OFF: Portrait of Mayor as Art Critic
Tim Gowen
art, I'm glad that the mayor of NY has come out against the new
exhibition of young British visual art 'talent'. I just don't get
modern art at all - it's all so much rubbish which is attended by some
of the most pretentious and meaningless twaddle. Even if it's the
morality of the whole thing that's being called into question, I've
enjoyed hearing all about it.
So, who's going to see it?
Tim
--
"All those Silicon Valley billionaires aren't even geeks - they're Gap-
heads in rumpled khakis and Lands' End Polos; they're like less
ironic Peanuts characters with portfolios." -- Libby Gelman-Waxner
+ The RATM FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/
Noel Katz
impose their views on art ("If I can do it, it's not art") on a public. Here
in New York, we love our many cultural institutions, including the Brooklyn
Museum. Today, it's opening a controversial exhibition and Giuliani has taken
actions to cut out millions of dollars in city funding. I find this
reprehensible in the extreme. How do New Yorkers feel? 10% don't know,. 30%
support the mayor, 60% disagree with his actions. I voted against Giuliani
three out of three times, but I never suspected he'd be so bad as to do
something that so negatively impacts the arts in this city. What are we,
Cincinatti?
Tim Gowen
<noel...@aol.com> writes
>Did we elect an art critic, Tim?
No, and obviously I don't approve of cutting funding to the arts because
of one exhibition which may or may not feature 'pornography' - but if
there is something unpleasant going on in the city, you'd expect its
mayor to have something to say about it.
Logan
-Logan
"The point of childhood is to learn from those who know more than us; to master
this art of living"
Karen Horn
: Did we elect an art critic, Tim? It is exceedingly dangerous when politicians
: impose their views on art ("If I can do it, it's not art") on a public. Here
: in New York, we love our many cultural institutions, including the Brooklyn
: Museum. Today, it's opening a controversial exhibition and Giuliani has taken
: actions to cut out millions of dollars in city funding. I find this
: reprehensible in the extreme. How do New Yorkers feel? 10% don't know,. 30%
: support the mayor, 60% disagree with his actions. I voted against Giuliani
: three out of three times, but I never suspected he'd be so bad as to do
: something that so negatively impacts the arts in this city. What are we,
: Cincinatti?
But IS it "ART" or unsanitary waste disposal---which IS a city
function.
Karen
Hanon
art, I'm glad that the mayor of NY has come out against the new
exhibition of young British visual art 'talent'>>
Yeah, me too! How dare these so-called "artists" dare to presume they have the
right to free speech? I mean, if city officials don't like a certain work of
art, then naturally they have the right to try to stop it right?. Just like
Nazi Germany. I hope mayor Guliani doesn't stop here, and that he continues to
apply his taste to other city funded operations. I mean, why should the public
library have books that some taxpayers find offensive? And why should taxpayers
help to fund the Metropolitan, which is currently showing a production of that
nasty atonal opera Moses And Aaron? Fascism ahoy!
Hanon
Pizzaman95
debate please try to be consistent with the views you expressed
on Mark Twain and on offensive plays. A painting of the most
sacred human being in Christianity might be done in oil or
water but Elephant dung? Those who defend this please explain
why this is different than an offensive, racist work. I really would
like to understand. I assume Fred and Jesse will defend the Mayor because
they are concerned about insulting groups. But what about the rest of
you?
BTW, I am out of pocket for the next week so I am done on this issue.
Karen Horn
: <<Even if it's just a story about how foreign audiences react to British
: art, I'm glad that the mayor of NY has come out against the new
: exhibition of young British visual art 'talent'>>
:
: Yeah, me too! How dare these so-called "artists" dare to presume they have the
: right to free speech? I mean, if city officials don't like a certain work of
: art, then naturally they have the right to try to stop it right?. Just like
: Nazi Germany. I hope mayor Guliani doesn't stop here, and that he continues to
: apply his taste to other city funded operations. I mean, why should the public
: library have books that some taxpayers find offensive? And why should taxpayers
Oh, does your local library carry a HUSTLER subscription too?
I thought ours was the only progressive one.
Karen
Tim Gowen
<ha...@aol.com> writes
>Yeah, me too! How dare these so-called "artists" dare to presume they have the
>right to free speech? I mean, if city officials don't like a certain work of
>art, then naturally they have the right to try to stop it right?. Just like
>Nazi Germany. I hope mayor Guliani doesn't stop here, and that he continues to
>apply his taste to other city funded operations. I mean, why should the public
>library have books that some taxpayers find offensive? And why should taxpayers
>nasty atonal opera Moses And Aaron? Fascism ahoy!
It's not the same, and I wish that people who defend your country's
freedom of speech wouldn't do so by making it a freedom to be incredibly
offensive. You aren't in a dictatorship, and all the fuss about this is
precisely what the artists want because without it they wouldn't get
people to come and see their work.
So of course they have freedom of speech, but they must expect the
quality of the discussion to be commensurate with the scatological
nonsense which they're attempting to pass off as art.
Hanon
freedom of speech wouldn't do so by making it a freedom to be incredibly
offensive>>
Actually, inthis country it is a freedom to be incredibly offensive. By the
way, thanks to Mayor Guliani, millions more people have seen this painting than
would have otherwise. Hell, I haven't been to the Brooklyn museum in years
(it's quite a trek on the 2 train) and I'm making plans to go. I don't like
other people to decide what's offensive for me, and I'm surprised that you do.
HANON
GregF NC
before showing "art" objects that they certainly know in advance that people
will find offensive.
I would have thought that the Maplethorpe experience would have shown them the
error of their thinking. While it is true that the artist does have the
freedom to do what he wants (in the spirit of free speech) and that the museum
can show it if it dares to offend its benefactors. However, this does not
imply that the either the public or private benefactors has to continue funding
such shows.
In my opinion, the Maplethorpe exhibit was responsible for much of the
reduction in the funding of the arts by congress and this exhibit in Brooklyn
will probably cause the curtailment of funding by other elected bodies.
It is too bad that all the arts have to suffer due to the bad taste of a few
art administrators.
Greg F(in North Carolina)
Matthew Murray
Funny, I would think/hope that denigrating a major religious
figure from any of the world's major faiths would prove offensive to most
people...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray | Over 190 computer game reviews covering
mmu...@cc.wwu.edu | games from 1977 to the present!
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray | http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray/Reviews.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanon
figure from any of the world's major faiths would prove offensive to most
people...>>
Yes, but offensive speech is also guaranteed by the first ammendment. And who
makes the decision as to what is offensive? You? Mayor Guliani, perhaps?
HANON
Hanon
art administrators.
>>
Do you really find it so remarkable that there are people out there whose
tastes differ from yours? Is it not possible that two intelligent people might
have differing views about a work of art?
HANON
Biff McKeldin
>
> Did we elect an art critic, Tim? It is exceedingly dangerous when politicians
> impose their views on art ("If I can do it, it's not art") on a public. Here
> in New York, we love our many cultural institutions, including the Brooklyn
> Museum. Today, it's opening a controversial exhibition and Giuliani has taken
> actions to cut out millions of dollars in city funding. I find this
> reprehensible in the extreme. How do New Yorkers feel? 10% don't know,. 30%
> support the mayor, 60% disagree with his actions. I voted against Giuliani
> three out of three times, but I never suspected he'd be so bad as to do
> something that so negatively impacts the arts in this city. What are we,
> Cincinatti?
No. River City. But I'd rather have a Mayor Shinn than a Mayor
Guliani.
Biff
Tim Gowen
<ha...@aol.com> writes
>Actually, inthis country it is a freedom to be incredibly offensive. By the
>way, thanks to Mayor Guliani, millions more people have seen this painting than
>would have otherwise. Hell, I haven't been to the Brooklyn museum in years
>(it's quite a trek on the 2 train) and I'm making plans to go. I don't like
>other people to decide what's offensive for me, and I'm surprised that you do.
Well if Guliani had closed the exhibition then maybe I'd be a little
more worked up against him, and if other arts suffer then that's
deplorable too, but that doesn't change the fundamental points that I'm
trying to make:
1. A lot of modern art goes for shock value, much like modern TV
programmes such as 'South Park'. I think this is juvenile in the
extreme and wouldn't go to this exhibition even if I had the means to.
2. All this talk of the advent of fascism is pretty much reactionary
crap. There are things to complain about in America, but totalitarian
government isn't near the top of the list.
2. The elephant-shit exhibit is allegedly sacrilegious. If the artist
was not aware of this before now then perhaps he or she should have done
a different educational qualification.
4. I hear people defending the artists but not defending the art.
What's with that? Do you not have a wider understanding than us pro-
fascists? Perhaps unlike some, I'd actually welcome an attempt to
defend such art on grounds other than "I've done this because it's a
first amendment thing", which - since the art is British anyway -
wouldn't be the rationale.
Matthew Murray
Giuliani is not saying that the museum is not allowed to show the
exhibit, merely that he thinks that the city shouldn't pay for it. Big
difference.
Biff McKeldin
>
> On 4 Oct 1999, Hanon wrote:
>
> > <<Funny, I would think/hope that denigrating a major religious
> > figure from any of the world's major faiths would prove offensive to most
> > people...>>
> >
> > Yes, but offensive speech is also guaranteed by the first ammendment. And who
> > makes the decision as to what is offensive? You? Mayor Guliani, perhaps?
>
> Giuliani is not saying that the museum is not allowed to show the
> exhibit, merely that he thinks that the city shouldn't pay for it. Big
> difference.
