royer) wrote in
><7svd9b$fc$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>:
>
>
>>I was going to suggest the same thing. But we need to keep
>>the Mona Lisa thing because it's worth a lot of money. Same
>>with that statue of Elvis at Graceland.
>
>
>You know what burns me but good? I mean
>*really* burns me?
>
>of earnest and spirited discussion rolling in this
>and people who post stuff about writing get ...
>
>what?
>
>one? two posts to their threads? If that?
>
>And people have the gumption to *complain* about
>geno!
>
>Look at the patterns! Can't anyone else see ?
>
>--
>
>
>I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.
I'm sorry. I should not have mentioned Elvis. I know how that upsets you,
and I wasn't thinking.
--Geno
Gene Royer
Deck Deckert wrote in message <7t013r$1guq$1...@news.gate.net>...
>moira wrote:
>> You know what burns me but good? ...
>> The fact that Geno can troll and get all kinds
>> of earnest and spirited discussion rolling in this
>
>the U.S. Congress and White House with their legal bribes and use them to
>steal money from the poor and middle class to make billionaires richer and
>feed an insatiable war machine. They have gutted the Constitution and
>destroyed the Bill of Rights with their War on Drugs which is maliciously
>aimed at the poor and minorities. They are in legion with the Devil.
>
>De (God I'm good) ck
>
>
>(How's that, Moira?)
Do you really think you're going to catch any fish with that on this
newsgroup full of whining liberals? They're reading it and clasping
themselves in orgasmic glee, while I frantically cut and paste your words
for my next expos`e in the Peach Park Neighborhood Pennysaver.
Of course I will give you attribution.
--Geno
Wendy Chatley Green
:Conservative Puritians .....Go Hone!
Go hone what? My kitchen knives are already sharp.
:Flornella
:
:WRITERLIST is a FREE marketing & information service for writers who
:like to be published and make money! To join:
:http://members.tripod.com/~Flornella
Do you only post to advertise or are your posts supposed to be
meaningful comments? If the latter, then I suggest that you study
Deck's posts; he knows how to put a great deal of meat into a few
words.
:
:
:
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
Gene Royer
w.d. greene wrote in message <37F38B9F...@msfc.nasa.gov>...
>Pat Marcello wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> If the arts aren't subsidized, then we may have no artists. That's a
>> problem, IMHO. Making a living in this or the painting or the film or
>> ballet biz is very difficult. Without subsidy, not many budding artists
can
>> afford to work up to the point where they can support themselves.
>>
>> Many of them wouldn't know talent if it bit them on the eyelid.
>
>But there's the rub.
>
>I too support public finding for the arts. There's public funding for
>all kinds of things I don't want to personally fund but nobody asks
>me. I want public funding for the arts. If you don't like it,
>tough. Do you best to elect someone who will do away with it and I'll
>do my best to elect someone who will maintain it. Democracy in
>action.
>
>The real difficulty comes when we try to answer Pat's problem of
>giving money to "the wrong people." Wrong according to whom? Who
>decides and by what standards? Can someone be wrong once and still be
>redeemable? How about twice?
I cannot understand why Greene got so angry when I called him a liberal. He
just admitted it. Liberals always do that because they are ashamed of the
term. I don't blame them. *liberal* How ghastly.
--Geno
Gene Royer
Smokey wrote in message <37F39004...@hotmail.com>...
<snip snip>
>
>My knee-jerk reaction is that the artist is using a symbol of a peoples
>religion, smearing it with elephant dung, and calling a religious statement
>art. I'm thinking it's done with the sole intent to get a reaction more so
>then for the purpose of art.
>That is my knee-jerk reaction.
And I see nothing wrong with that because we do have the freedom of
expression. In fact, I do similar things here on the newsgroup in order to
get peoples' reaction. But I damn sure don't expect you poor pathetic
non-thinkers to pay me for it.
>
>Not that art isn't supposed to make a statement. But I don't believe art
>should be used as a way to deface or devalue things that have symbolic
>meaning to other people. Take flag burning, could an artist set up an
>exhibit of flags, set them to fire and call it art? Or would that be a
>political statement? What's the defining line, or isn't there one where art
>is concerned?
Agreed. Not much *art* to that is there? Just plain old expression of
opinion. doesn't take much talent to do that because I do it all the time.
oops.
>
>Which brings me back to, what is it the artist is trying to say that has
>been misunderstood?
>
>Smokey
Not much. My understanding is that he probably thinks all this Virgin Mary
worship is stupid and that the idea that she was *assumed* into heaven is a
crock, and that this shit about *Mother Mary a virgin forever* is asinine.
I happen to agree, and you got it from me without having to spend a dime of
your tax dollars.
--Geno
The Last Real Marlboro Man
>Money signs that is! The "artist" is from London!
Couldn't possibly be. Marty never gets his facts wrong. Never.
Ever.
- Wayne
The Last Real Marlboro Man
wrote:
>If the arts aren't subsidized, then we may have no artists.
Then who will subsidize me? I am a writer - a good one - an artist.
I am poor. I could concentrate solely on my art if the government
would subsidize it.
We will always have those who are dedicated to their art. What the
lack of a public teat may very well do is to separate the true artists
from the Howard Sterns of the art world.
- Wayne
Gene Royer
Jabelson1 wrote in message <19990930130110...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Gene Royer" sir...@mindspring.com
>
>>There
>>>are two balls of dung, which, in the culture of the artist, happen to
>>>be positive symbolic signs. These balls are used to support the
>
>
I love it. *The culture of this artist is symbolized by two balls of
elephant shit*.
And from London no less.
--Geno<who will never understand the liberal mindset if he lives to be
30>Royer
Gerald Clough
>
> In article <kindall-1B32D1...@news.mw.mediaone.net>, Jerry Kindall <kin...@mail.manual.com> wrote:
> >In article <907-37F...@storefull-125.bryant.webtv.net>,
> >flor...@webtv.net (Flornella) wrote:
> >
> >
> >Oh. Is this thread really over already? Or does one have to
> >specifically mention Hitler, rather than just Nazis, to invoke Godwin's
> >Law?
> >
>
> What's Godwin's Law?
>
> --
> Patrick McNamara
Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clo...@Texas.Net
"Nothing has any value unless you know you can give it up."
