Catholic Religion Insulted By "Artist"
WJMiller8
label "artist" has made a black Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung. The
Brooklyn Museum of Art has decided to display this "art" along with other
similiar degenerate nonsense.
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has decided in the name of common decency
to try to put a stop to this outrage. Appeals to reason fell on deaf ears. He
is attempting to use the only leverage he has -- cutting off public funds for
the museum. Now in come the First Amendment folks with their "anything goes"
attitude -- they are the analog of the Second Amendment folks -- "guns and ammo
all around." Striking a patriotic posture they defend the dung-covered Virgin
Mary as "art."
It might be instructive to review the cast of characters who failed to support
Mayor Giuliani on this issue:
Arnold Lehman, Director of the Brooklyn Museum of Art (vigorously defends
"art")
Robert S. Rubin, Museum Board Chairman (To date has not condemned exhibit).
Norman Siegel, ACLU (need I tell you his position?)
Howard Golden, Brooklyn Borough President ("outrageous" but do not cut funds,
in other words -- go right ahead).
I wonder how many of the mayor's opponents attend Mass on any kind of regular
basis? I wonder how they would feel if some equivalent anti-Semitic "work of
art" were displayed in the Brooklyn Museum of Art? To ask the question is to
answer it.
Bill
NYC
rich
On 24 Sep 1999 17:58:53 GMT, wjmi...@aol.com (WJMiller8) wrote:
Just the tone of your last paragraph showed what you really are!!!
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> >Surely there must be some limit.
What a great idea! Let's limit freedom of speech to that speech which
doesn't *need* the protection!
--
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg
li...@ork.net
> Surely there must be some limit. A British person acting under cover of the
> label "artist" has made a black Virgin Mary splattered with elephant dung. The
> Brooklyn Museum of Art has decided to display this "art" along with other
> similiar degenerate nonsense.
Of course there is a limit.
Imagine an "art" exhibit that showed, with clinical precision, exactly
what happens when a fetus is aborted, in the various ways it is done.
That "art", just as much art as an exhibition of a black virgin mary with
elephant dung, would be picketed by all the liberals, people who funded it
would be cut off, literally, and no one would be permitted to attend.
The limit of liberal folks is when their own oxen are gored.
li...@ork.net
> On 24 Sep 1999 17:58:53 GMT, wjmi...@aol.com (WJMiller8) wrote:
> Just the tone of your last paragraph showed what you really are!!!
>>I wonder how many of the mayor's opponents attend Mass on any kind of regular
>>basis? I wonder how they would feel if some equivalent anti-Semitic "work of
>>art" were displayed in the Brooklyn Museum of Art? To ask the question is to
>>answer it.
I think what he is is pissed at his most sacred religious symbol being
defiled.
While I don't think of it as holy, or even true, I'm pissed off as well.
Remember, if you don't object when the liberals come for others'
religions, then no one will be left when they come for yours.
Steve Manes
>Remember, if you don't object when the liberals come for others'
>religions, then no one will be left when they come for yours.
Wow, Liam.... orginal paraphrase, it it? Do you have a similarly
plagiarized, pithy thought to express the situation when
electioneering right-wingers come for your freedom of expression?
li...@ork.net
The point was not to pretend that it was an original paraphrase. Only a
sub-moronic cretin such as yourself would see it in that light.
The point, cretin, was that people of good character (not chimps that
pretend to be human like you) need to stand together against complete
filth, even if they are not of the same faith. The point, cretin, was
specifically to evoke a recollection of that prior phrase.
Now, run along, child.
Richard
<li...@ork.net> wrote in message news:lkSG3.119$oy2....@news.shore.net...
> Imagine an "art" exhibit that showed, with clinical precision, exactly
> what happens when a fetus is aborted, in the various ways it is done.
>
> That "art", just as much art as an exhibition of a black virgin mary with
> elephant dung, would be picketed by all the liberals, people who funded it
> would be cut off, literally, and no one would be permitted to attend.
>
> The limit of liberal folks is when their own oxen are gored.
What you really mean is that narrow-minded, intolerant people, whatever
their politics, will make a big fuss when their tax dollars are used to pay
for something that offends them. Being a conservative Catholic, I suppose,
your "oxen are gored" by the fact that you may have contributed a penny or
two to the Brooklyn Museum exhibit. And you're probably right about how
liberals would react, at least narrow-minded and intolerant ones, to "an art
exhibit that showed, with clinical precision, exactly what happens when a
fetus is aborted, in the various ways it is done." But there are many of us
on the left, and a few on the right, I would hope, who support art, and
public funding for art, even when we are offended by it in some way. If the
Brooklyn Museum featured an exhibit which included an aborted fetus, though
some of us would probably be offended by it, we would support it
nonetheless, because we believe in freedom of expression in the arts, and we
believe that the arts in general are more than worthy of being publicly
subsidized.
So now you can call me names, too.
Richard
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> The point was not to pretend that it was an original paraphrase.
I'd like to know what "an original paraphrase" might possibly be.
li...@ork.net
>> The limit of liberal folks is when their own oxen are gored.
> What you really mean is that narrow-minded, intolerant people, whatever
> their politics, will make a big fuss when their tax dollars are used to pay
> for something that offends them. Being a conservative Catholic, I suppose,
> your "oxen are gored" by the fact that you may have contributed a penny or
> two to the Brooklyn Museum exhibit.
One especially valuable trick to progressing with some dgree of success in
this world is to learn how to read.
And if you'd done that, you would have seen that my prior message stated
that I not only did not consider this whole virgin mary business to be
holy, but I did not consider it true. In fact, that was the whole point of
the "when they come for you" message.