Giuliani isn't merely saying the city shouldn't pay for this one
exhibit, he is threatening to cut off funding to the museum if they show
the exhibit. Big difference.
Biff
Karen Horn
yeah....a whole 7th. Tell me, does the local library stock
SATAN FUCKS A MILLION SLUT BITCHES in the video section too?
If it's not "Wrong" for the library to recognize that there ARE
a few "limits" on the extreme, then it's not wrong to question
the wisdom of grabbing public money to use it for something you
know is guaranteed to piss off a few million people.
Karen
Karen Horn
: <<Funny, I would think/hope that denigrating a major religious
: figure from any of the world's major faiths would prove offensive to most
: people...>>
:
: Yes, but offensive speech is also guaranteed by the first ammendment. And who
: makes the decision as to what is offensive? You? Mayor Guliani, perhaps?
:
I'm not sure I follow your thinking. You weren't going to go
to the Brooklyn Museum anyway, but because of *GULIANI'S* opinion, and
not your own, you now want to see excrement parading as art?
Seems you're letting yourself be jerked around by Guliani.
That's like the kid who had NO intention of going out drinking and
driving with friends and then because "mom" said "you are too young
to be out drinking and driving" kid gets petulant and does what
he really DOESN'T want to do anyway to "prove" something.
Karen
Hanon
to the Brooklyn Museum anyway, but because of *GULIANI'S* opinion, and
not your own, you now want to see excrement parading as art?>>
Like many New Yorkers, I'll make it down to the Brooklyn museum to celebrate
the right Americans have to free expression. Incidentally,if anyone is
interested, I have a picture here of Karen Horn spattered with elephant dung.
HANON
Michael Callery
drop all funding for a major institution here in NYC and evict the museum from the
building. For one painting he does not like ... from an artist whose work is in many
other NYC museums ... an African Roman Catholic. On the subject of piss, I understand
Piss Jesus (or whatever it is called) is in the current Whitney century retrospective,
part II. -- a son gout! If people would shut up about such things, it would NEVER have
the chance to piss off a million people, 'cause only a handful would stumble upon it.
On the other hand, one of the main reasons the Brooklyn Museum brought this show over
from England was to generate publicity. So, I guess they got what they wanted. There
are probably better ways to get new members.
Mike
Bart Cosgrove
> interested, I have a picture here of Karen Horn spattered with elephant
dung.
Big deal! I think Karen sent 1000's of them out as promotion for SBFP!
Mila
Hanon <ha...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991004195540...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
Bart Cosgrove
> driving with friends and then because "mom" said "you are too young
> to be out drinking and driving" kid gets petulant and does what
> he really DOESN'T want to do anyway to "prove" something.
That's exactly what it's like, Karen; but isn't that very much part of
"human nature"?
What, do you suppose Guliani [I have to admit I think he's an " o ", or at
best a " (!) "] was thinking bringing this much attention to the B'klyn?
Without getting into what is, or isn't, "art", or what "artistic freedom"
may, or may not, mean, it was just plain stupid of him to get into this
nonsense; I would have thought he was too savvy for this. Despite the fact
that I have no desire to see this exhibit, and usually find this kind of
"art" repulsive", I do find myself asking if we elect "representatives" or
"Tzars" these days?
Mila
Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
news:7tb642$2eb$1...@thoth.cts.com...
> Hanon (ha...@aol.com) wrote:
> : <<Funny, I would think/hope that denigrating a major religious
> : figure from any of the world's major faiths would prove offensive to
most
> : people...>>
> :
> : Yes, but offensive speech is also guaranteed by the first ammendment.
And who
> : makes the decision as to what is offensive? You? Mayor Guliani,
perhaps?
> : HANON
> :
>
> I'm not sure I follow your thinking. You weren't going to go
> to the Brooklyn Museum anyway, but because of *GULIANI'S* opinion, and
> not your own, you now want to see excrement parading as art?
>
Beb11572
>the right Americans have to free expression.
If, in your estimation, elephant dung "expresses" something besides arrested
development - and whatever that is merits the time and trouble of a trip to the
Brooklyn Museum - go and enjoy yourself. Personally, I think it is s**t in
more ways than one.
Incidentally,if anyone is
>interested, I have a picture here of Karen Horn spattered with elephant dung.
>HANON
The only "elephant dung" Karen Horn gets spattered with is crude and
uncalled-for remarks like the above.
Karen Horn
:
: It's not the same, and I wish that people who defend your country's
: freedom of speech wouldn't do so by making it a freedom to be incredibly
: offensive. You aren't in a dictatorship, and all the fuss about this is
: precisely what the artists want because without it they wouldn't get
: people to come and see their work.
:
: So of course they have freedom of speech, but they must expect the
: quality of the discussion to be commensurate with the scatological
: nonsense which they're attempting to pass off as art.
I'd agree. The first amendment DOES guarantee freedom of expression....
it does NOT, however, guarantee the "right" to a publically financed
audience.
Karen
Karen Horn
: <<I'm not sure I follow your thinking. You weren't going to go
: to the Brooklyn Museum anyway, but because of *GULIANI'S* opinion, and
: not your own, you now want to see excrement parading as art?>>
: Like many New Yorkers, I'll make it down to the Brooklyn museum to celebrate
: the right Americans have to free expression. Incidentally,if anyone is
: interested, I have a picture here of Karen Horn spattered with elephant dung.
: HANON
:
:
I don't care. As long as you're not using my tax $$$$s to do it.
Karen
Biff McKeldin
>
> Biff McKeldin (mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu) wrote:
> : Matthew Murray wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > > <<Funny, I would think/hope that denigrating a major religious
> : > > figure from any of the world's major faiths would prove offensive to most
> : > > people...>>
> : > >
> : > > Yes, but offensive speech is also guaranteed by the first ammendment. And who
> : > > makes the decision as to what is offensive? You? Mayor Guliani, perhaps?
> : >
> : > exhibit, merely that he thinks that the city shouldn't pay for it. Big
> : > difference.
> :
> : Giuliani isn't merely saying the city shouldn't pay for this one
> : exhibit, he is threatening to cut off funding to the museum if they show
> : the exhibit. Big difference.
> :
> : Biff
>
> SATAN FUCKS A MILLION SLUT BITCHES in the video section too?
> If it's not "Wrong" for the library to recognize that there ARE
> a few "limits" on the extreme, then it's not wrong to question
> the wisdom of grabbing public money to use it for something you
> know is guaranteed to piss off a few million people.
58% of New Yorkers disagree with you and Giuliani. I'm not interested
in whether or not art pisses people off. Certainly ASSASSINS could be
misunderstood and be thought of as "sick" and unpatriotic by people who
have only heard about it. I would be very upset to know that a
non-profit theater company lost funding because a mayor who hadn't even
seen the show thought it was offensive. *Nothing* that I've seen of
Sensation strikes me as "extreme" in the way that your hypothetical
library situation does. You may very well feel that Sensation is the
equivalent to pornography -- but that doesn't represent a consensus. A
more apt comparison would be if a library stocked a copy of LAST TANGO
IN PARIS. Which you may feel is wrong (or not), but I definitely don't
think it's wrong (except in so far as I don't think libraries should
stock videos of anything -- few enough people read as it is). Certainly
in their day, ULYSSES and LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER pissed off many people
-- libraries should still stock them, however (and should still get
state and local funding).
Biff
Stephen Oles
You are precisely the audience the "Sensation" show is aimed at.
Self-promoting hucksters create "artworks" which are merely ugly, inhumane,
or repulsive. People of taste question the value of this art. Hysterics
immediately scream CENSORSHIP and make the usual over-the-top comparisons to
Nazi Germany, fascism, etc. In spite of the fact that no one has even
proposed censoring anything ... the controversy is over whether taxpayers
should be required to subsidize works they find pointless or disgusting.
Result: a sold-out show.
It's really a matter of whose ox is being gored. My conscientious liberal
friends, imagine for a moment an exhibit containing these works:
-- a portrait of Martin Luther King in drag with a whip stuck up his butt.
-- the actual dead body of a Native American in formaldehyde, smeared with
feces, entitled, "The only good Indian..."
-- a painting of Ausschwitz with the caption, "A GOOD START".
-- a painting of Hilary Clinton, done in the actual blood of a rape victim,
labeled, "BITCH ASKED FOR IT".
-- a neon sign flashing the words: GAY STANDS FOR "GOT AIDS YET?"
Now, if the mayor of New York threatened to pull funding for *this* show,
would you all be protesting so vigorously?
-- Steve in VB
Biff McKeldin
Yes, I would. But at the same time nothing in Sensation even remotely
comes close to the the kind of tangible hate and violence your
hypothetical exhibit does. Aside from the fact that it's a matter of
interpretation whether or not the portrait of the Madonna in Sensation
is meant to be irreverent -- attacking a symbol of a faith is *still*
not the same as attacking groups of people.
Biff
Jason Robert Brown
here. In protesting the mayor's nonsensical fatwa against the Brooklyn
exhibit, I'm not defending anyone putting elephant dung on the Virgin Mary -
in fact, I'm one of the first people to wonder whatever happened to "taste."
But I am defending an artist's right to present his vision, and, to a
certain extent, defending the artist's expectation that the public should
pay for his right to present it. I'm all for state-sponsored and funded
art, as long as there's state-sponsored and funded anything else. So, yes,
I'd be protesting the forced closure of an exhibit containing the vile
things you wrote about; I also would be sitting at home, not attending, and
probably not renewing my subscription to the institution that supported it.