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>The artist *is* a Catholic, and, in the culture from which the artist
>comes, the particular use of elephant dung *is* considered
>appropriate.
The "artist" is British, Marty. Get your facts straight.
("Appropriate"? Weird customs you Brits have there.)
Additionally, consider these quotes which seem to contradict your
superior knowledge. Marty:
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: " It's no ordinary Madonna, the
Virgin Mary imprinted with graphic naked images and stained with
elephant dung. "
NOVAK, CNN "...the Holy Mother having dung thrown at her."
Also CNN: "The exhibit includes a painting of the Virgin Mary
splattered with elephant dung, two pig halves floating in formaldehyde
and a 13-foot high rendering of a notorious British child killer. "
"It's called "Sensation," a British show of contemporary, avant-garde
art which includes a dissected pig and a blood-filled head."
The "graphic naked images" mentioned above with which the figure is
imprinted are vaginas and anuses.
>Not that you'll find that out by listening to the knee jerkers.
Or the apologists, eh, Marty? Get your facts straight before you
spout your dung.
- Wayne
The Last Real Marlboro Man
>The fact that Geno can troll and get all kinds
>of earnest and spirited discussion rolling in this
>NG,
I think there should be a distinction made between "trolling" and
introducing important, controversial subjects for debate, Moira.
- Wayne
John V Ashby
>moira wrote:
>> You know what burns me but good? ...
>> of earnest and spirited discussion rolling in this
>
>the U.S. Congress and White House with their legal bribes and use them to
>steal money from the poor and middle class to make billionaires richer and
>feed an insatiable war machine. They have gutted the Constitution and
>destroyed the Bill of Rights with their War on Drugs which is maliciously
>aimed at the poor and minorities. They are in legion with the Devil.
>
>De (God I'm good) ck
>
>
>(How's that, Moira?)
I'm not moira, but it looks good to me.
john (pad it out to 500 words, make a nice little op-ed piece for the liberal press)
Gene Royer
moira d wrote in message <8E514ADF5nipplesdotcom@news>...
>sir...@mindspring.com (Gene Royer) wrote in
><7svd9b$fc$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>:
>
>
>>I was going to suggest the same thing. But we need to keep
>>the Mona Lisa thing because it's worth a lot of money. Same
>>with that statue of Elvis at Graceland.
>
>
>You know what burns me but good? I mean
>*really* burns me?
>
>of earnest and spirited discussion rolling in this
>and people who post stuff about writing get ...
>
>what?
>
>one? two posts to their threads? If that?
>
>And people have the gumption to *complain* about
>geno!
>
>Look at the patterns! Can't anyone else see ?
They see that I am an expert at what I do, moira. Even the few nitwits who
know they will disagree with me cannot resist the temptation to read me.
They are, for the most part, liberals who see themselves as victims of some
sort; so, having offense added to their victimhood is just what they need.
They love it, and so do I. We are a great team.
Of course, the vast majority of readers here are intelligent lurkers, and
they simply love to see the rest of the idiots jumping through their own ass
holes in indignation.
I was discussing this with another popular newsgroup poster earlier this
morning, and we decided that there is nothing in the realm of outrageous
ideas that at least some puff heads on this newsgroup will not take
seriously and instantly embrace in indignant anger.
Try it. Dream up fictional piece, ala Safire, about some contrived
controversial idea and name your own selective group as the main evil actor.
Some shithead from that group will immediately take it as *truth*, leap onto
the keyboard and flame you.
Serious studies have been done to show that this is especially true of
people from up east and Canada. The UK was not mentioned, and I suppose it
was because they are not in the global information loop. The latitude
broadens even more if the participants are of either Jewish or Latino
heritage. Just something about their DNA I guess.
--Geno<still the best fiction writer on the newsgroup>Royer
The Last Real Marlboro Man
wrote:
>Conservatives are the scum of the earth. They lie and cheat. They bought
>the U.S. Congress and White House with their legal bribes and use them to
>steal money from the poor and middle class to make billionaires richer and
>feed an insatiable war machine. They have gutted the Constitution and
>destroyed the Bill of Rights with their War on Drugs which is maliciously
>aimed at the poor and minorities. They are in legion with the Devil.
>
>De (God I'm good) ck
Peace, Love, and Flowers, my friend.
- Wayne
Gene Royer
Marty Fouts wrote in message ...
>Gene Royer filled the aether with:
>
>[snip]
>
>> My main point (as a conservative American and not as an art critic)
>> is that I don't want to support someone else's livelihood whether be
>> legitimate art or crap. Whether this be art or not is irrelevant;
>> and even if it is, should art get a free ride?
>
>Must be convenient living in a cartoon world where everything is so 2d
>and black and white, Geno.
>
>If you think that winning the occasional NEA grant qualifies as a
>'free ride,' you don't know very much about the economics of art.
>
>I assume you will be supporting a cut in the capital gains tax, by the
>way, since it is a form of support of someone else's livelihood.
>
>Marty
>
>--
>
> - 30 -
If someone has to get a grant to support themselves while they produce, then
their product is not much good. Trash is what comes to mind.
Paying an inordinate tax on profits from one's investments (read that risk)
is a detriment to economic growth. I support cutting the capital gains tax
so that (for example) people who sell their homes will not have to pay the
government a share of the profit they make on the sale of it.
Why should the government get a share of the profit I make on investments
when I'm the one taking the risk?
Capital gains tax is a liberal idea that has no place in a free market
society.
--Geno
>
Deck Deckert
> >The best art challenges our perceptions and assumptions.
> Like dogs playing poker?
Like Guernica.
Deck
Nemo
<usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
> The major misunderstanding seems to be in the description of how the
> dung is used. As far as I can tell from the descriptions and the
> photographs I've seen, the canvas is *not* smeared with dung, but
> rather there are two balls of dung that are used below the frame sort
> of as newel posts to hold the frame off the ground.
THAT ISN'T TRUE.
I saw CNN's depiction of it (though I hate CNN), and it looked like
handfull-sized globs of dung were thrown at it from ten feet away, where
they stuck fast.
Nemo
--
--
"Cave ab hominie unius libre.
Beware the man of one book."