So, congradulations. You missed the ENTIRE POINT of my message.
> And you're probably right about how
> liberals would react, at least narrow-minded and intolerant ones, to "an art
> exhibit that showed, with clinical precision, exactly what happens when a
> fetus is aborted, in the various ways it is done." But there are many of us
> on the left, and a few on the right, I would hope, who support art, and
> public funding for art, even when we are offended by it in some way.
The speed at which the vast majority of liberals have reacted to anything
which gores their oxen in the past, and the amplitudes of such reactions,
dispenses with the need for me to begin listing these reactions.
Liberals, in general, are very fair-minded and open-minded to anything
which is liberal.
Now, please tell me what "art" is. And no, the definition of "art" is not
"anything which succeeds in portraying anything conservative or religious
in a bad light."
If the
> Brooklyn Museum featured an exhibit which included an aborted fetus, though
> some of us would probably be offended by it, we would support it
> nonetheless, because we believe in freedom of expression in the arts, and we
> believe that the arts in general are more than worthy of being publicly
> subsidized.
Perhaps you need to distinguish between the freedom of expression in the
arts and the freedom to take the public money for literally displaying
pieces of shit.
There is a difference, and one that is not very subtle for those who
consider the issue for any appreciable period of time.
> So now you can call me names, too.
No need. Your prior message has communicated all that needs to be said
about your mental acuity. I believe you did so utilizing your freedom of
expression.
rich
hey guys!! what's the big problem. its the black virgin image not
ours!! i bet if you talked to some of these people who are insulted
they would admit that its a black image so its not REALLY catholic if
you catch my drift!! if that black image was in their parish they
would demand that it disappear
Freedom Fighter
<19990925090056...@ng-fk1.aol.com>...
>Surely there must be some limit. A British person acting under cover of
the
>label "artist" has made a black Virgin Mary splattered with elephant
dung. The
>Brooklyn Museum of Art has decided to display this "art" along with
other
>similiar degenerate nonsense.
< snip >
If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
Some people consider cows sacred. Would you allow them to legislate
against their slaughter for food, or even have a government official
advocate in their behalf? Freedom of expression includes ALL expression,
even if tasteless and offensive. Freedom of religion includes freedom
FROM
religion, or the dictates of religion, for those that so choose. This is
America, where good citizens tolerate the rights of others. Hypocrite
Giuliani does all he can to impose his and his church's concepts of
morality on everyone else, even though they cannot live up to them
themselves!
Richard
> One especially valuable trick to progressing with some dgree of success in
> this world is to learn how to read.
>
> And if you'd done that, you would have seen that my prior message stated
> that I not only did not consider this whole virgin mary business to be
> holy, but I did not consider it true. In fact, that was the whole point of
> the "when they come for you" message.
>
> So, congradulations. You missed the ENTIRE POINT of my message.
Yes, you're right. I did make an error, a human one. After reading through
every thread, I failed to remember that you were the one who was only
concerned with the public funding aspect of this issue and was not deeply
offended by the art work's ostensibly anti-Christian message. Yet I hardly
missed your *entire* point. I spoke to the fact that I and others support
our tax dollars being used to present art to the public, even when that art
offends some people. You disagree, apparently vehemently, with this. But
you don't say whether you believe that no art should be publicly subsidized
at all, nor do you mention what sort of mechanism should be put in place to
prevent something that you don't consider to be art from being publicly
funded. Do you oppose all forms of taxation outright? Where do you draw
the line at what your tax dollars should be spent on? When you, Liam, are
offended by it?
> The speed at which the vast majority of liberals have reacted to anything
> which gores their oxen in the past, and the amplitudes of such reactions,
> dispenses with the need for me to begin listing these reactions.
> Liberals, in general, are very fair-minded and open-minded to anything
> which is liberal.
You know, I'd really like to have a civil discussion/debate about this
issue, but the statements you make about liberals, as above, make it nearly
impossible. I mean, you could just as easily substitute the word liberal
with the word conservative, right? And what does that get you, besides an
argument, which may be all you're looking for anyway?
>
> Now, please tell me what "art" is. And no, the definition of "art" is not
> "anything which succeeds in portraying anything conservative or religious
> in a bad light."
Webster's New World Dictionary defines art as "a making or doing of things
that display form, beauty or unusual perception." Whether or not something
purported to be a work of art meets those criteria is ultimately up to the
artist, as well as he or she who beholds it. The artist who as one part of
his depiction of the Virgin Mary splattered his object with elephant dung
sincerely believes, I'm sure, that he has met them, as do those at the
Brooklyn Museum who sought it as part of the exhibit in question. But a
number of others, including Mayor Giuliani and yourself, obviously don't.
It is impossible to *prove* that something is or isn't a work of art; that
just can't be done. But just because it "succeeds in portraying anything
conservative or religious in a bad light" does not preclude it from being a
work of art. Ditto for art that shows anything liberal or atheistic in a
bad light.
> If the
> > Brooklyn Museum featured an exhibit which included an aborted fetus,
though
> > some of us would probably be offended by it, we would support it
> > nonetheless, because we believe in freedom of expression in the arts,
and we
> > believe that the arts in general are more than worthy of being publicly
> > subsidized.
>
> Perhaps you need to distinguish between the freedom of expression in the
> arts and the freedom to take the public money for literally displaying
> pieces of shit.
Now the onus is on you to *prove* that the work in question is not art. The
elephant dung is only one element in the work as a whole, by the way. The
use of shit, animal and human, along with other animal and human bodily
fluids, is nothing new in art, and plenty of exhibits in NYC have included
works created with these materials.