Jason
----------
In article <37FA243D...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu>, Biff McKeldin
Karen Horn
: 58% of New Yorkers disagree with you and Giuliani. I'm not interested
: in whether or not art pisses people off. Certainly ASSASSINS could be
: misunderstood and be thought of as "sick" and unpatriotic by people who
: have only heard about it. I would be very upset to know that a
: non-profit theater company lost funding because a mayor who hadn't even
: seen the show thought it was offensive. *Nothing* that I've seen of
Wait....I DO NOT NEED TO SEE A PICTURE of the virgin Mary covered in
elephant shit to know it is going to be offensive. Do you have
to eat an ENTIRE bowl of bad soup to make a pronouncement that
it's bad?
: Sensation strikes me as "extreme" in the way that your hypothetical
: library situation does. You may very well feel that Sensation is the
: equivalent to pornography -- but that doesn't represent a consensus. A
If people "vote" 99-1 that shoving Jews in gas chambers is "right" does
that make it so?
: more apt comparison would be if a library stocked a copy of LAST TANGO
: IN PARIS. Which you may feel is wrong (or not), but I definitely don't
: think it's wrong (except in so far as I don't think libraries should
: stock videos of anything -- few enough people read as it is). Certainly
: in their day, ULYSSES and LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER pissed off many people
: -- libraries should still stock them, however (and should still get
: state and local funding).
:
But there ARE limits. Ask yourself why subscriptions to HUSTLER
aren't carried by libraries. That's the way it ALWAYS is with the
public dollar. Have SOME smidgen of common decency and sense.
Or is that too much too ask?
Karen
Karen Horn
: other NYC museums ... an African Roman Catholic. On the subject of piss, I understand
: Piss Jesus (or whatever it is called) is in the current Whitney century retrospective,
Personally I don't think the artist is any more of a Catholic than Hitler
was. Or Stalin was Orthodox or Marx was a Jew.
I have little patience for so-called "catholics" who know damn well
they HAVE NO TALENT, so they feel they have to start a controversy.
The ONLY way this person would have gotten a jot of "recognition"
was to do something disgusting. The fact that he is jerking a lot
of liberals around by the chain parading his elephant shit as art
is equally disgusting. He can whine, and feign innocense all he
wants, but when he meets his maker, he'll have to account for
the perversion of any "Talent" God gave him.
I hope you will ALL be lining up for tickets when some "artist"
smears stars of David with shit, or shit on an AIDS quilt or shit
on the communist manifesto.
Yeah. Right. You've never had YOUR sensibilities deeply offended.
No need for YOU people to "worry." You know good and well that
the Norman Rockwell/Fra Angelico people had no need to produce
such "art." That's because THEY had talent.
The hell with "the left" who go trotting off to show support
for this shit. If it ever happens to one of THEIR icons I'll
be more than happy to throw this thread right back in their faces
and explain to you why their tax monies "need" to go for it.
Karen
Karen Horn
: > That's like the kid who had NO intention of going out drinking and
: > driving with friends and then because "mom" said "you are too young
: > to be out drinking and driving" kid gets petulant and does what
: > he really DOESN'T want to do anyway to "prove" something.
:
: That's exactly what it's like, Karen; but isn't that very much part of
: "human nature"?
: What, do you suppose Guliani [I have to admit I think he's an " o ", or at
: best a " (!) "] was thinking bringing this much attention to the B'klyn?
: Without getting into what is, or isn't, "art", or what "artistic freedom"
: may, or may not, mean, it was just plain stupid of him to get into this
: nonsense; I would have thought he was too savvy for this. Despite the fact
: that I have no desire to see this exhibit, and usually find this kind of
: "art" repulsive", I do find myself asking if we elect "representatives" or
: "Tzars" these days?
:
: Mila
One would hope with elect people with PRINCIPLES and common sense and
decency. It's almost tempting TO produce a work of art denigrating
something liberals hold dear. Not that they'd have any bile left
in their beings to spew. Of course no "art director" would have
the balls to put something that offended HIS friends in their little
museum.
Karen
Tim Gowen
>Yes, I would. But at the same time nothing in Sensation even remotely
>comes close to the the kind of tangible hate and violence your
>hypothetical exhibit does.
Are you honestly saying that an art exhibition which includes material
offensive to Jews or homosexuals would be okay by you, and would get put
on in New York City? That's honestly what you're saying?
I think it's time for some post-slumber coffee-smelling.
>Aside from the fact that it's a matter of
>interpretation whether or not the portrait of the Madonna in Sensation
>is meant to be irreverent -- attacking a symbol of a faith is *still*
>not the same as attacking groups of people.
Are you a Christian? If not, then how the heck can you possibly be
called upon to comment about how it effects you? If you *are* then
that's clearly a different matter. There are, I should imagine, degrees
of feeling amongst Christians towards this exhibit. I don't need
symbols to guide my belief and neither do I need them to guide my
sexuality, so therefore I'm fairly immune to whatever any artist can
come up with.
I would add that when Salman Rushdie wrote 'The Satanic Verses' he got a
whole lot more than just the irritation of a city mayor. The Christian
church has every right to get as angry as it wants to short of
advocating the committing of a crime, as far as I'm concerned.
Steve is right about people resorting to arguments about freedom of
speech instead of deploying their intellect. Hell, we've had Hanon
talking about images of Karen Horn covered in elephant dung... I mean,
call me a misplaced liberal or a conservative toady if you want - and I
may not be as culturally hip as some - but at least I know how to
separate the argument from the arguer.
Biff McKeldin
>
>
> If people "vote" 99-1 that shoving Jews in gas chambers is "right" does
> that make it so?
So you're comparing genocide to a work of art? Karen, how can one have
an intelligent argument with you, if you insist on making these
outlandish comparisons. You're the one who talked about "pissing-off"
millions of people. The only reason I raised the issue of the recent
poll, is to show how many *more* millions of people were "pissed-off" at
the mayor's stance.
>
> But there ARE limits. Ask yourself why subscriptions to HUSTLER
> aren't carried by libraries. That's the way it ALWAYS is with the
> public dollar. Have SOME smidgen of common decency and sense.
>
> Or is that too much too ask?
Yes, it is too much to ask -- that is if what constitutes "common
decency and sense" comes from a single person: in this case the mayor of
New York.
Biff
Biff McKeldin
>
> In article <37FA243D...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu>, Biff McKeldin
> <mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu> writes
>
> >Yes, I would. But at the same time nothing in Sensation even remotely
> >comes close to the the kind of tangible hate and violence your
> >hypothetical exhibit does.
>
> Are you honestly saying that an art exhibition which includes material
> offensive to Jews or homosexuals would be okay by you, and would get put
> on in New York City? That's honestly what you're saying?
>
> I think it's time for some post-slumber coffee-smelling.
I didn't say that at all. And I think you *KNOW* that I didn't say
that. Please don't twist my words around. I said that I would be
opposed to an institution having its public funds revoked because it
presented unpopular or controversial art: regardless of whom it
offends. I would not in all cases support the art itself. In terms of
anti-Semitic or homophobic art, I would not support it (though I would
try not to have knee-jerk reaction -- because it would be quite possible
that an artist created a piece that was critiquing anti-Semitism or
homophobia and had his work misconstrued to be the thing that it was in
fact denouncing). In the case of, say, a hypothetical production of
ASSASSINS, I would actively support its presentation. In the case of
Sensation I remain neutral on the art itself, because it doesn't appear
as if it would offend me or appeal to me (I haven't seen it in person --
only the bits that have been revealed in the media).
I hope I've made myself clear!
> >Aside from the fact that it's a matter of
> >interpretation whether or not the portrait of the Madonna in Sensation
> >is meant to be irreverent -- attacking a symbol of a faith is *still*
> >not the same as attacking groups of people.
>
> Are you a Christian? If not, then how the heck can you possibly be
> called upon to comment about how it effects you?
What are you saying? If you are implying that I suggested how a person
of the Christian faith should or should not react to the portrait of the
Madonna in question, I can only say that I *NEVER* suggested such a
thing. All I said is that a direct attack on a group of people is a
different matter than an attack on a religious faith. People are
tangible, faith is not. A difference in kind, not in degree.
Naturally, a person can decide that an attack on faith is *WORSE* than
an attack on a group of people -- or even decide that it is meant to be
an indirect attack on the people who practice said faith. It is
nevertheless not the same thing. And to compare one with the other is
intellectually dishonest.
Oh, and to answer your question, I was raised a Presbyterian by a
mixed-faith couple (Catholic/Methodist -- Presbyterianism was seen as a
compromise -- don't ask, *I* could never figure it out). I currently
practice no religion (but I observe most of the Christian religious
holidays for cultural reasons) and consider myself an agnostic.
> I would add that when Salman Rushdie wrote 'The Satanic Verses' he got a
> whole lot more than just the irritation of a city mayor. The Christian
> church has every right to get as angry as it wants to short of
> advocating the committing of a crime, as far as I'm concerned.
Ditto. What's your point? I never said -- nor has anyone, that I have
heard -- that religious groups couldn't protest the exhibit. Indeed
they are.
Biff
Karen Horn
: Karen Horn wrote:
: >
: >
: > If people "vote" 99-1 that shoving Jews in gas chambers is "right" does
: > that make it so?