--Benjamin Disraeli
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>Have you seen a reproduction of the actual image, or are you basing
>this on the press reports?
I, for one, have seen it Marty.
>
>Do you know the vocabulary of representational materials in the
>artist's native culture, or are you basing this on an assumption from
>your own culture's treatment of dung?
You don't listen very well, do you? The "artist" is British. The
image is also decorated with vaginas and anuses. What is the positive
"cultural treatment" of assholes, Marty?
>It surprises a lot of people schooled in the western art tradition
>when they discover that materials that they would find offensive, such
>as dried dung, have common use, and sometimes even positive
>significants in the vocabulary of other art traditions.
I'd like to see this culture that so reveres shit and assholes that
they use them to decorate holy symbols.
Stop your inane apologizing, Marty, and get your facts straight.
- Wayne
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>Um, Wayne? The Howard Sterns are the ones who thrive *without* the
>subsidy. Oh, and Bach was a subsidized artist, so it does seem that
>some subsidized artists were good at what they did.
Um, Marty? Utter non-sequitur. You are comparing entertainers to
artists. I was using the name as a metaphor for those whose only claim
to fame is the ability to shock.
- Wayne (Duh)
Gene Royer
The Last Real Marlboro Man wrote in message <37f49c9d.25765008@news>...
Isn't he the NBA Commissioner? Or am I thinking of Howard Hursey?
--Geno<not too well versed in sports since Louis beat Schmelling>Royer
The Last Real Marlboro Man
wrote:
>THAT ISN'T TRUE.
Marty never was much good at getting facts straight.
- Wayne (Go figure)
Gene Royer
The Last Real Marlboro Man wrote in message <37f6ab6a.29555198@news>...
Bach was good. The sonovabitch could make beer like no other. Long live
government grants to Bach.
But make his stop playing that damned noisy instrument all night.
--Geno<Jeeze. You'd think he was deaf or something>Royer
moira d
<=5fzNwEZuuty9Q...@4ax.com>:
Wrote one of the co-authors of Letters From The Fire:
>>De (God I'm good) ck
>>
>>(How's that, Moira?)
>
>Best damned fiction writer on the newsgroup, I'd say.
>
>Paul Harwood
>Of course, I'm not moira ...
>
no. to be moira, you would have to be a beautiful
big-jugged woman. Now, what I wonder is, are the
big jugs beautiful, or is the woman?
BTW, Deck. It woulda been perfect were it not
so obvious. C'mon. Subtlety is your strong suit.
you can do it!
--
moi (wow, i'm wonderful) ra
Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is
no guarantee of eventual success.
David Vaughan
> I only heard a brief report on why the dung is considered
> appropriate, but apparently in the artist's native culture,
> elephant dung balls have some positive meaning like
> wishing good fortune.
1) I haven't seen any really good description of the dung,
but want to know more. If they are in fact the creation of
African dung beetles, they are works of art in themselves,
though not created by human hand. They'd be rather,
"included, found" art.
2) I also haven't seen or seen a good description of the
supposed "obscene" included art from Penthouse or
whatever the images are supposed to be.
3) I haven't heard from the artist! All I hear are the hysterical
pratterings of those who yell "Dung! Playboy! Madonna!
Catholic! Obscene! Public Funding!" I'd very much like
to hear from the artist. Maybe this is Old Criticism, but
I'd still like to hear from the artist.
4) I don't believe in public funding for art. Sorry. I just don't.
Maybe it's my Midwestern farmer's practicality, but I just
don't put art in the same category as food, clothing, shelter,
transportation and education. I want my taxes to pay for
schools, highways, defense (within reason), judges,
and tobacco subsidies. And Independent Counsels, too,
of course.
Gene Royer
The Last Real Marlboro Man wrote in message <37f4a9e3.29163673@news>...
>On 30 Sep 1999 11:25:28 -0700, Marty Fouts
Now wait a minute, big guy. Marty might be referring to the Church of The
*Holy Shit*! I hear their mantra everywhere I go.
--Geno
moira d
<37f6a391.27545803@news>:
>On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:00:07 GMT, moi...@iname.com (moira d)
>wrote:
>
>>The fact that Geno can troll and get all kinds
>>of earnest and spirited discussion rolling in this
>>NG,
>
>I think there should be a distinction made between "trolling"
>and introducing important, controversial subjects for debate,
>Moira.
you're right. there should be. when
geno (or anyone) does that, I'll be sure
to make a note of it.
--
<g>ekko
Howard Hursey
>There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it displays
>a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
Yes. As long as it's elephant dung.
>If you say yes, then let me ask: What if it were a symbolic AIDS quilt
>smeared with dung? Would that be acceptable to you?
Yes. As long as it's made of natural fibers.
>I can hear the liberals' shit hitting the fan already.
Naw. That's Pat Buchanan reading "Mein Kampf" aloud.
>What if it were Ronald Reagan's bust all smeared up? What if it were
>Clinton's? Hillary's? Chelsea's? Algore's? Dan Rather's? Dianne
>Sawyer's?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Who?
YES
YES!
>Should tax payers have to subsidize this kind *art* that cannot pay it's own
>way? If it cannot support itself, does it really have any artistic value?
Yes. In fact I propose an across-the-board tax increase of 20 percent
to subsidize Christo's smearing of the Young Republicans AND
Greenpeace with elephant dung. Perhaps it would have no artistic
value, but it would be really funny.
>And if these *artists* get government money upon which to live and enjoy the
>good life, shouldn't we striving writers have the same right? Bwah!
No. A waste of good elephant dung.
>--Geno<born a conservative thinker>Royer
Coach <bored this afternoon>Howie
Ejucaided Redneck
> There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it displays
> a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
There’s no such exhibit. Like any other propagandist for whom truth has
little or no value, Royer is misstating the case. You can see a copy of
the painting in question at:
http://cnn.com/US/9909/27/PM-MuseumFlap.ap/picture.jpg
Nothing=s Asmeared on it.
In another post Royer says of the artist’s motives:
>Not much. My understanding is that he probably thinks all this
>Virgin Mary worship is stupid and that the idea that she was
>*assumed* into heaven is a crock, and that this shit about *Mother
>Mary a virgin forever* is asinine.