Oh yeah, and as you obviously haven't researched the topic one little bit,
it may interest you to know that the artist who produced this painting of
the Virgin Mary was brought up as a Catholic and was "inspired by African
traditions that venerate elephant dung as a symbol of regeneration," to
quote the NY Times.
> There is a difference, and one that is not very subtle for those who
> consider the issue for any appreciable period of time.
If a community wants to set standards to regulate what types of work its
publicly funded arts organizations may produce, it is more than welcome to
do so. I believe that the Supreme Court has made this clear. But obviously
such standards are not in place in NYC, or else the Saatchi Collection would
not be on display in Brooklyn. For the mayor of the city to autocratically
call for the removal of the exhibit after the fact and to threaten to cancel
funding of the sponsoring organization if this is not done is entirely
unacceptable in a democracy.
> > So now you can call me names, too.
>
> No need. Your prior message has communicated all that needs to be said
> about your mental acuity. I believe you did so utilizing your freedom of
> expression.
Isn't this the same as calling me an idiot?
Richard
rich
li...@ork.net
> You disagree, apparently vehemently, with this. But
> you don't say whether you believe that no art should be publicly subsidized
> at all, nor do you mention what sort of mechanism should be put in place to
> prevent something that you don't consider to be art from being publicly
> funded.
If there are no objective criteria for determining what is "art," someone
could literally just take some shit in a bucket and put a model of Freedom
Fighter in it, and call THAT art. Would that make it art, for the purpose
of qualifying for government funds?
Wait a second, they did just do something just like that. Except, because
they wanted to draw more publicity to it, they used a religious symbol.
Does it become more likely to be "art" if it is deeply offensive to
members of a religion? Is that the criteria to use in determining what art
is? Is everything that is very offensive considered art and therefore
deserving of government funding?
> Do you oppose all forms of taxation outright? Where do you draw
> the line at what your tax dollars should be spent on? When you, Liam, are
> offended by it?
A total non-sequitor. Nothing in what I posted should lead anyone to make
any conclusions about my views about taxation in general. There certainly
are useful things for which taxation is needed. Perhaps, even, for funding
art, if someone can come up with some reasonable criteria for what it is.
If no one can, and we end up subsidizing shit (literally) then that should
be a signal to people whose IQ exceeds the the fall temperature outside
today that we should stop subsidizing "art."
>> Now, please tell me what "art" is. And no, the definition of "art" is not
>> "anything which succeeds in portraying anything conservative or religious
>> in a bad light."
> Webster's New World Dictionary defines art as "a making or doing of things
> that display form, beauty or unusual perception." Whether or not something
> purported to be a work of art meets those criteria is ultimately up to the
> artist, as well as he or she who beholds it. The artist who as one part of
> his depiction of the Virgin Mary splattered his object with elephant dung
> sincerely believes, I'm sure, that he has met them, as do those at the
> Brooklyn Museum who sought it as part of the exhibit in question. But a
> number of others, including Mayor Giuliani and yourself, obviously don't.
> It is impossible to *prove* that something is or isn't a work of art; that
> just can't be done. But just because it "succeeds in portraying anything
> conservative or religious in a bad light" does not preclude it from being a
> work of art. Ditto for art that shows anything liberal or atheistic in a
> bad light.
So then, all that is necessary for something to be "art" is for the
"artist" to say that is is art. That's just great. Tell me, I feel a bowel
movement coming on. And I just know, I just *know* for sure, that it will
be a very unusual bowel movement.
Where do I get forms to apply for funding for my bowel movements?
> Oh yeah, and as you obviously haven't researched the topic one little bit,
> it may interest you to know that the artist who produced this painting of
> the Virgin Mary was brought up as a Catholic and was "inspired by African
> traditions that venerate elephant dung as a symbol of regeneration," to
> quote the NY Times.
Then perhaps, if what he really intended was veneration, he should have
taken his shitty work, as well as his shit-eating carcass, and displayed
his work in Africa.
>> about your mental acuity. I believe you did so utilizing your freedom of
>> expression.
> Isn't this the same as calling me an idiot?
Why yes, I believe it is, now that you mention it.
WJMiller8
If I were to desecrate the Torah in a temple would it be a remedy it we
cautioned people not to come and see it unless they really wanted to? I do not
think so. It is just as silly to permit a free shot at desecrating Christianity
by allowing a protected area in a museum and calling the culprit "artist."
Bill
WJMiller8
>of this issue and was not deeply
>offended by the art work's ostensibly anti-Christian message. Yet I hardly
>missed your *entire* point. I spoke to the fact that I and others support
>our tax dollars being used to present art to the public, even when that art
The whole thing revolves around whether we are going to allow anything to be
called "art." Was the Cristal Night staged by Hitler a form of art? Is
anything OK as long as it is within the walls of a museum? I say NO and you say
YES. Sad.
Bill
WJMiller8
[snip] >If there are no objective criteria for determining what is "art,"
someone
>could literally just take some shit in a bucket and put a model of Freedom
>Fighter in it, and call THAT art. Would that make it art, for the purpose
>of qualifying for government funds?[snip]
I did the original posting on this thread. You are the first person to agree
that shit is shit and art is art (to summarize). There seem to be a lot of
people out there who will relish going into the Brooklyn Museum next week and
glorying in their power to defame Christianity and get away with it (in
Brooklyn but suggest not trying it elsewhere).