:
: So you're comparing genocide to a work of art? Karen, how can one have
: an intelligent argument with you, if you insist on making these
: outlandish comparisons. You're the one who talked about "pissing-off"
: millions of people. The only reason I raised the issue of the recent
: poll, is to show how many *more* millions of people were "pissed-off" at
: the mayor's stance.
Biff, if someone takes little plastic anatomically correct male dolls
has them fuck each other, smears them with shit, depicts them in
hell, with a representation of God above them and a flashing neon
sign that says "All gay faggots are going to hell" sticks that
in a publically funded museum, and the mayor doesn't want to
pay for that shit, I expect you and Hanon to be first in line there to
scream about the first amendment rights. I expect you and your liberal
friends to all band together, singing "we shall not be moved" and rant
on about how "artists" must be protected from government nazis. I'm
sure you'll all gladly pay admission fees to support the "artist."
Yeah. Sure.
LEt me know when hell freezes over too.
Who the fuck do you guys think you are kidding? *I* know you guys wouldn't
go....so why do you pretend you would? Why do you think you have to
pretend you would?
This is about common sense, decency, and having the good grace not
to extract public monies to mock what millions believe in.
Karen
Tim Gowen
<mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu> writes
>> Are you honestly saying that an art exhibition which includes material
>> offensive to Jews or homosexuals would be okay by you, and would get put
>> on in New York City? That's honestly what you're saying?
>>
>> I think it's time for some post-slumber coffee-smelling.
>
>I didn't say that at all. And I think you *KNOW* that I didn't say
>that. Please don't twist my words around.
Okay, substitute the words "Are you saying" with the words "Do you
think". It doesn't really make much difference; the question goes to
how you would react if the thematic content was rather more relevant to
you personally. This puts the blanket "freedom of expression" claim in
a quite different relief, and I think we both know that any exhibition
which was even slightly offensive to homosexuals or jews would be so
unpopular as to almost be impossible to conceive of. It wouldn't
happen.
>I said that I would be
>opposed to an institution having its public funds revoked because it
>presented unpopular or controversial art: regardless of whom it
>offends. I would not in all cases support the art itself. In terms of
>anti-Semitic or homophobic art, I would not support it (though I would
>try not to have knee-jerk reaction -- because it would be quite possible
>that an artist created a piece that was critiquing anti-Semitism or
>homophobia and had his work misconstrued to be the thing that it was in
>fact denouncing).
Has the creator of the offending piece been asked to talk about it, I
wonder... My feeling is that you would be exercising some fairly major
restraint if you didn't get quite up-in-arms about this hypothetical
art, and in any case the likelihood is that you would be standing with a
group of its opponents, and would be speaking in favour of their actions
rather than against the art itself.
>In the case of, say, a hypothetical production of
>ASSASSINS, I would actively support its presentation. In the case of
>Sensation I remain neutral on the art itself, because it doesn't appear
>as if it would offend me or appeal to me (I haven't seen it in person --
>only the bits that have been revealed in the media).
>
>I hope I've made myself clear!
Perfectly. I wasn't deliberately trying to twist your words. And
'Assassins' doesn't smear dead Presidents with excrement without so much
as a "by your leave". You can take something away from a production of
Assassins. What can you say about a picture of the Virgin Mary covered
in excrement:
That people are fundamentally bad and are disfiguring what is Holy in a
truly disgusting way?
That Christianity is a load of old shit?
That animals aren't religious, and that's why it's an animal's excrement
and not a person's? Animals don't get religion, they defecate on it?
What?
You see, these rather dull conclusions about this particular work are
all that I can come up with, and none of them are terribly worthwhile.
My original point was that this exhibition is dismal art, as is much of
modern British visual art, and therefore Giuliani isn't doing any harm
to art itself. He may be doing harm to how it gets put on in New York
City, but to be honest with you artists have had to put up with rather
more serious oppression than a funding cut, and perhaps the result is
that they will find ways of getting their art out there. If the people
agree with the artist or the exhibitor then they'll say so. The chances
are that most of the 50% who're against the mayor in this case aren't
going to do much about it.
>Ditto. What's your point? I never said -- nor has anyone, that I have
>heard -- that religious groups couldn't protest the exhibit. Indeed
>they are.
Well okay, but my contention would be that the exhibit we're discussing
is not art. Art can be provocative, but that doesn't mean that anything
provocative is art.
Biff McKeldin
Not only wouldn't I go, I'd protest the exhibit ("gay faggots" is
redundant, I'd protest it on grammatical grounds) -- BUT NOT TO HAVE IT
BANNED -- NOR TO HAVE FUNDING REMOVED FROM THE MUSEUM -- but simply to
show up with an alternative point of view to the exhibit (AND ONLY ONCE
I ascertained the *intent* of the artist, and the *intent* of the
institution exhibiting the art). BTW, I never "pretended" I would
attend Sensation either (see my post responding to Tim). The art (in
this particular case) doesn't phase me one way or the other. But I wish
to protect the rights of artists and art institutions so that I can be
damn sure that the art that does phase me (see my ASSASSINS analogy) can
get produced.
> This is about common sense, decency, and having the good grace not
> to extract public monies to mock what millions believe in.
If your response is an example of what you consider "common sense,
decency and ... good grace," I'll take uncommon sense, obscenity and
being out of grace everytime.
Biff
BTC/TAK
>the balls to put something that offended HIS friends in their little
>museum.
But, Karen, you must admit that most museums' exhibit a great deal of
"religious" painting, etc.; including, by the way, the B'klyn. I don't find
those art works offensive [well, not usually, anyway, though I do find a lot
of paintings of St. Sebastian pretty disgusting], but I'm sure some people
do. Should all religious art [pro/con/neutral] be removed, just so nobody is
offended? Why not get rid of all art in publicly subsidized places then,
just in case?
Mila
Karen Horn wrote in message <7tdddk$2pcr$3...@thoth.cts.com>...
Biff McKeldin
>
> >that. Please don't twist my words around.
>
> Okay, substitute the words "Are you saying" with the words "Do you
> think". It doesn't really make much difference; the question goes to
> how you would react if the thematic content was rather more relevant to
> you personally. This puts the blanket "freedom of expression" claim in
> a quite different relief, and I think we both know that any exhibition
> which was even slightly offensive to homosexuals or jews would be so
> unpopular as to almost be impossible to conceive of. It wouldn't
> happen.
Probably -- and I'd hope so. If it isn't conceived of, then you put
forth a false argument anyway.
>
> Perfectly. I wasn't deliberately trying to twist your words. And
> 'Assassins' doesn't smear dead Presidents with excrement without so much
> as a "by your leave".
No, but to some people ASSASSINS "glorifies" assassins. Which some
people may find even more heinous then smearing excrement over their
likenesses.
> You can take something away from a production of
> Assassins. What can you say about a picture of the Virgin Mary covered
> in excrement:
>
> That people are fundamentally bad and are disfiguring what is Holy in a
> truly disgusting way?
>
> That Christianity is a load of old shit?
>
> That animals aren't religious, and that's why it's an animal's excrement
> and not a person's? Animals don't get religion, they defecate on it?
>
> What?
>
> You see, these rather dull conclusions about this particular work are
> all that I can come up with, and none of them are terribly worthwhile.
> My original point was that this exhibition is dismal art, as is much of
> modern British visual art, and therefore Giuliani isn't doing any harm
> to art itself. He may be doing harm to how it gets put on in New York
> City, but to be honest with you artists have had to put up with rather
> more serious oppression than a funding cut, and perhaps the result is
> that they will find ways of getting their art out there. If the people
> agree with the artist or the exhibitor then they'll say so. The chances
> are that most of the 50% who're against the mayor in this case aren't
> going to do much about it.
You presume to speak for everybody? These interpretations are all YOU
can SEE, so that's all there CAN BE? I'm sure there are many who could
take no more away from ASSASSINS then you could from SENSATION.
>
> Well okay, but my contention would be that the exhibit we're discussing
> is not art. Art can be provocative, but that doesn't mean that anything
> provocative is art.
To some people ASSASSINS isn't art -- to others musical theater is a
bastardized NON-art form. Still others think that film can't be art. I
can't begin to think of the perilous state of the "arts" in any given
country if everybody in that country had to agree on what is and isn't
art before a work could be produced, or exhibited in publicly funded
institutions. Though, fortunately -- if it only takes one person to
declare that something isn't art -- I could immediately have that old
faker Norman Rockwell ousted from the canon.
Biff
Bart Cosgrove
something liberals hold dear. "
Some of your posts do verge on art, Karen, wouldn't you agree? And,
enjoyable as your musings are to us [well, most of the time, anyway],
denigrating things we "liberals hold dear", dear, is kind of your medium.
So, you've passed "almost tempting" by eons ago!
8-}
Mila
Karen Horn <kah...@king.cts.com> wrote in message
news:7tdddk$2pcr$3...@thoth.cts.com...
> Bart Cosgrove (ko...@nantucket.net) wrote:
> : Guliani ..
> : "representatives" or
> : "Tzars" these days?
> : Mila
>
> ...elect people with PRINCIPLES and common sense and
> decency. It's almost tempting TO produce a work of art denigrating
> something liberals hold dear....
> Karen
Robin Lebeaux
>I do find myself asking if we elect
>Mila
experiment in cross-dressing offensive now think he should be the
doyenne of "good taste".
Robin
Bart Cosgrove
> has them fuck each other, smears them with shit, depicts them in
> hell, with a representation of God above them and a flashing neon
> sign that says "All gay faggots are going to hell" sticks that
> in a publically funded museum, and the mayor doesn't want to
> sure you'll all gladly pay admission fees to support the "artist."