That might be what Royer "understands" someone "probably" thinks –i.e.
he ain’t got a clue-- but Chris Ofili (who is a Roman Catholic) was
quoted in The New York Times as saying that he used the pornographic
images because classical images of Mary are often "sexually charged."
Me, I could care less about the whole issue.
A clique of artists and writers of limited popular appeal –most either
well connected with or employed in the often less-than-rational world of
academia—suck up a certain number of taxpayer dollars from the NEA and
other agencies. Sometimes those dollars fund exhibits –such as this
one—I wouldn’t cross the street to see. On the other hand the same
agencies fund worthwhile "arts in the public schools" and similar
projects. It probably evens out over the long run, awards I’d support
and others that leave me wondering who the hell decided _that_ was
"art."
It’s a drop in the bucket in terms of the federal budget, dwarfed into
insignificance by tax dodges and other de facto subsidies of big
business Royer probably doesn’t find at all offensive.
Be nice if he had even a little respect for the truth though.
Gene Royer
Nemo wrote in message ...
>In article <wkr9jgn...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com>, Marty Fouts
><usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>
>> The major misunderstanding seems to be in the description of how the
>> dung is used. As far as I can tell from the descriptions and the
>> photographs I've seen, the canvas is *not* smeared with dung, but
>> rather there are two balls of dung that are used below the frame sort
>> of as newel posts to hold the frame off the ground.
>
>
>
>THAT ISN'T TRUE.
>
>
>I saw CNN's depiction of it (though I hate CNN), and it looked like
>handfull-sized globs of dung were thrown at it from ten feet away, where
>they stuck fast.
>
>Nemo
Hell, ten feet is nothing. But if he can hit it from the pitchers mound he
could be supporting himself. Especially if he's a lefty. Let him throw for
his dough.
--Geno<baizebol been bedy bedy good to me>Royer
Gene Royer
Howard Hursey wrote in message <37f4aeb1....@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Gene Royer" <sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it
displays
>>a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
>
Howard! Come alive my man! I'm bored, too--as my last battery of posts
will indicate. I was just relating to another mw poster his afternoon that
it was this kind of shy-canery that got us kicked off here 18 months ago and
drove us into the bowels of skunkdom.
How much time do you think we have left?
--Geno
Pat Marcello
Deck Deckert <de...@seminole.gate.net> wrote in message
news:7t00e7$2jak$1...@news.gate.net...
> Pat Marcello wrote:
> > What is the definition of art, after all? I see it as a material
> > appreciation of beauty or thought.
>
>
> Art as pretty wallpaper.
>
>
> The best art challenges our perceptions and assumptions.
Au contraire, Monsieur Deck. I said "a material appreciation of beauty OR
thought." That would include challenging perceptions or anything else that
makes us think.
--
Pat M. And you're right. It is the best kind, but not with shit.
Write On!
www.patmarcello.com
Gene Royer
David Vaughan wrote in message <7t0bod$o79$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>...
Actually, tobacco subsidies is a pretty good idea because the government
gets the money back in taxes when the tobacco company raises the price in
order to pay the increase in the taxes which we need to subsidize in order
to help the tobacco companies stay afloat in order to pay 'em.
It's like *you scratch my gander and I'll goose yours* or something.
Transportation is important so I can get to the shooting range.
--Geno
Hound of Cullen
[snip]
: I'd like to see this culture that so reveres shit and assholes that
: they use them to decorate holy symbols.
Why, Usenet, of course.
Hound (is Zero our holy symbol?) of Cullen
Pat Marcello
moira d <moi...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:8E515B533ni...@enews.newsguy.com...
> pa...@prodigy.net (Pat Marcello) wrote in
> <7svueq$2ipk$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>:
>
> >
> >If the arts aren't subsidized, then we may have no artists.
> >painting or the film or ballet biz is very difficult.
> >Without subsidy, not many budding artists can afford to work
> >up to the point where they can support themselves.
>
>
> Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnoooooooooooooo. not
> necessarily.
>
> Can *you* turn off your art? Can anyone, who has
> the call to create, NOT create?
Yes. I know many artists who are unable to create because of their
overwhelming need to attend to everyday life. Forty hours at a job, plus
family, plus parents, plus, plus, plus. The modern worker bee doesn't
always have the time or the energuy to produce great art.
Now, if you're talking dung-flingers, that's another ballgame.
> Art will find a way. Patrons will appear or not,
> but there will always be art.
There are exceptions.
--
Pat M. There are always exceptions.
Write On!
www.patmarcello.com
Gene Royer
Jensen wrote in message <8E517DF35ac...@news.islandnet.com>...
>SPAMBLO...@anv.net (Nemo) wrote in <SPAMBLOCKERnemo
>-30099911...@max04-189.anv.net>:
>
>>In article <wkr9jgn...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com>, Marty
>>Fouts
>><usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The major misunderstanding seems to be in the description
>>> of how the dung is used. As far as I can tell from the
>>> descriptions and the photographs I've seen, the canvas is
>>> *not* smeared with dung, but rather there are two balls of
>>> dung that are used below the frame sort of as newel posts
>>> to hold the frame off the ground.
>>
>>
>>THAT ISN'T TRUE.
>>
>>I saw CNN's depiction of it (though I hate CNN), and it
>>looked like handfull-sized globs of dung were thrown at it
>>from ten feet away, where they stuck fast.
>>
>
>elephant dung and pornographic cutouts". from the image, it
>would appear that the elephant dung is used as marty described,
>as feet for the painting, and the 'handfull-sized [sic] globs'
>are the 'pornographic cutouts'.
>
>i think it important to realise that none of us have seen the
>actual painting so to claim what is TRUE or NOT TRUE is really
>just an exercise in conjecture.
>
>jen
Oh. It;s just little pornographic cut-outs stuck all over the Virgin's
likeness. Well, that's different. I couldn't understand how the elephant
dung could be considered art, but I can see now that it is real sure 'nuf
art. I mean it takes a real expert to cut out those tiny little genitals
and anuses and pictures of people copulating without ruining the Hustler.