Bill
Richard
<li...@ork.net> wrote in message news:%C9H3.231
> If there are no objective criteria for determining what is "art," someone
> could literally just take some shit in a bucket and put a model of Freedom
> Fighter in it, and call THAT art. Would that make it art, for the purpose
> of qualifying for government funds?
Sure, if you could convince an appropriate governmental agency that it was
art, but you probably can't. The artist who rendered painting of the Virgin
Mary that has upset you and so many people used elephant dung merely as one
element of the total work, and as I mentioned, elephant dung has great
symbolic value in some African cultures. So the artist is using it, from
his perspective, in a very positive way.
> Wait a second, they did just do something just like that. Except, because
> they wanted to draw more publicity to it, they used a religious symbol.
See last sentence above. And your inference that the art work in question
was created to draw publicity cannot be substantiated. It's you and fellow
censors who are drawing publicity to it.
> Does it become more likely to be "art" if it is deeply offensive to
> members of a religion? Is that the criteria to use in determining what art
> is?
That is not a criterion for determining whether or not something is art, as
far as I know, and no one has suggested it to be so.
Is everything that is very offensive considered art and therefore
> deserving of government funding?
No, but a work of art may have as one of its attributes the fact that it
pisses off a few people. But this is clearly not the artist's intention
here.
>
> > Do you oppose all forms of taxation outright? Where do you draw
> > the line at what your tax dollars should be spent on? When you, Liam,
are
> > offended by it?
>
> A total non-sequitor. Nothing in what I posted should lead anyone to make
> any conclusions about my views about taxation in general. There certainly
> are useful things for which taxation is needed. Perhaps, even, for funding
> art, if someone can come up with some reasonable criteria for what it is.
> If no one can, and we end up subsidizing shit (literally) then that should
> be a signal to people whose IQ exceeds the the fall temperature outside
> today that we should stop subsidizing "art."
'Tis not a non-sequitur. I made no statements and drew no conclusions;
rather I asked a few questions which seemed to follow from your statements
on the matter. You don't like tax funding of art you consider offensive.
Therefore, I wondered whether you believed that art in general should never
be publicly funded. Or whether you held the extremely libertarian view that
taxation of any kind was a bad thing. I just asked the questions.
> > Webster's New World Dictionary defines art as "a making or doing of
things
> > that display form, beauty or unusual perception." Whether or not
something
> > purported to be a work of art meets those criteria is ultimately up to
the
> > artist, as well as he or she who beholds it. The artist who as one part
of
> > his depiction of the Virgin Mary splattered his object with elephant
dung
> > sincerely believes, I'm sure, that he has met them, as do those at the
> > Brooklyn Museum who sought it as part of the exhibit in question. But a
> > number of others, including Mayor Giuliani and yourself, obviously
don't.
> > It is impossible to *prove* that something is or isn't a work of art;
that
> > just can't be done. But just because it "succeeds in portraying
anything
> > conservative or religious in a bad light" does not preclude it from
being a
> > work of art. Ditto for art that shows anything liberal or atheistic in
a
> > bad light.
>
> So then, all that is necessary for something to be "art" is for the
> "artist" to say that is is art. That's just great. Tell me, I feel a bowel
> movement coming on. And I just know, I just *know* for sure, that it will
> be a very unusual bowel movement.
> Where do I get forms to apply for funding for my bowel movements?
We've already seen the product of your bowel movements with each of your
posts. Personally, I wouldn't call it art, but maybe you can convince a few
of your small-minded friends otherwise.
> > Oh yeah, and as you obviously haven't researched the topic one little
bit,
> > it may interest you to know that the artist who produced this painting
of
> > the Virgin Mary was brought up as a Catholic and was "inspired by
African
> > traditions that venerate elephant dung as a symbol of regeneration," to
> > quote the NY Times.
>
> Then perhaps, if what he really intended was veneration, he should have
> taken his shitty work, as well as his shit-eating carcass, and displayed
> his work in Africa.
Well, what do you propose then? I asked you this last time and you won't
address it. What mechanism can be put in place to prevent this sort of
thing from happening? How can we make sure that no one is ever offended by
any bit of publicly funded art that is shown in NYC? You claimed that you
don't oppose the outright ban on funding of art. What's your solution? And
can it be carried out in the spirit of democracy? Giuliani's solution can't
be.
> >> about your mental acuity. I believe you did so utilizing your freedom
of
> >> expression.
It's not surprising, but more than a little sad, that you can be so flippant
and sarcastic when talking about one's freedom of expression. You obviously
take yours for granted, or don't value it at all. But it's not that easy.
Sometimes it has to be fought for, which is what those of us who care will
do when a minority threatens ours, even if it means championing the display
of a work of art we may not even care for or which even offends us.
>
> > Isn't this the same as calling me an idiot?
>
> Why yes, I believe it is, now that you mention it.
See, you were calling me names. You just didn't know it.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: WJMiller8 <wjmi...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: nyc.general
To: <cri...@mindspring.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 1999 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Catholic Religion Insulted By "Artist"
> >concerned with the public funding aspect crispus says:
> >of this issue and was not deeply
> >offended by the art work's ostensibly anti-Christian message. Yet I
hardly
> >missed your *entire* point. I spoke to the fact that I and others
support
> >our tax dollars being used to present art to the public, even when that
art
> >offends some people. [snip]
> The whole thing revolves around whether we are going to allow anything to
be
> called "art." Was the Cristal Night staged by Hitler a form of art? Is
> anything OK as long as it is within the walls of a museum? I say NO and
you say
> YES. Sad.