> Yeah. Sure.
Karen, did I miss something? When did anyone pretend they would "gladly pay
admission fees to support" the exhibition that you've conjured up? I know it
may be hard for you to believe, but some people are actually sufficiently
committed to the freedom of artists expression of themselves that they would
not try to suppress such a thing. Protesting, on the other hand, is an
entirely different matter. One can protest without seeking to suppress;
don't you think? I also imagine it would take more than "a representation of
God above... a flashing neon sign that says "All gay faggots are going to
hell" to get most gays all that worked up, in any event. Don't we all see
variations on that theme pretty much every day? How much further, e,g., does
Pat Robertson have to go before he's essentially there?
And, I really hate to say this Karen, because I don't believe you meant to
be as offensive, or go quite as "over the top" as some may think you have;
so, although I don't want to start a $#!&-storm here, I have to ask. I
wonder, would you would so cavalierly toss off a line like "all black
niggers are going to hell", or "all Jew kikes are going to hell", to make
your point? Somehow I doubt it; and, if not, why not?
Mila
Biff McKeldin <mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:37FA625B...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu...
> Karen Horn wrote:
Well, you know what you wrote!
Bart Cosgrove
> more ways than one.
Absolutely your right, but the discussion is about the rights of artists,
and the responsibility of the mayor.
> The only "elephant dung" Karen Horn gets spattered with is crude and
> uncalled-for remarks like the above.
Beb, cool down; you've been around here long enough to know that by RATM
standards this thread is very civilized, so far! Karen is a "big girl" [in
the grown-up sense], can take care of herself, flings plenty of "s**t"
herself, has a sense of humor, in her [unique] way has a sense of
proportion, and knows a "rib" when she sees one, I believe!
Mila
Beb11572 <beb1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991004223115...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> >Like many New Yorkers, I'll make it down to the Brooklyn museum to
celebrate
> >the right Americans have to free expression.
>
> If, in your estimation, elephant dung "expresses" something besides
arrested
> development - and whatever that is merits the time and trouble of a trip
to the
> Brooklyn Museum - go and enjoy yourself. Personally, I think it is s**t
in
> more ways than one.
>
> Incidentally,if anyone is
> >interested, I have a picture here of Karen Horn spattered with elephant
dung.
> >HANON
>
Beb11572
>be as offensive, or go quite as "over the top" as some may think you have;
>so, although I don't want to start a $#!&-storm here, I have to ask. I
>wonder, would you would so cavalierly toss off a line like "all black
>niggers are going to hell", or "all Jew kikes are going to hell", to make
>your point? Somehow I doubt it; and, if not, why not?
>
>Mila
I'm not speaking for Karen - she can certainly do that for herself - but I
don't think she tossed it off cavalierly at all. I am Jewish, and had she used
the "all Jew kikes" example, I wouldn't have thought so either. Neither
example is/would not be *Karen's* opinion...it is an analogy drawn to show how
just offensive this exhibit is to the sensibilities of a given group of people,
individually and collectively. Look, since I am Jewish, this exhibit(ionism)
doesn't affect me one way or the other...other than to say that I resent my
hard-earned taxes going to support s*** like that (literally). But can I not
understand why that would be considered as much of a personal violation to
Catholics as these other rhetorical exhibits would be to gays, Jews and blacks?
Beb11572
>> ...Personally, I think it is s**t in
>> more ways than one.
>
>Absolutely your right, but the discussion is about the rights of artists,
Whether or not the museum has the *unconditional* right to our tax dollars
remains to be seen...but even if it is decided that they do, does that - in
and of itself - automatically make the guy who created this crapola an
"artist"? If he is an artist, then what was Michelangelo? And if he IS an
artist, then so is a dog urinating on a fire hydrant!
>> The only "elephant dung" Karen Horn gets spattered with is crude and
>> uncalled-for remarks like the above.
>
>Beb, cool down; you've been around here long enough to know that by RATM
>standards this thread is very civilized, so far! Karen is a "big girl" [in
>the grown-up sense], can take care of herself, flings plenty of "s**t"
>herself, has a sense of humor, in her [unique] way has a sense of
>proportion, and knows a "rib" when she sees one, I believe!
>
>Mila
I guess "humor," like "art," is all subjective...
Karen Horn
:
: Not only wouldn't I go, I'd protest the exhibit ("gay faggots" is
: redundant, I'd protest it on grammatical grounds) -- BUT NOT TO HAVE IT
Exactly.
: BANNED --
No one is banning it, or throwing anyone in jail over it.
: NOR TO HAVE FUNDING REMOVED FROM THE MUSEUM -- but simply to
: > pretend you would?
: show up with an alternative point of view to the exhibit (AND ONLY ONCE
: I ascertained the *intent* of the artist, and the *intent* of the
: institution exhibiting the art). BTW, I never "pretended" I would
: attend Sensation either (see my post responding to Tim). The art (in
: this particular case) doesn't phase me one way or the other. But I wish
: to protect the rights of artists and art institutions so that I can be
: damn sure that the art that does phase me (see my ASSASSINS analogy) can
: get produced.
Look, this guy has a RIGHT to make this work. He doesn't have a right
to have it subsidized. the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee anyone an
audience nor anyone's tax monies to do this sort of thing.
:
: > This is about common sense, decency, and having the good grace not
: > to extract public monies to mock what millions believe in.
:
: If your response is an example of what you consider "common sense,
: decency and ... good grace," I'll take uncommon sense, obscenity and
: being out of grace everytime.
:
I wouldn't see this NOT funding this exhibit as anything other than
for similar reasons as to why subscriptions to HUSTLER aren't bought
with public library monies.
Karen
Karen Horn
: >in their beings to spew. Of course no "art director" would have
: >the balls to put something that offended HIS friends in their little
: >museum.
:
: But, Karen, you must admit that most museums' exhibit a great deal of
: "religious" painting, etc.; including, by the way, the B'klyn. I don't find
: those art works offensive [well, not usually, anyway, though I do find a lot
: of paintings of St. Sebastian pretty disgusting], but I'm sure some people
: do. Should all religious art [pro/con/neutral] be removed, just so nobody is
: offended? Why not get rid of all art in publicly subsidized places then,
: just in case?
:
: Mila
Look, in this country, and in most of the world there are "norms" which
people try to raise their children to have a little tolerance for other's
most profoundly held beliefs. You don't have to believe in other
people's religion or even most sacred values, but a sense of common respect
usually entails teaching the young that if Ishmael on the corner prays
with Phylacteries you don't make fun of him. If Abdul two streets over
wants to fast you make sure your kids understand that even though YOUR
family doesn't observe Ramadan, kids in school don't taunt Abdul with
twinkies saying: "Too bad YOU can't have any, neener-neener." Ad infinitum.
Maybe little Johnny has the "right" to offend Abdul and Ishmael, but
it's galling and obnoxious for him to shake those kids down for their
pocket change in order to buy a bullhorn to taunt them louder.
Karen
Karen Horn
: "It's almost tempting TO produce a work of art denigrating
: something liberals hold dear. "
:
: Some of your posts do verge on art, Karen, wouldn't you agree? And,
: enjoyable as your musings are to us [well, most of the time, anyway],
: denigrating things we "liberals hold dear", dear, is kind of your medium.
: So, you've passed "almost tempting" by eons ago!
:
: 8-}
: Mila
But I don't come shake you down for money to pay for my monthly internet
charges, do I?
Karen
Karen Horn
: > little plastic anatomically correct male dolls
: > has them fuck each other, smears them with shit, depicts them in
: > hell, with a representation of God above them and a flashing neon
: > sign that says "All gay faggots are going to hell" sticks that
: > in a publically funded museum, and the mayor doesn't want to
: > pay for that shit,...I'm
: > sure you'll all gladly pay admission fees to support the "artist."
: > Yeah. Sure.
: > Who the fuck do you guys think you are kidding? >
: > so why do you pretend you would?
:
: Karen, did I miss something? When did anyone pretend they would "gladly pay
: admission fees to support" the exhibition that you've conjured up? I know it
Hanon was going to trot down there to see the exhibit at the Museum.
If he was being consistent for a disgusting work of "art" which denigrated
homosexuals he'd have to trot 'round to "support" it if the mayor wanted
to nix that one too.
: may be hard for you to believe, but some people are actually sufficiently
: committed to the freedom of artists expression of themselves that they would
: not try to suppress such a thing. Protesting, on the other hand, is an
Who is "suppressing" this son of a bitch? All I want is not to
be shaken down for such trash.
: entirely different matter. One can protest without seeking to suppress;
: don't you think? I also imagine it would take more than "a representation of
: God above... a flashing neon sign that says "All gay faggots are going to
: hell" to get most gays all that worked up, in any event. Don't we all see
: variations on that theme pretty much every day? How much further, e,g., does
Well, if gays wouldn't be offended by that, I think there's something
wrong with them. I'd be offended by that, and I don't know why they
wouldn't be either.
I certainly wouldn't want my tax monies to go for that, and I don't
know why they would want that.
No one is stopping that guy from renting/buying space for his little
exhibit. No one is suggesting throwing him in jail or any of that.
All that is being said is that millions who are offended should
not have to pay for that shit.
: Pat Robertson have to go before he's essentially there?
:
: And, I really hate to say this Karen, because I don't believe you meant to
: be as offensive, or go quite as "over the top" as some may think you have;
: so, although I don't want to start a $#!&-storm here, I have to ask. I
: wonder, would you would so cavalierly toss off a line like "all black
: niggers are going to hell", or "all Jew kikes are going to hell", to make
: your point? Somehow I doubt it; and, if not, why not?