--Geno<my brother-in-law hates it when I do that>Royer
David Vaughan
> > 4) I don't believe in public funding for art. Sorry. I just
> > don't. Maybe it's my Midwestern farmer's practicality, but I just
> > don't put art in the same category as food, clothing, shelter,
> > transportation and education. I want my taxes to pay for schools,
> > highways, defense (within reason), judges, and tobacco
> > subsidies. And Independent Counsels, too, of course.
> In this case, it's not the art that was publicly funded, but the
> exhibition of it. The show is a selection of works from a private
> collector, and the money in question is that needed to curate the show
> while it is at the Brooklyn museum.
>
> But I suppose we could shut down all of the public museums and public
> libraries, so as not to offend anyone.
I was joking. Obviously, anyone who claims art is unnecessary
must then justify public spending on tobacco, ICs, etcetera.
I'm not sure I'd give Ofili public tax money, but the Brooklyn
Museum sure deserves some, for furthering the dialog, at
the very least.
Mary Jo Place
Distribution:
Marty Fouts (usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com) wrote:
> David Vaughan filled the aether with:
>
> > 3) I haven't heard from the artist! All I hear are the hysterical
> > pratterings of those who yell "Dung! Playboy! Madonna! Catholic!
> > Obscene! Public Funding!" I'd very much like to hear from the
> > artist. Maybe this is Old Criticism, but I'd still like to hear from
> > the artist.
>
> I have only found one interview (on NPR). Try
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Chris+Ofili
>
> for a list of pages about Ofili, many written before this show.
>
The NY Times interviewed him for an article in Tuesday's paper. I found it
on the NYT web site:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/arts/092899ofili-brooklyn-museum.html
Mary Jo "back to lurking" Place
Scott Elyard
<sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it displays
> a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
Absolutely not. It should therefore be displayed (at public expense) in
your living room.
> If you say yes, then let me ask: What if it were a symbolic AIDS quilt
> smeared with dung? Would that be acceptable to you?
Caustic Irony? Yes.
> I can hear the liberals' shit hitting the fan already.
Are you sure them's not your presuppositions?
> What if it were Ronald Reagan's bust all smeared up? What if it were
> Clinton's? Hillary's? Chelsea's? Algore's? Dan Rather's? Dianne
> Sawyer's?
Well, Chelsea (not being a public figure) would be unacceptable. The
others are fair game.
> Should tax payers have to subsidize this kind *art* that cannot pay it's own
> way? If it cannot support itself, does it really have any artistic value?
Money is not the only coin of the realm for art's sake.
> And if these *artists* get government money upon which to live and enjoy the
> good life, shouldn't we striving writers have the same right? Bwah!
I've been saying this for years, but most of the NEA's dough still goes to
the more tradional arts, like movie houses running The Maltese Falcon,
Shakespearean performances, and Van Gogh exhibits.
I mean, c'mon! All the prinicpals involved in the above examples are
already *dead*. It's not like they're gonna cash their royalty checks!
> --Geno<born a conservative thinker>Royer
Perhaps you should be less conservative in your thinking, and do more of it.
--
Scott Elyard ~~~ooOOoo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Am I wrong? Big Deal. The discussion is all that matters.|
| There is no noise like human talk. IRIX, BeOS, & MacOS.|
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sc...@nyetspam.stonebug.net~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
Scott Elyard
<pa...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that ac
> Absolutely not! And it's not because I was raised Catholic, either. I
> simply believe that the art world is leaning toward the ultimately
> perverse.
What's perverse about manure? Without it, you're not likely to exist,
whereas the existence of the VM is eminently debatable in some circles....
> I covered an International show for the Carnegie in Pittsburgh about four
> years ago, which included photographs of dismembered baby dolls, some
> dripping blood. Much of the modernist stuff was interesting, and I enjoy
> viewing the outré now and again. But I don't enjoy artists blatantly
> exhibiting their psychoses, and getting big money to do it.
>
> What is the definition of art, after all? I see it as a material
> appreciation of beauty or thought. To me, an exhibit such as the New York
> show is the complete antithesis of appreciation. It's more like the
> promotion of hatred, violence, or evil.
Then your definition is too narrow. You need to approach it with an open
mind, not a closed one, and consider the intent.
Did it make you angry? Yes? Then what could the intent have possibly
been? To make you appreciate the inner godliness of manure?
Or to make you realize in a humble way how humanity excretes upon the
values of decency, or how tarnished good intentions can become, or how
steadfast everything that the VM symbolises holds against the shit of the
world?
Did any of those thoughts (or similar) enter your head at any time?
Why not?
Thinking isn't necessarily the same as *reacting*.
> Sorry. Can't hang with that. Bully for Giuliani. It's about time someone
> stood up and said, "No more."
>
>
>
> --
> Pat M. Society is in dire need of healing if that shit, and I mean that
> literally, is considered art.
Society has always needed healing, and it always will.
Society will be sicker of its politicians sooner than any form of art, I
guarantee you.
Good luck to you.
Scott Elyard
<de...@seminole.gate.net> wrote:
> Pat Marcello wrote:
> > What is the definition of art, after all? I see it as a material
> > appreciation of beauty or thought.
>
>
> Art as pretty wallpaper.
>
>
> The best art challenges our perceptions and assumptions.
>
>
> Deck
As wallpaper. And screensavers. Gotta love it.
Scott Elyard
<sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> No one here (yet) has suggested that it be banned (censored). Just that it
> not be funded by taxpayer (read that MY) dollars.
>
>
> --Gene Royer
As though your wheedling about your 1/10 of 1 cent contribution was
anything but laughable.
David Vaughan
> [Quoting from a NYT article:
> Elephant dung, which has become something of a signature in
> Ofili's paintings, is in large part a cultural reference to his
> African heritage, he said. Although he was born in Manchester,
> both his parents were born in Lagos, Nigeria, and their first
> language was Yoruba. (His parents are now divorced, Ofili said.
>
> As to the "fact" of "splattering", the NY time article also has the
> best description of the painting, more accurate than either mine or
> the detractors:
>
> While news reports have described his paintings as being
> splattered with dung, the clumps are actually carefully placed on
> each canvas.
In another article from the references you supplied (thanks), art critic
Johnathon Jones talks about Ofili's paintings as a big joke that
most of us don't get, which effectively precludes him from winning
such prestigious art prizes as the Turner. The painting he uses as
an example is "The Adoration of Captain Shit and the Legend of
the Black Stars."