Kristallnacht? The Night of Broken Glass? Hitler staged it, yes, but not
in a museum, not even in a theater. You're comparing a coordinated attack
on Jews throughout Germany carried out by the Hitler Youth and the SS one
night in 1938 to the showing of an art collection, already the recipient of
much critical acclaim, in a museum which receives public funds (which is
what the real issue revolves around -- public funding of art that offends a
powerful minority).
That's a hell of a specious comparison.
> Is anything OK as long as it is within the walls of a museum? I say NO and
you say
> YES.
Tell me where I said this.
Richard
Richard
WJMiller8 <wjmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990925162253...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
> >If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
>
> If I were to desecrate the Torah in a temple would it be a remedy it we
> cautioned people not to come and see it unless they really wanted to? I do
not
> think so.
Neither do I, dumbass. The thread you created wasn't to protest someone
entering a church and defiling an image of the Virgin Mary, was it.
As the artist has stated, which you could find out if you asked someone to
show you how to look it up on the internet or in the newspaper, he is not
desecrating the Virgin Mary. He is venerating her! It's just that you read
something into the art work that the artist never intended. You just can't
part with your narrow-minded, ethnocentric worldview for just one moment,
can you? You can't allow that someone from another culture might have a
different take on something as prosaic as an animal's excrement. To you
it's necessarily foul; to him it symbolizes regeneration. You just can't
permit that more than one view of the world exists simultaneously with
another one. Talk about sad!
It is just as silly to permit a free shot at desecrating Christianity
> by allowing a protected area in a museum and calling the culprit "artist."
Any such desecration in this case can only occur in the mind of the
beholder; it is not to be found in the intention of the creator.
Richard
Richard
WJMiller8 <wjmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
There seem to be a lot of
> people out there who will relish going into the Brooklyn Museum next week
and
> glorying in their power to defame Christianity and get away with it (in
> Brooklyn but suggest not trying it elsewhere).
>
> Bill
Do you really believe that we want to go to see this work in order that we
may glory in our "power to defame Christianity and get away with it"? How
about those of us who may want to see the artist's venerable depiction of
the Virgin Mary?
Richard
li...@ork.net
> liam wrote:
> [snip] >If there are no objective criteria for determining what is "art,"
> someone
>>could literally just take some shit in a bucket and put a model of Freedom
>>Fighter in it, and call THAT art. Would that make it art, for the purpose
>>of qualifying for government funds?[snip]
> I did the original posting on this thread. You are the first person to agree
> that shit is shit and art is art (to summarize). There seem to be a lot of
> people out there who will relish going into the Brooklyn Museum next week and
> glorying in their power to defame Christianity and get away with it (in
> Brooklyn but suggest not trying it elsewhere).
For what it's worth, I don't think that will be the motivation of the
people who will go there.
li...@ork.net
> Do you really believe that we want to go to see this work in order that we
> may glory in our "power to defame Christianity and get away with it"? How
> about those of us who may want to see the artist's venerable depiction of
> the Virgin Mary?
Do you think anyone has, or will ever, let him in on the big secret that
putting shit on an object is not considered veneration in most places
other than Africa?
Or do you think that maybe he knows, but just doesn't give a shit, that
everyone he shows that to here in the US will see the opposite?
Andy Katz
>>If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
>
>If I were to desecrate the Torah in a temple would it be a remedy it we
>cautioned people not to come and see it unless they really wanted to? I do not
>think so.
If the Torah belonged to you, was your personal property, then yes,
the remedy would be as you propose. Would there also be criticism?
Yes, very much so. But no, I would hope, legal sanctions.
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Richard
<li...@ork.net> wrote in message news:mDcH3.252$oy2....@news.shore.net...
> Richard <cri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you really believe that we want to go to see this work in order that
we
> > may glory in our "power to defame Christianity and get away with it"?
How
> > about those of us who may want to see the artist's venerable depiction
of
> > the Virgin Mary?
>
> Do you think anyone has, or will ever, let him in on the big secret that
> putting shit on an object is not considered veneration in most places
> other than Africa?
I'm pretty sure he's already aware of that. You see, Liam, a lot of people
are open-minded enough to have respect for the beliefs inherent to other
cultures, even when they rub them the wrong way. You are not that
open-minded.
> Or do you think that maybe he knows, but just doesn't give a shit, that
> everyone he shows that to here in the US will see the opposite?
Obviously, everyone in the US will not feel that way about it. It'll be
just a few narrow-minded one like yourself, or mayors who are running for
higher offices and need an issue that will call attention to themselves.
>
li...@ork.net
> <li...@ork.net> wrote in message news:mDcH3.252$oy2....@news.shore.net...
>> Richard <cri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Do you think anyone has, or will ever, let him in on the big secret that
>> putting shit on an object is not considered veneration in most places
>> other than Africa?
> I'm pretty sure he's already aware of that. You see, Liam, a lot of people
> are open-minded enough to have respect for the beliefs inherent to other
> cultures, even when they rub them the wrong way. You are not that
> open-minded.
And yet, despite such respect for beliefs, this "artist" insisted that
western cultures, for whom coating with shit is no veneration, should
nevertheless be given the benefit of his "art."
>> Or do you think that maybe he knows, but just doesn't give a shit, that
>> everyone he shows that to here in the US will see the opposite?
> Obviously, everyone in the US will not feel that way about it. It'll be
> just a few narrow-minded one like yourself, or mayors who are running for
> higher offices and need an issue that will call attention to themselves.
Only most people. I guess that's enough for him.
A hell of a guy.
Richard
> > <li...@ork.net> wrote in message
news:mDcH3.252$oy2....@news.shore.net...