Yes, I would. If you liberals had an ounce of sense, we wouldn't
have to draw such graphic pictures for you to get a fricken clue.
I like to think that most people would be apaulled by public discretionary
monies being spent which trash and denigrate ANY group of people.
With the left, it applies to almost any group of people...except, apparently
for religious people.
Karen
Karen Horn
: > ...Personally, I think it is s**t in
: > more ways than one.
:
: Absolutely your right, but the discussion is about the rights of artists,
:
: > The only "elephant dung" Karen Horn gets spattered with is crude and
: > uncalled-for remarks like the above.
:
: Beb, cool down; you've been around here long enough to know that by RATM
: standards this thread is very civilized, so far! Karen is a "big girl" [in
: the grown-up sense], can take care of herself, flings plenty of "s**t"
: herself, has a sense of humor, in her [unique] way has a sense of
: proportion, and knows a "rib" when she sees one, I believe!
:
: Mila
Except, of course, I hadn't made a personal remark about covering any living
person's picture in shit.
I'll leave that one to the liberals.
Karen
Karen Horn
: >And, I really hate to say this Karen, because I don't believe you meant to
: >be as offensive, or go quite as "over the top" as some may think you have;
: >so, although I don't want to start a $#!&-storm here, I have to ask. I
: >wonder, would you would so cavalierly toss off a line like "all black
: >niggers are going to hell", or "all Jew kikes are going to hell", to make
: >your point? Somehow I doubt it; and, if not, why not?
: >Mila
:
:
: I'm not speaking for Karen - she can certainly do that for herself - but I
: don't think she tossed it off cavalierly at all. I am Jewish, and had she used
: the "all Jew kikes" example, I wouldn't have thought so either. Neither
: example is/would not be *Karen's* opinion...it is an analogy drawn to show how
: just offensive this exhibit is to the sensibilities of a given group of people,
: individually and collectively. Look, since I am Jewish, this exhibit(ionism)
: hard-earned taxes going to support s*** like that (literally). But can I not
: understand why that would be considered as much of a personal violation to
: Catholics as these other rhetorical exhibits would be to gays, Jews and blacks?
Precisely. Bingo. I don't know why this is so hard for some
people to "foller."
Karen
Lorin
>I'd agree. The first amendment DOES guarantee freedom of expression....
>it does NOT, however, guarantee the "right" to a publically financed
>audience.
>
>Karen
Point of order. It is my understanding the BMA receives only about one
third of its funding from the city. Is there any evidence that public
money was used specifically for this exhibit?
LG
Biff McKeldin
>
>
> Look, this guy has a RIGHT to make this work. He doesn't have a right
> to have it subsidized. the 1st amendment doesn't guarantee anyone an
> audience nor anyone's tax monies to do this sort of thing.
While I suspect we could go round for round on the issue of subsidized
art, right now it's important to make the distinction -- in this case --
that the art *hasn't been subsisdized*. Apparently it doesn't need to
be -- it rakes in a fortune wherever it goes. But a museum -- which is
subsidized -- is being threatened with eviction for exhibiting the
show. That's what's at stake here. The mayor overriding the board of
directors of the museum as to what can and cannot be shown. I say, if
he can do that, then why couldn't he remove city funding from
Playwright's Horizon (which may not receive local funding -- but for the
sake of argument...) if he thought ASSASSINS promoted presidential
assassination; or (had Kushner's epic premiered at the Public as it was
supposed to) remove funding from the Public Theater because he thought
ANGELS IN AMERICA was insulting to Mormons?
Biff
Hanon
Nazi Germany or Russia, without stepping in and taking over the government. But
I'm starting to see that a lot of people actually LIKE the government to have
the final say in what gets seen and what is not seen. I'm sure that when Adolf
Hitler banned works of art that he found offensive, a lot of people were
saying, "well thank God SOMEONE had the nerve to speak out against this crap!".
HANON
Karen Horn
From my understanding of the news reports the mayor wanted to withhold
a propotion sum of monies. In this case that exhibit took up
1/7th of the floorspace, so he wanted to cut 1/7th of the allotment.
Karen
Karen Horn
From reports I've heard, apparently the mayor has the museum over
a barrel in that supposedly $$$s are charged to see it.....AND
the exhibit is restricted from people under 18.
Karen
Karen Horn
: I used to wonder how people could stand to live in totalatarian coutries like
Is the mayor throwing anyone in prison?
NO
Is he fining the "artist? "
NO
Is he preventing him from creating these sort of works?
NO
Is he preventing anyone from seeing the work?
NO
Is he preventing the "artist" from hiring a hall himself?
NO [And frankly, if this SOB *IS* making money commercially with
this shit, why does he need tax payer funded premises?]
Us the mayor objecting to him sticking porno cutouts all over
the work?
NO
Just what IS the mayor trying to do?
Not have the public pay for it with tax $$$$s. A far cry from
a "dictator."
He wouldn't have had to do that in the first place if the so called
"artistic directors" of the museum had an ounce of common decency.
It is just these sorts of actions which make a lot of people uncomfortable
with arts monies. Some of the artsy types have no common sense and
do what they know damn will will offend millions of people---but
they don't care, because they think they have an unfettered "RIGHT"
to the public money. Then when the public complains they caterwaul
that they don't know why they are being persecuted. you want total
artistic freedom? Fine---do it with your own money. At least
Larry Flint doesn't shake me down for money.
Apparently there was a case some time ago when there was a "work"
which denigrated blacks and equated them to apes. The NAACP & ACLU
was able, in COURT, to get that out of a publically funded museum.
I don't remember anyone screaming "dictators" over that.
There is no such thing as tax monies that don't have strings attached.
"artists" are living in a dream world if they think that is the case.
Are there grey areas? Yes. But this one is well over the line.
Karen
Karen Horn
: Tim Gowen wrote:
: >
: > In article <37FA243D...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu>, Biff McKeldin
: > <mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu> writes
: >
: > >Yes, I would. But at the same time nothing in Sensation even remotely
: > >comes close to the the kind of tangible hate and violence your
: > >hypothetical exhibit does.
: > Are you honestly saying that an art exhibition which includes material
: > offensive to Jews or homosexuals would be okay by you, and would get put
: > on in New York City? That's honestly what you're saying?
: >
: > I think it's time for some post-slumber coffee-smelling.
:
: I didn't say that at all. And I think you *KNOW* that I didn't say
: opposed to an institution having its public funds revoked because it
: presented unpopular or controversial art: regardless of whom it
: offends. I would not in all cases support the art itself. In terms of
: anti-Semitic or homophobic art, I would not support it (though I would
: try not to have knee-jerk reaction -- because it would be quite possible
: that an artist created a piece that was critiquing anti-Semitism or
: homophobia and had his work misconstrued to be the thing that it was in
: ASSASSINS, I would actively support its presentation. In the case of
: Sensation I remain neutral on the art itself, because it doesn't appear
: only the bits that have been revealed in the media).
:
: I hope I've made myself clear!
Yes, apparently a madonna covered in shit that has graphic pornographic
cut outs stuck on it doesn't offend you, and you are "neutral."
: What are you saying? If you are implying that I suggested how a person
: of the Christian faith should or should not react to the portrait of the
: Madonna in question, I can only say that I *NEVER* suggested such a
: thing. All I said is that a direct attack on a group of people is a
: different matter than an attack on a religious faith. People are
: tangible, faith is not. A difference in kind, not in degree.
: Naturally, a person can decide that an attack on faith is *WORSE* than
: an attack on a group of people -- or even decide that it is meant to be
: an indirect attack on the people who practice said faith. It is
: nevertheless not the same thing. And to compare one with the other is
: intellectually dishonest.
This is silly. FAith doesn't exist in a vacuum. PEOPLE have faith.
Karen
Hanon
theatre groups who have attempted to perform Christopher Durang's comedy
"Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You", but the city officials have
banned the productions because, (A) the theatre groups were receiving tax
dollars, and (B) Catholic groups found the play heretical, and didn't
understand why their tax dollars should support a production that dumps on
their religion. Does Karen Horn support this, and if not, why not?
HANON
Karen Horn
: Yeah, Stephen, I think you misunderstand the nature of New York liberalism
: here. In protesting the mayor's nonsensical fatwa against the Brooklyn
: exhibit, I'm not defending anyone putting elephant dung on the Virgin Mary -
: in fact, I'm one of the first people to wonder whatever happened to "taste."
: But I am defending an artist's right to present his vision, and, to a
: certain extent, defending the artist's expectation that the public should
: pay for his right to present it. I'm all for state-sponsored and funded
: art, as long as there's state-sponsored and funded anything else. So, yes,
: I'd be protesting the forced closure of an exhibit containing the vile
: things you wrote about; I also would be sitting at home, not attending, and
: probably not renewing my subscription to the institution that supported it.
:
: Jason
So Jason. What other tax monies have NO STRINGS ATTACHED?
Any time public monies are dispersed there is a whole list
of rules about its use. Why is this different? Are "artists"
"better" than other people?
Karen
Karen Horn
:
: Yes, I would. But at the same time nothing in Sensation even remotely
: comes close to the the kind of tangible hate and violence your
Yes it DOES.
: interpretation whether or not the portrait of the Madonna in Sensation
: is meant to be irreverent -- attacking a symbol of a faith is *still*
: not the same as attacking groups of people.