Ofili then did win the 1998 Turner Prize, and in a commentary about
that, another critic
</quote>
...Michaela Parkin of the Tate Gallery, told the press that Ofili
was struck by inspiration when he saw elephant droppings in Zimbabwe
"I'm going to chuck this stuff at the paintings." he said. Mixed with
glitter and studded with corkboard pins, the elephant dung is sometimes
plastered with clippings from porno magazines. The porn is a quaint
old-fashioned touch which arises from the theory that sex still has the
power to shock. Sex aside, without the merde factor, it is unlikely
Ofili would have won the £20,000 prize....
</quote off>
So it looks like elephant dung, oil paint, acrylics, glitter and porno
clippings comprise Ofili's medium. He's made fun of artists, black
cultural deification, and other sacred cows.
Here's another quote:
"ARTnewspaper.com does not support the Turner Prize. In the
opinion of the Editor, it is less about promoting and rewarding young
British talent and more about promoting Britain as the land of
never-ending eccentricity. The credo of Nicholas Serota and the Tate
Gallery who with a board of judges determine the Turner Prize has
become, "the stranger the better". As weirdness is the deciding factor,
one can hardly take the Turner Prize seriously. However to many, it
is construed otherwise."
In the context of the exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum, ie.: shocking
and controversial art, the inclusion of Ofili's work makes sense to me.
seph...@id-base.com
> No art should receive public money, as far as I'm concerned.
Hmm, you seem to have missed out a good reason for opinion. The whole point
of granting money for art and artists, is so *you* can get something back as
well as letting artists express themselves. The way *you* get something back
from granting money, is by being able to look at their work in galeries,
museums, out in the open, etc.
--
-------__dj_shiny_blue____---------
http://members.dencity.com/blahblur
Scott Elyard
<pa...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> As I understood it from the news report I heard, she is also covered by
> profane writing, Marty. If the artist is Catholic, his negative approach
> makes more sense to me. However, I still can't condone his "artistic"
> style.
So don't. Nobody asked you to do so.
> I think the world is confused about what constitutes art. No talent
> "artists" have taken over, IMHO. Just because they're willing to exhibit
> works to shock and dismay doesn't make them artists.
I disagree. Your definiton of what constitutes art is far too narrow for
my blood. Shock and dismay are valid human experiences. Used properly,
they can be highly effective. Implying that they cannot merely because
you will not look at art in any other way is to limit your own experience.
> My in-laws are both fine artists. Hell, they're exquisite artists. My
> mother-in-law could decorate the world with five dollars at the Goodwill
> because she has the most magnificent sense of beauty. And no, I'm not
> writing this to make up for yesterday's comment. ;-) It's the truth.
Art isn't just about beuty, though. If it were, then nothing would be
art, because there is no universal perception of beauty that's consistent.
> Although my father-in-law had commercial success, neither of them has been
> very widely received by the curators and gallery owners. They're considered
> passé in style and content. It appalls me. And no, they're not amateur
> painters. Both are academy trained and extremely talented.
Then they should look for other outlets that will appreciate them. Talent
that runs in the same circles for exposure will get nowhere.
> OTOH, we have people drawing blank space or forming it with resins, such as
> the area under a chair. Big bucks for that. Yet, I can see the concept and
> I can relate to the fascination. What fascination can you gain from seeing
> religious symbols or babies or even gutted animals upheld as art?
What fascinates me is that you didn't even take the time to consider it.
Should art be merely pretty? Tolerable? Palatable? Easily digestible?
I'd disagree that it should. Art can shock, and make you think, and make
you consider your own perceptions and opinions for any theme or subject or
topic.
But, just as with a book, if the viewer's mind is closed to the
possibility, there will only be the reaction of:
Offensive! And: disgust!
Without delving a bit further, and thinking about why you were offended,
or disgusted, then naturally, you're probably not going to think it's art.
> Pat M. Someone explain that to me. In plain English.
>
> Write On!
> www.patmarcello.com
Scott Elyard
<sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Of course, I agree with everything Pat has said.
>
> My main point (as a conservative American and not as an art critic) is that
> I don't want to support someone else's livelihood whether be legitimate art
> or crap. Whether this be art or not is irrelevant; and even if it is,
> should art get a free ride?
I hope you don't drive or send money to any large corporation living off
our own largesse, then. Such would be hypocritical.
> geNo!
>
> Damn I'm clever.
If twittering is clever, then yes.
Ah, but the Devil whooped, as he whooped of old,
"It's Clever! But is it Art?"
Good old Rudyard.
Scott Elyard
<sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> You are a hoot, Marty. A bit dull, but a hoot, nonetheless.
>
> --Geno<in fact, you're quite a bit dull>Royer
How interesting. Geno is bored by facts.
Scott Elyard
(moira d) wrote:
> Can *you* turn off your art? Can anyone, who has
> the call to create, NOT create?
>
> Art will find a way. Patrons will appear or not,
> but there will always be art.
Yes, but all that theater space is expensive to heat. Tix (here) are
already $15 a night. I guarantee you, no one's getting rich off their
performances, either.
I'd certainly hate to see a few pesky reactives spoil the rest of the
public pot, myself.
seph...@id-base.com
> Gene Royer <sir...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7sucjc$pd6$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > There is an art exhibit in Brooklyn (at taxpayers' expense), and it
> displays
> > a symbolic Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung? Is that acceptable?
>
> Absolutely not! And it's not because I was raised Catholic, either. I
> simply believe that the art world is leaning toward the ultimately
> perverse.
Perverse in your opinion, but considered a great symbolic representation of
*something* by the artist and the artist's supporters. I personally have not
seen it, but I don't think it would shock me when I do see it. I have seen
some, what would be considered strange art and I really don't think this would
be anything different.
> What is the definition of art, after all?
Just to point out; Art should not be considered defined, it's up to you to
consider what is art and what isn't art.
--
-------__dj_shiny_blue____---------
http://members.dencity.com/blahblur
Gene Royer
seph...@id-base.com wrote in message <37F3CABB...@id-base.com>...
>Jerry Kindall wrote:
>
>> No art should receive public money, as far as I'm concerned.