> >> Richard <cri...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> Do you think anyone has, or will ever, let him in on the big secret
that
> >> putting shit on an object is not considered veneration in most places
> >> other than Africa?
>
> > I'm pretty sure he's already aware of that. You see, Liam, a lot of
people
> > are open-minded enough to have respect for the beliefs inherent to other
> > cultures, even when they rub them the wrong way. You are not that
> > open-minded.
>
> And yet, despite such respect for beliefs, this "artist" insisted that
> western cultures, for whom coating with shit is no veneration, should
> nevertheless be given the benefit of his "art."
You see, in this country we at least publicly assert our belief in certain
values such as tolerance and acceptance of different cultures (we do live in
a multicultural society, you know). They're sometimes referred to as
American values, though you don't posess them (what country are you posting
from?). If every citizen of the US were a Christian, your point would be
better taken, but as that is hardly the case, we can assume that not every
American thinks like you. God help us.
>
> >> Or do you think that maybe he knows, but just doesn't give a shit, that
> >> everyone he shows that to here in the US will see the opposite?
>
> > Obviously, everyone in the US will not feel that way about it. It'll be
> > just a few narrow-minded ones like yourself, or mayors who are running
for
> > higher offices and need an issue that will call attention to themselves.
>
> Only most people. I guess that's enough for him.
A rather narrow conclusion. But as one noted Westerner, John Stuart Mill,
once wrote, "As often as a study is cultivated by narrow minds, they will
draw from it narrow conclusions." And my, are youe conclusions ever narrow,
obtuse, just downright silly.
WJMiller8
>Therefore, I wondered whether you believed that art in general should never
>be publicly funded. [snip]
Yes, I have come to the sad conclusion that there should be no public funding
for art in this country. Our First Amendment allows anything to be called "art"
and allows groups in control of public facilities to use public monies to
insult religions, etc. People who wish to do things like shit art have a First
Amendment right to do it and an obligation to PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES!!
Bill
WJMiller8
[snip]
>Any such desecration in this case can only occur in the mind of the
Have you ever heard of the concept "objective reality" Richard? Going off into
some jungle to find a culture which provides a rationale for desacrating a
religious image strikes me as just a bit silly.
Bill
Stop public funding for art! Let them pay for it themselves!!
Richard
> Richard (in defending shit art):
> [snip]
> >Any such desecration in this case can only occur in the mind of the
> >beholder; it is not to be found in the intention of the creator.[snip]
>
> Have you ever heard of the concept "objective reality" Richard? Going off
into
> some jungle to find a culture which provides a rationale for desacrating a
> religious image strikes me as just a bit silly.
>
Well, you're just a silly little boy; or at least you have the mind of one.
Who is it exactly that went off into a jungle to do what you say they did?
As far as reality is concerned, all we can say is that there is a collage on
a wall in the Brooklyn Museum of Art, and part of that collage contains
pieces of dried elephant dung. That's as far as you can go in saying what's
objectively real. Anything you say further about the collage, such as
judging it to be a desecration of the Virgin Mary, is interpretation. And
interpretation does not equal objective reality.
> Stop public funding for art! Let them pay for it themselves!!
Hey I can't say I agree with you, but at least you're finally getting closer
to the real issue.
Cfortunato
>
>doesn't *need* the protection!
>
The problem isn't freedom speech - it's the distribution of tax money. Why
should tax dollars be used to desecrate someones religion?
Cfortunato
>ours!! i bet if you talked to some of these people who are insulted
>they would admit that its a black image so its not REALLY catholic if
>you catch my drift!! if that black image was in their parish they
>would demand that it disappear
Actually, the Catholic Church exists in Africa, and they frequently use a black
virgin. The black virgin is a well-known Eastern Icon.
Cfortunato
>If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
You are wrong. I DO have to support it. My tax money is going to pay for it,
whether I like it or not.
If people wish to create grossly offensive "art," they are allowed to, but they
must use only private funds to do it.
rich
outraged people would react if they went to church next sunday and
found the black virgin icon had replaced the traditional white virgin
icon. would they accept it?
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
cfort...@aol.com says...
> The problem isn't freedom speech - it's the distribution of tax money. Why
> should tax dollars be used to desecrate someones religion?
Have you seen the work in question? If not, how do you know it's a
desecration?
--
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
cfort...@aol.com says...
So only pablum should be publicly supported? I find *that* offensive.
Cfortunato
>In article <19990927090644...@ng-co1.aol.com>,
>cfort...@aol.com says...
>> >
>> >If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
>>
>> You are wrong. I DO have to support it. My tax money is going to pay for
>it,
>> whether I like it or not.
>>
>> If people wish to create grossly offensive "art," they are allowed to, but
>they
>> must use only private funds to do it.
>
>So only pablum should be publicly supported? I find *that* offensive.
I see. You think that any art that doesn't offend is "pablum"?
If you have such a low opinion of the aesthetic taste of the majority of your
fellow citizens, don't you think it's absurd and offensive to demand their
money?
"You have no taste! Now give me money so I can paint something that disgusts
you!"
That makes loads of sense.
If the public won't fund your art willingly. maybe it just isn't as good as you
think it is.
Cfortunato
>> should tax dollars be used to desecrate someones religion?
>
>Have you seen the work in question? If not, how do you know it's a
>desecration?
In photographs, and it's pretty gross.
ALL government sponsorship opf the arts requires some degree of what some
people call "censorship," unless they fund everything they are asked to fund.