Only a couple hundred million RELIGIOUS people. No BFD.
Karen
Panagiotis P Papazoglou
Terrence McNally. When the play was performed in a publicly funded
theater in Marietta, Georgia, it was decided that all funding for the
arts in the county (not just the theatre) would be cancelled because the
play was in part about homosexuals. Same story, and this stuff just
makes me angry.
Peter
Hanon (ha...@aol.com) wrote:
: Let's make this discussion a little less "off-topic". There have been some
Biff McKeldin
According to a co-worker who went to the exhibit over the weekend,
apparently the "no children" deal has been removed (she said the only
thing that truly disturbed her about the exhibit were the number of
children running around material that she didn't think was appropriate
for children), apparently to help weaken the mayor's legal position.
Don't know if BMA is still charging admission -- but you're right, that
was one of the loopholes the mayor was citing.
Why I find this whole thing distressing, is that the only possible loser
is other artists and institutions. Giuliani will help shore up his
up-state Senate vote; the BMA is now on the cultural map; as is the
artist who created the portrait of the Madonna; as is the entire
exhibition. However, the next museum/theater company/art institution
that receives any public funds may now think twice before engaging in
anything controversial. So in a sense all parties connected to the
specific controversy win, while the rest of us lose. And so it goes.
Biff
Biff McKeldin
> : comes close to the the kind of tangible hate and violence your
> : hypothetical exhibit does. Aside from the fact that it's a matter of
>
> Yes it DOES.
No it DOES NOT. :-P
I can be evry bit as logical as you Karen. ;-)
> : interpretation whether or not the portrait of the Madonna in Sensation
> : is meant to be irreverent -- attacking a symbol of a faith is *still*
> : not the same as attacking groups of people.
>
> Only a couple hundred million RELIGIOUS people. No BFD.
So it is your contention that this particular portrait is the equivalent
to a piece of art by say the Ku Klux Klan that says something to the
effect that all Papist Fish Eaters Must Die!
Well all I can say, is that we'll have to agree to disagree. I see NO
COMPARISON WHATSOEVER. One is an interpretation of a religious icon,
one is advocating for the death of a group of people.
Biff
Michael Callery
Friday ... I don't know if these are once a week checks or once a month ... so
that they might get some partial funding next month ... the news sources seem
more concerned with elephant dung than with substantive issues. On the other
hand, as I've already said, the disproportionate amout of publicity this has
generated has resulted in record crowds. So they'll probably do fine without
the check from the city.
On the other hand, he wants to evict the museum from ALL of the floor space
... talk about giving Hillary the red carpet treatment. Thank you, Rudy.
Mike
Doc Bender
: nevertheless not the same thing. And to compare one with the other is
: intellectually dishonest.
But what about the Crusades or the Holocaust? Think of what is happening in
Israel at this very moment. Ireland. All over the world. Surely an attack on
a religious faith has been used as a direct attack and can lead to the same
intolerance as an attack on a group of people due to their race or sexual
orientation. Shouldn't you define what you mean by an attack? I don't think
you're talking about a reasoned discourse on the pros and cons of a religion.
Would you consider the horrible caricatures and cartoons printed in the German
newspapers of the 1930s mocking Jewish faith and its symbols as a direct attack
upon the people or is it acceptable debate? If we don't find something hurtful
and others do, where is the middle ground? Who are we as individuals to decide
what is an attack on one group and what is not?
Anti-Semitism *is* also an attack on a religious faith. I don't know who
lumped it with homosexuality as opposed to Christianity, but surely my friends
who have converted would be deeply offended if you tried to make it a nothing
more than a racial issue. I don't think it's too far a reach to say that many
Christians might feel upset and hurt by the depiction of the Virgin Mary in the
exhibit. That is *not* what should be on debate here.
I think there are two separate issues -- one is an issue of censorship to be
addressed. Either one believes in free speech or they don't -- personal
morality is subjective. (Well, this offends me more than this, so I won't
support this but I'll support this). You don't know what the artist was
thinking -- and it really shouldn't matter. The question is: What constitutes
art? And should art be censored on moral grounds, for any reason?
The second issue is what taxpayer dollars should pay for -- and that is an
entirely different set of issues that is tied to the reactions of our political
system, our politicians (which we elect), the audiences, the exhibitors and the
grant givers. The issue is so monstrously complex that it boggles the mind --
subsidy is needed, but who decides where it goes? With six million hands
reaching out, it's almost preposterous that a board can honestly determine who
is more deserving of funds. It's all a balancing act. This creates a state of
blackmail depending on who is passing out the funds (You've got to have such
and such number of plays about women before you can get funding -- you can't do
plays about abortion and homosexuality -- you have to respect this and that --
you can't say this and that) -- the written and unwritten rules are always
there and they're always bullshit which sometimes leads to more bullshit and
political posturing before election time. Should this exhibit be any
different?
Having said all that, I wish that the arts had more public subsidy with no fear
of censorship from anyone -- but that's just my pinko, commie, liberal opinion
and I can understand if others don't want to use their tax dollars for the
arts. I would be just as glad to remove my tax pennies from various government
departments that are currently working on the latest ways to destroy the world.
It's an impossible problem to solve. Only a compromise can be achieved.
Doc Bender
Pizzaman95
(Panagiotis P Papazoglou) writes:
>I directed a play last year called "Lips Together, Teeth Apart" by
>Terrence McNally. When the play was performed in a publicly funded
>theater in Marietta, Georgia, it was decided that all funding for the
>arts in the county (not just the theatre) would be cancelled because the
>play was in part about homosexuals. Same story, and this stuff just
>makes me angry.
>
>Peter
NO, NOT THE SAME STORY. Your story makes me angry--that was
a clear case of ignorance--don't show a play because it deals with gays.That is
not the same a removing funding for something that is clearly offensive to
many. You
do a disservice to the gay community to suggest that the treatment of gays is
the same as the treatment of elephant dung and DEAD ANIMALS! I defy anyone
to suggest that the negative value of McNally's play outweighs its value to
the community. Only narrow-minded people would object to it. I don't
think this is the case here where religious people and animal rights activists
could be readily offended. You must use a reasonable man standard. I am
not saying that you might not reach the same conclusion but they are not
the same story and they need a different analysis.
P-man
Pizzaman95
>> Now, if the mayor of New York threatened to pull funding for *this* show,
>> would you all be protesting so vigorously?
>
>Yes, I would. But at the same time nothing in Sensation even remotely
>comes close to the the kind of tangible hate and violence your
>hypothetical exhibit does. Aside from the fact that it's a matter of
>interpretation whether or not the portrait of the Madonna in Sensation
>is meant to be irreverent -- attacking a symbol of a faith is *still*
>not the same as attacking groups of people.
Biff,
Please recall Mary was every bit a human and real as MLK, etc. and
a [painting of her is the same as a painting of MLK. Again, you can
draw your own conclusion but GET THE FACTS RIGHT!!!! But I am
glad to see you are starting to try to explain why this isn't as bad as
{insert here} so we can all see the hypocrites at work here. ALL OF
KAREN'S EXAMPLES ARE BAD AND SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED!
Biff McKeldin
But I said all of Karen's examples are bad but that funding shouldn't be
pulled from a museum that would exhibit them. AND I'VE SAID IT AT LEAST
THREE TIMES (have you read my posts -- do you have YOUR facts right? It
would be nice if you did, before you start calling me names). So how am
I a hypocrite? Because I claim that there is a difference between an
irreverent portrait (by *some people's interpretation*) of the Madonna
and a direct frontal attack on a group of people? I'll ask you what I
asked Karen. Do you really see no difference between the portrait in
question and a work of art depicting, let's say the Pope, with the
legend "All Papist Fish Eaters Must Die." It's my opinion (I'm allowed
to have that, am I not?) that the two aren't even remotely related and
that the latter is far a worse attack on Catholics than the former.
That's what I mean when I say it's the difference between attacking
intangibles vs. tangibles.
Oh and BTW, out of curiosity, where's the proof of the historical
existence of Mary? I'm not saying there isn't any, I just don't know of
it?
Biff
Biff McKeldin
>
> >All I said is that a direct attack on a group of people is a
> >: different matter than an attack on a religious faith. It is
> : nevertheless not the same thing. And to compare one with the other is
> : intellectually dishonest.
>
> But what about the Crusades or the Holocaust? Think of what is happening in
> Israel at this very moment. Ireland. All over the world. Surely an attack on
> a religious faith has been used as a direct attack and can lead to the same
> intolerance as an attack on a group of people due to their race or sexual
> orientation.
Context is everything. A work of art by a Protestant in Northern
Ireland that openly mocks Catholicism, is very different from a work of
art by a Catholic in Brooklyn that does the same (though I don't see the
painting in question relating solely to Catholicism). For the simple
reason that Catholics are an oppressed minority in Northern Ireland.
Whereas the Catholic Church can be seen by some in New York as an
oppressive institution (though, it's true, that anti-Catholic bigotry
still runs rampant in many Protestant communities in the U.S. -- or at
least did in the 70s when I was attending high school).
> Shouldn't you define what you mean by an attack? I don't think
> you're talking about a reasoned discourse on the pros and cons of a religion.
> Would you consider the horrible caricatures and cartoons printed in the German
> newspapers of the 1930s mocking Jewish faith and its symbols as a direct attack
> upon the people or is it acceptable debate? If we don't find something hurtful
> and others do, where is the middle ground? Who are we as individuals to decide
> what is an attack on one group and what is not?