>
>Hmm, you seem to have missed out a good reason for opinion. The whole point
>of granting money for art and artists, is so *you* can get something back
as
>well as letting artists express themselves. The way *you* get something
back
>from granting money, is by being able to look at their work in galeries,
>museums, out in the open, etc.
>
Oh, wow...
If the stuff is good enough to hang in galleries and museums why isn't it
good enough for those institutions to pay for it? Good artwork sells for
high prices to those who appreciate it. When the work sells, does the
artist give back his subsidy?
The truth is, very little artwork is worth paying money for--at least not a
livable wage to the doped up hackers who produce it. The solution is then:
do away with the crappy stuff and let the good artiste pay his/her own way
through life. Separate the chaff from the wheat just like in the writing
business.
crappy art. Who needs it.
--Geno
Gene Royer
Scott Elyard wrote in message ...
>In article <7svol6$js7$1...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>, "Gene Royer"
><sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course, I agree with everything Pat has said.
>>
>> My main point (as a conservative American and not as an art critic) is
that
>> I don't want to support someone else's livelihood whether be legitimate
art
>> or crap. Whether this be art or not is irrelevant; and even if it is,
>> should art get a free ride?
>
>
>I hope you don't drive or send money to any large corporation living off
>our own largesse, then. Such would be hypocritical.
>
>
>> geNo!
>>
>> Damn I'm clever.
>
>
>If twittering is clever, then yes.
>
>Ah, but the Devil whooped, as he whooped of old,
>"It's Clever! But is it Art?"
>
>Good old Rudyard.
>
The next time you need a job you silly ass, go ask some unemployed artist to
hire you. Corporations provide jobs for literally tens of millions and
thousands more in the vendors and market places they nurture. All those
people pay taxes and otherwise add to the national economy. Crappy artwork
adds nothing.
Largess indeed.
--Geno
Scott Elyard
<sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> My guess is that no one will line up to buy it.
>
Not all art is meant to be bought.
Scott Elyard
SPAMBLO...@anv.net (Nemo) wrote:
> In article <907-37F...@storefull-125.bryant.webtv.net>,
> First off, I am (as usual) full agreement with Gene Royer. Especially on
> this subject. (My congratulations on Geno's analogy of the Aids quilt or
> Clinton's bust being smeared with dung. We all know it would provoke
> outrage, and deservedly so, but it exposes the latent hypocrisy of certain
> people on this subject.)
(Looking around.) Like whom?
[...]
> I recall a court case where a judge was cited as saying "the value of a
> thing is what that thing will bring."
>
> So it is with our work, and so it should also be with art. Let the
> marketplace decide, and we'll have less trash offered up in our museums,
> and you know what? Attendance at museums will pick up as a result. I'd
> never visit that museum for any reason, but I *would* visit a quality art
> exhibit elsewhere. How could I take my son to see crap like that? (Pun
> very much intended.)
Let the cheap drive out the good? What a capital idea.
So, you heard about it, and based on that alone (as a reactive rather than
thoughtful measure) decided it was inappropriate for your son.
Me, I'd take my kids to see it, and start a discussion about it, and let
them think about it for themselves.
But then, that's the difference here. We have two basic groups of
people: those that think about what art is all the time, and have some
notions about what it is, and those that don't. Or can't. And these are
the reactives.
> I have a basic rule of art. Call it "Nemo's Rule of Art": If I am
> capable of outputting the same blobs, scratchings, or crude
> two-dimensional depictions as was done by the artist...THEN IT AIN'T ART.
> Why?
>
> Because I'm no artist. Gimme a pencil and piece of paper and I'll prove
> it to you. I'm worse than anyone you know--worse than a sixth grade kid.
> Therefore, my rule is, if I can do what the "artiste" has done, then it's
> junk.
>
> Good art, like good literature, is something that takes years of practice,
> and takes a certain talent in addition to the practice.
>
> Would we not all agree on this?
Sure. Until you're dead and we then have no way of verifying what is
art. If you're hit by a basketball coach late for practice on your way to
work, and then we have to deal with the notion that it's senseless to let
any one person's idea of what art is to govern the rest of it.
If it works for you, then fine. But it won't work for anyone else.
Scott Elyard
<jensm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not that art isn't supposed to make a statement. But I don't believe art
> should be used as a way to deface or devalue things that have symbolic
> meaning to other people. Take flag burning, could an artist set up an
> exhibit of flags, set them to fire and call it art? Or would that be a
> political statement? What's the defining line, or isn't there one where art
> is concerned?
Depends on how burning flags are displayed, yes?
> Which brings me back to, what is it the artist is trying to say that has
> been misunderstood?
What do you think the artist might have been trying to say?
> Smokey
Gene Royer
Scott Elyard wrote in message ...
><sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> You are a hoot, Marty. A bit dull, but a hoot, nonetheless.
>>
>> --Geno<in fact, you're quite a bit dull>Royer
>
>
>How interesting. Geno is bored by facts.
>
The *fact* is that he is almost as boring as you.
--Geno
Scott Elyard
<sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Not much. My understanding is that he probably thinks all this Virgin Mary
> worship is stupid and that the idea that she was *assumed* into heaven is a
> crock, and that this shit about *Mother Mary a virgin forever* is asinine.
>
> I happen to agree, and you got it from me without having to spend a dime of
> your tax dollars.
Okay, now the flipside. You've done one version. Come up with another
one, a different one, like I did for Pat Marcello in another post.
Scott Elyard
[...]
> Yeah, Giuliani will lose this one in part because he was honest about his
> motives. Typical conservative fault. ;)
Let's not equate honesty with stupidity. It was a stupid move of the
Mayor's part, not an honest one.
[...]> Personally, I hope this thing gets worked out rationally. The best
> solution would be:
>
> 1. Museum gets its funding.
> 2. Museum attendance declines precipitously as a result of "junk" art
> 3. Good artists express their "concern" about having their works
> displayed alongside "junk" art, with consequent public outrage
> and falling attendance
> 4. Curator of museum gets it through his thick skull not to put NYC
> into this kind of position ever again. And he keeps his stupid job.
>
>
> Viola! Everyone wins.
>
> Except the dung smearing and head-decapitating artists.
How pettily vindictive of you.
But at least you're honest about it.