Whatever criteria they choose to decide what to fund and what not to fund will
result in the refusal of funding of certain works. It seems to me that using
as a criteria the question of whether or not it is offensive to the majority of
people who will be required to pay for it is quite reasonable. In fact, it's
obvious.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
cfort...@aol.com says...
> It seems to me that using
> as a criteria the question of whether or not it is offensive to the majority of
> people who will be required to pay for it is quite reasonable. In fact, it's
> obvious.
By that criterion, "Rite of Spring" would never have been produced.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
cfort...@aol.com says...
> I see. You think that any art that doesn't offend is "pablum"?
I think that art that is carefully calculated to offend no one is almost
bound to be.
--
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
Jeffrey E. Salzberg, Lighting Designer
http://www.cloud9.net/~salzberg
Real (ha! Is *anything* real? email: salzberg[at]cloud9[dot]net
"...it seems to me that later on neither I nor anyone else will be
interested in the musings of a thirteen-year-old schoolgirl."
-- Anne Frank, 1942
Cfortunato
>> as a criteria the question of whether or not it is offensive to the
>majority of
>> people who will be required to pay for it is quite reasonable. In fact,
>it's
>> obvious.
>
>By that criterion, "Rite of Spring" would never have been produced.
Rite of Spring was paid for with tax dollars?
The people who threw tomatoes at it may have been wrong - but are you saying
they should have been required to pay for it?
Cfortunato
>
>I think that art that is carefully calculated to offend no one is almost
>bound to be.
I don't know about "carefully calculated." But it seems to me that art is
intended to move the emotions. And positive emotions are every bit as valid
(or more) than negative ones. You seem to be saying that "true" art must be
negative, and must celebrate ugliness instead of beauty. I think that's sad.
You differ.
But why on earth do you think I should pay you money to offend me?
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
cfort...@aol.com says...
> I don't know about "carefully calculated." But it seems to me that art is
> intended to move the emotions. And positive emotions are every bit as valid
> (or more) than negative ones. You seem to be saying that "true" art must be
> negative, and must celebrate ugliness instead of beauty.
Not at all. I think an artist must go where s/he is lead by the muse,
without endless agonizing over whether some faction or another might be
offended.
I, personally, am offended by what I know of the work in question. I
think (again, from what I know of it) it's in poor taste and quite likely
was deliberately intended (hmmm. . .as opposed to "accidentally
intended", Jeff?) to offend. As a matter of fact, it offends me *almost*
as much as Giuliani's censorship does. . .but not quite.
> But why on earth do you think I should pay you money to offend me?
Because I might be creating the next Rite of Spring.
One has only to look at the slop currently on Broadway to see the logical
result of market-based arts.
--
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
cfort...@aol.com says...
> The people who threw tomatoes at it may have been wrong - but are you saying
> they should have been required to pay for it?
I'm saying that people's reactions to art change -- and the work whose
creation is stopped today will never be created.
Cfortunato
>saying
>> they should have been required to pay for it?
>
>I'm saying that people's reactions to art change -- and the work whose
>creation is stopped today will never be created.
The guy can create it all by himself.
Sorry, but MOST great art was popular when released. The idea that the masses
have no taste is false. The artists whose art is thoroughly self-centered
would like to believe that, because it would explain why they aren't famous.
But, historically, most great works were acclaimed when created. Stravinsky
notwithstanding. William Shakespeare died a very rich man.
Cfortunato
>> I don't know about "carefully calculated." But it seems to me that art is
>> intended to move the emotions. And positive emotions are every bit as
>valid
>> (or more) than negative ones. You seem to be saying that "true" art must
>be
>> negative, and must celebrate ugliness instead of beauty.
>
>Not at all. I think an artist must go where s/he is lead by the muse,
>without endless agonizing over whether some faction or another might be
>offended.
Well, if someone else is footing the bill for it, they HAVE to be concerned
with their opinion. Life. If they want total artistic freedom, they just have
to pay for it themselves.
>Because I might be creating the next Rite of Spring.
And it is a million times more likely that you're just creating one more piece
of trash.
>One has only to look at the slop currently on Broadway to see the logical
>result of market-based arts.
That's an aesthetic judgment. Why shouldn't the Government fund that, instead
of what they are funding?
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
cfort...@aol.com says...
> William Shakespeare died a very rich man.
. . .And Mozart and Van Gogh died paupers.
Cfortunato
>
>. . .And Mozart and Van Gogh died paupers.
>
And still managed to produce great work
li...@ork.net
> In article <37ebda17...@news.asan.com>, r...@asan.com says...
>> >Surely there must be some limit.
> What a great idea! Let's limit freedom of speech to that speech which
> doesn't *need* the protection!
Here's another.
Let's limit freedom of speech to speech. That's already been done by the
Supreme Court. Ever heard of it?
Vasos Panagiotopoulos +1-917-287-8087 Bioengineer-Financier
Mind you, if the "art" was a REAL crucifix or menorah, it
would have been abolished already! Need we be reminded it was also in
Crooklyn that some Jewish festive ornament was ruled to violate the
building code only a few days ago? So tell me, (with toungue only
partially in cheek) maybe we found a way to get all our holiday
decoration finally past the censors? It is illegal to put up a
religious object in a public place, but it's ok if it is defaced? Any
leagle weasels (ok, excuse me, esteemed cousels) out there who mighht advise?
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian http://WWW.Dorsai.Org/~vjp2
vjp2@{MCIMail.Com|CompuServe.Com|Dorsai.Org}
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[DQ2K: Make the Murky Clown Frown!]
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> Let's limit freedom of speech to speech. That's already been done by the
> Supreme Court. Ever heard of it?