I should do some art. Smear a statue of Ray Kroc with boogers. Or
something along that line.
Scott Elyard
Kindall <kin...@mail.manual.com> wrote:
> No art should receive public money, as far as I'm concerned. As far as
> I can tell, most of the Western world's greatest works of art were
> funded either by private patronage or by the Catholic Church.
No corporations ought to either, regarless of what they're doing or why.
No libraries ought to receive anything either. Let Carnegie support
them. Let the marketplace drive them out, rather than keep them limping
along on property tax subsidies and sales taxes and the like.
No museum, theatre, or public park ought to either.
Nothing should.
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>the dung is not thrown on or smeared.
Of course not. It is artfully "placed". Big difference.
- Wayne (Oh, puh-lease)
The Last Real Marlboro Man
<usene...@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> wrote:
>Also try to keep points straight. I made no comment about the
>images, only the use of dung. Dung has been widely used, even in
>sacred contexts, in art.
You made no comment about them because you didn't know about them.
You entered this thread by storming about shouting "get your facts
straight" at everyone in sight in that nauseatingly superior manner of
yours, and then you proceeded in the same breath to spout incomplete
and incorrect "facts" of your own.
You have since been shown to be a gasbag.
My work here is done.
- Wayne
Jerry Kindall
scott@nyetspam_stonebug.net (Scott Elyard) wrote:
> In article <kindall-1B32D1...@news.mw.mediaone.net>,
> Jerry Kindall <kin...@mail.manual.com> wrote:
>
> > No art should receive public money, as far as I'm concerned. As
> > far as I can tell, most of the Western world's greatest works of
> > art were funded either by private patronage or by the Catholic
> > Church.
>
> No corporations ought to either, regarless of what they're doing or
> why.
>
> No libraries ought to receive anything either. Let Carnegie support
> them. Let the marketplace drive them out, rather than keep them
> limping along on property tax subsidies and sales taxes and the like.
>
> No museum, theatre, or public park ought to either.
>
> Nothing should.
I will say that there's a difference of degree between local funding of
public projects (e.g. museums, libraries, etc.) and national-level
funding of the arts. If we're going to have such funding, it is almost
certainly better to have it happen at the municipal and/or county level,
if only because it is easier to move out of a city whose (ab)use of your
taxes you don't like than it is to leave the country.
Thus, my objection to NYC's use of their own tax money to fund an art
exhibit is fairly low-key. That's local funding and local control --
it's up to them as a city whether they want to do it. Much better than
Federal funding of artists, where an individual taxpayer has far less
control, which is the other direction this topic was drifting.
--
Jerry Kindall <mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com> Technical Writing, etc.
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/> We Wrote the Book!
When life throws you a curve, make lemonade.
Scott Elyard
<sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The next time you need a job you silly ass, go ask some unemployed artist to
> hire you. Corporations provide jobs for literally tens of millions and
> thousands more in the vendors and market places they nurture. All those
> people pay taxes and otherwise add to the national economy. Crappy artwork
> adds nothing.
>
> Largess indeed.
>
> --Geno
Ah, but the definition, my all-too-easily-ruffled poseur, of what's crap
is not yours alone to make. It's not even your to make at all, for
anybody else but yourself. So crank on about your insignificant (if
involuntary) contribution. I fully commiserate.
So I disagree. Art needs to be more than clever. It needs to make you
think, too. If you're funding it in any significant fashion (which you
don't), you're mostly squawking about access, and you risk endangering the
(ir)regular performances Shakespeare at the Little Theater.
Oh, and before you lump all public art under what you've determined is
crap in an unqualified fashion, perhaps you should actually look at what
public art funds, and where.
Our next discussion will no doubt be about art, and whether it's okay for
kids to climb on it, and whether Geno would like a little tempest with his
teapot.
Gene Royer
Let's start one about Stock car racing. Now there's a real challenge that
takes artistic ability.
--Geno
Scott Elyard
<sir...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The truth is, very little artwork is worth paying money for--at least not a
> livable wage to the doped up hackers who produce it. The solution is then:
> do away with the crappy stuff and let the good artiste pay his/her own way
> through life. Separate the chaff from the wheat just like in the writing
> business.
It's not a great painting, but I did think it was an interesting (and
nontraditional) bit of imagery of the Virgin Mary. The artist must have
been aware of the implications of dung in our culture while he created it,
so I maintain the imagery remains somewhat religiously provocative.
> crappy art. Who needs it.
Those unqualified enough to spout off about it, apparently.
Most of those against it haven't seen it, apparently. Most of those
against it have also done nothing but *react* to it without thinking.
Last chance before looking stupid, Geno. This isn't about conservatism at
all. I know many conservatives who would not judge before viewing, and
some do consider the NEA's money largely well spent. I consider myself
one, but that doesn't mean I care to toe the party line. I care to think
for myself.
Pat Marcello
Scott Elyard <scott@nyetspam_stonebug.net> wrote in message
news:scott-30099...@204.182.133.13...
> In article <7svnj5$3ouo$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Pat Marcello"
> <pa...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > As I understood it from the news report I heard, she is also covered by
> > profane writing, Marty. If the artist is Catholic, his negative
approach
> > makes more sense to me. However, I still can't condone his "artistic"
> > style.
>
>
> So don't. Nobody asked you to do so.
Boy, Scott, your attitude seems to be that anything goes as far as art is
concerned. Hmm... That's your perception. You say mine is narrow. Art
appreciation is really subjective. Isn't it, after all? What you see as
art or Marty or Geno or me are all different. Personally, I don't think art
has to be beautiful. That was your interpretation of what I wrote, as it
was Deck's. I said it's a material expression of *thought, too, and I never
said the thoughts had to be pretty.
Yet, I still don't like shit art, just as I don't approve of child
pornography. That's shocking. Would you consider that art, too, if it was
hung on a museum wall? You could interpret it anyway you saw fit, but it
would still be offensive. I'm wondering where you draw the line.
You paint me as a Pollyanna-type, and boy, do you have the wrong impression.
Still, I think there's way too much negativity these days. You can let them
feed you dung, if you like it. That's your preference.
--
Pat M. But I'm not dumb enough to eat it.
Write On!
www.patmarcello.com