That would be, of course, the same court that has repeatedly ruled that
"speech" includes all forms of expression.
You really should read more, Liam.
li...@ork.net
>> Let's limit freedom of speech to speech. That's already been done by the
>> Supreme Court. Ever heard of it?
> That would be, of course, the same court that has repeatedly ruled that
> "speech" includes all forms of expression.
> You really should read more, Liam.
Well, now there's another falsehood, brought to you by our resident and
illustrious Lighting Designer.
Cfortunato
>illustrious Lighting Designer.
Can I ask what is wrong with being a Lighting Designer, and why you seem to
have an obsession with it?
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
cfort...@aol.com says...
> >Well, now there's another falsehood, brought to you by our resident and
> >illustrious Lighting Designer.
>
> Can I ask what is wrong with being a Lighting Designer
I could give you a long list, but I suspect it would differ from Liam's.
li...@ork.net
>>Well, now there's another falsehood, brought to you by our resident and
>>illustrious Lighting Designer.
> Can I ask what is wrong with being a Lighting Designer, and why you seem to
> have an obsession with it?
I don't think there's anything especially wrong with it, but my
"obsession" with it began when this particular one made a crack about my
intelligence, which raised the rather natural response about his
illustrious position.
Let's just say it's not quite in the same league as being a lawyer, an
accountant or some other professional. Certainly, someone who is a
lighting designer shouldn't be making cracks about other people.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> I don't think there's anything especially wrong with it, but my
> "obsession" with it began when this particular one made a crack about my
> intelligence
How odd; I usually don't comment on mythological entities.
Cfortunato
>Cfortunato <cfort...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>Well, now there's another falsehood, brought to you by our resident and
>>>illustrious Lighting Designer.
>
>> Can I ask what is wrong with being a Lighting Designer, and why you seem to
>> have an obsession with it?
>
>"obsession" with it began when this particular one made a crack about my
>illustrious position.
>
>Let's just say it's not quite in the same league as being a lawyer, an
>accountant or some other professional. Certainly, someone who is a
>lighting designer shouldn't be making cracks about other people.
Actually, doing a good job lighting a stage for performance requires creativity
and imagination, as well as technical knowledge.
li...@ork.net
>>Let's just say it's not quite in the same league as being a lawyer, an
>>accountant or some other professional. Certainly, someone who is a
>>lighting designer shouldn't be making cracks about other people.
> Actually, doing a good job lighting a stage for performance requires
> creativity and imagination, as well as technical knowledge.
Of that there can be no doubt.
You should also mention the grueling pressure, as well as the ever-present
risk of a lighbulb going out just at the wrong moment.
li...@ork.net
>> I don't think there's anything especially wrong with it, but my
>> "obsession" with it began when this particular one made a crack about my
>> intelligence
> How odd; I usually don't comment on mythological entities.
Well, there you go again. Another really clever put-down. With wit and
wisdom like yours, as a lighting designer, it probably took you no more
than a few seconds to come up with that one.
Thinking hard, of course.
BTW, when exactly during your childhood or early adulthood did you decide
that you really wanted to become a lighting designer, Jeffy-poo?
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
> BTW, when exactly during your childhood or early adulthood did you decide
> that you really wanted to become a lighting designer, Jeffy-poo?
<treating, for the nonce, Liam as if he were serious>
When I was a junior in high school.
Michael David Jones
>In article <%JbI3.87$bc.2...@news.shore.net>, li...@ork.net says...
>> BTW, when exactly during your childhood or early adulthood did you decide
>> that you really wanted to become a lighting designer, Jeffy-poo?
><treating, for the nonce, Liam as if he were serious>
>When I was a junior in high school.
You know, I don't know Jeff but I know a number of people who do
lighting design on an amateur and semi-professional basis, and I'd say
that the level of knowledge, talent, and ability required to do it
professionally is certainly more than that required to be a system
administrator for anything less than a significantly large network.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Q: What's the difference between an op amp and a fuse?
A: The op-amp is the thing that blows to protect the fuse.
li...@ork.net
>> BTW, when exactly during your childhood or early adulthood did you decide
>> that you really wanted to become a lighting designer, Jeffy-poo?
> <treating, for the nonce, Liam as if he were serious>
> When I was a junior in high school.
> --
Moonman Mike
Cfortunato wrote:
>
> >
> >If it offends you, you do not have to view it or support it in any way.
>
> You are wrong. I DO have to support it. My tax money is going to pay for it,
> whether I like it or not.
Your tax dollars are being spent on A LOT of things that you probably
don't like. What are you going to do about those issues? Or are you
just on the bandwagon for this issue only?
> If people wish to create grossly offensive "art," they are allowed to, but they
> must use only private funds to do it.
Hey! The government will do all kinds of stupid things with our money.
I think that spending 100 Million to 500 Million of tax money to build a
new Yankee Stadium (when the Convicted Felon Steinbrenner can afford it)
is far more outrageous than a museum putting on a show that a few people
don't like.
--
Mike
"I don't care what 60% of the people think!" -Der Kommandant Ghouliani
ERMREY
<li...@ork.net> wrote in message news:rU7I3.59$bc.1...@news.shore.net...
> Cfortunato <cfort...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>Well, now there's another falsehood, brought to you by our resident and
> >>illustrious Lighting Designer.
>
> > Can I ask what is wrong with being a Lighting Designer, and why you seem to
> > have an obsession with it?
>
> accountant or some other professional. Certainly, someone who is a
> lighting designer shouldn't be making cracks about other people.
>
Unless it's about twits like yourself, Liam