>
> Anti-Semitism *is* also an attack on a religious faith. I don't know who
> lumped it with homosexuality as opposed to Christianity, but surely my friends
> who have converted would be deeply offended if you tried to make it a nothing
> more than a racial issue. I don't think it's too far a reach to say that many
> Christians might feel upset and hurt by the depiction of the Virgin Mary in the
> exhibit. That is *not* what should be on debate here.
I'm not sure I buy your notion of anti-Semitism as anti-religious.
Certainly Hitler was not interested in converting people to
Christianity, he wanted to exterminate people of Jewish culture and
ethnicity for what he considered racial reasons. No doubt the Nazis
found the mocking of Jewish religious symbols useful in their propaganda
-- but the goal was the eradication of people of Jewish heritage, not
their conversion to Christianity. And of course Semite refers to
ethnicity, not to religion.
You are right, however, that I have no business deciding for Karen (or
anybody else) what she should consider an attack on herself as a
Catholic. However, I still reserve the right to express my perplexity
that anyone can consider the painting in question in the same light as
he would a direct attack on any group of people, be they Catholic, gay,
Jewish, black or what have you.
As for the rest of your post, I am in agreement.
Biff
Tim Gowen
<mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu> writes
>Do you really see no difference between the portrait in
>question and a work of art depicting, let's say the Pope, with the
>legend "All Papist Fish Eaters Must Die." It's my opinion (I'm allowed
>to have that, am I not?) that the two aren't even remotely related and
>that the latter is far a worse attack on Catholics than the former.
>That's what I mean when I say it's the difference between attacking
>intangibles vs. tangibles.
That's splitting hairs. If you're going to say that the Virgin Mary is
less tangible than a living religious leader you might just as well say
that any religious leader is more tangible than Christ, and therefore an
attack on him is more damaging. It may well be more damaging to his
personal feelings, but can you not see that it's the difference between
attacking a religious representative (ie, the Pope) and attacking a
religious figurehead (Jesus, Mary, etc.)
Does this mean I can attack gay people as long as I don't refer to
individuals?
We aren't ever going to reach an agreement here, Biff, and until there's
a work of art that really gets up your nose we won't know how you feel
about the way it's funded. The truth of the matter is that I started
this thread off with very "British" thinking, and so constitutional
rights to freedom of speech didn't come into it. I'm sorry I brought up
a battle which turned out to be religion versus liberal politics because
I don't happen to believe that the two are mutually exclusive, but
American political culture is so full of hot-button issues which force
people into political alignments. In the UK this would be a social
issue, not really a political one, and it wouldn't divide along party
lines.
And it's not an insult to call a Brit a liberal. Not at all. "Liberal"
in America seems to have become so, and I must say that I'm hardly
surprised. If liberals are going to let their irritation at the right
and progressiveness towards sectional interests which are emphatically
not traditionally conservative consume them then there's no wonder that
decent, socially-responsible people are going to get pissed off. It's
almost impossible to conceive of an art exhibition which would prove my
point because the cultural dice are loaded. I can see the "Christian
right's" point of view on that one, and that's why I can be a liberal
and agree with Karen and P-Man at the same time.
Now, if you said: "Tim, Karen, P-Man, if there was an art exhibition or
any similar event which insulted the homosexual community I would join a
group and make such a fuss about it that it would have to close down;
and if there happened to be a mayor in the city who happened to be gay
then his words would lend weight to the protest, and it would fill the
media and it would be just like that controversial art exhibition which
upset Catholics. There is no difference." *That* would impress me.
Would the putative liberal gay mayor cut funding? Who knows? Would he
be lobbied to do so by a certain section of the protesters? Absolutely.
But because the mayor is not gay, he's Catholic, and because the offence
is taken by Catholics, and because the uproar has come from people whom
you (well, more Hanon actually, in this case) don't see as concerned
Catholics but posturing right-wing philistines, you're holding onto the
First Amendment and sighing with relief as the actual hypothetical
situation can be put to one side until who knows when...
Tim
--
"All those Silicon Valley billionaires aren't even geeks - they're Gap-
heads in rumpled khakis and Lands' End Polos; they're like less
ironic Peanuts characters with portfolios." -- Libby Gelman-Waxner
+ The RATM FAQ: http://www.juglans.demon.co.uk/
Biff McKeldin
>
>
> That's splitting hairs. If you're going to say that the Virgin Mary is
> less tangible than a living religious leader you might just as well say
> that any religious leader is more tangible than Christ, and therefore an
> attack on him is more damaging. It may well be more damaging to his
> personal feelings, but can you not see that it's the difference between
> attacking a religious representative (ie, the Pope) and attacking a
> religious figurehead (Jesus, Mary, etc.)
You missed my point. Forget about about living vs. non-living. My point
was the SENTIMENT attached. Not the fact that it was the Pope instead
of the Virgin Mary. Imagine the SAME EXACT portrait we're talking about
with the legend "All Papist Fish Eaters Will Roast in Hell" -- *that's*
what I'm talking about. With the addition of the phrase it's a direct
attack on the Catholic people -- without it, *it's open to
interpretation*.
> Does this mean I can attack gay people as long as I don't refer to
> individuals?
You can attack gay people, or Catholics or any other group you wish, and
mention all the individuals you like, as long as you do no violence or
commit a crime. Just expect to be attacked back.
> We aren't ever going to reach an agreement here, Biff, and until there's
> a work of art that really gets up your nose we won't know how you feel
> about the way it's funded.
There probably is no such piece of art. Oh plenty gets up my nose, and
I'll rant and rave -- but about the piece, not about its funding.
>
> Now, if you said: "Tim, Karen, P-Man, if there was an art exhibition or
> any similar event which insulted the homosexual community I would join a
> group and make such a fuss about it that it would have to close down;
> and if there happened to be a mayor in the city who happened to be gay
> then his words would lend weight to the protest, and it would fill the
> media and it would be just like that controversial art exhibition which
> upset Catholics. There is no difference." *That* would impress me.
If there were an exhibit of Harvey Milk (the first openly gay American
elected official, who was assassinated in 1978 along with the mayor of
San Francisco) -- or any other gay icon -- that utilized dung or any
other substance of questionable taste, not only would I say that a gay
(or straight) mayor would be wrong for cutting funding to the museum, I
would say it's just like the portrait of the Madonna that utilized
elephant dung that insulted many Catholics (and I assume a few
Episcopals as well). If, however, the exhibit contained the phrase
"Harvey Milk and all faggots roast in hell," while I WOULD STILL OPPOSE
THE PULLING OF FUNDING, I would not say it was like that portrait of the
Madonna, because the clarity of the statement would NOT leave the intent
of the exhibit open for interpretation.
Are you suitably impressed?
Biff
Stephen Oles
It's been said that "Anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of liberals," and
your trouble seeing that things which seriously offend others are as
offensive as things that offend *you* seems to bear that out.
If the Brooklyn show featured a picture of Golda Meir or Malcolm X
splattered with elephant dung, I guarantee that *none* of the celebs
currently protesting (Wendy Wasserstein etc.) would be anywhere to be found.
I totally defend the right of artists to exhibit revolting, offensive works,
but I won't agree that the fact that they're offensive makes them good, and
I question whether tax-payers should be compelled to pay for the display of
works whose main point seems to be shitting on their most cherished beliefs.
-- Steve in Venice Beach
Biff McKeldin
You haven't heard a single word I've said. If it makes you feel all
smarmily snug and smug inside to think of me as "anti-Catholic" that's
your prerogative. But I think I should point out, that I don't think
you know what true anti-Catholicism is. Try coming from a family whose
maternal side is Catholic and paternal side consists of anti-Catholic
bigots, and maybe you'll know what I mean. Or try having a friend leave
your school district because his parents were exposed to so much
anti-Catholic feeling they felt it would be safer to move to a new
community. THAT'S anti-Catholicism. Or try reading BARNABY RUDGE
sometime.
*You* simply don't think that art that offends should be subsidized:
that's your opinion. But given how clear I've made it that I do think
art should be subsidized -- even if it offends ME, I think your name
calling is unwarranted.
Biff
Iginio
Karen's persistent use of exaggerated descriptions of the work in
question. I haven't seen it myself, and obviously she hasn't either,
but from all of the reviews I've read, the picture is not "covered in
shit." Apparently it includes one strategically placed small mound of
elephant dung, and from what I read, the usage of this material is
common in Nigerian art. Although many people may still find this
offensive, I believe that we should at least be accurate in our
description of what we are criticizing. I don't think that these
provocative and untruthful descriptions of the work serve any purpose
but to emotionalize the issue. Karen, could you please try to be a
little more temperate?
Iginio
Beb11572
>Karen's persistent use of exaggerated descriptions of the work in
>question. I haven't seen it myself, and obviously she hasn't either,
>but from all of the reviews I've read, the picture is not "covered in
>shit." Apparently it includes one strategically placed small mound of
>elephant dung, and from what I read, the usage of this material is
>common in Nigerian art. Although many people may still find this
>offensive, I believe that we should at least be accurate in our
>description of what we are criticizing.
I think the amount of it is neither here nor there. S*** is s***.
Karen Horn
: > : comes close to the the kind of tangible hate and violence your
: > : hypothetical exhibit does. Aside from the fact that it's a matter of
: > Yes it DOES.
:
: No it DOES NOT. :-P
:
: I can be evry bit as logical as you Karen. ;-)
: > : is meant to be irreverent -- attacking a symbol of a faith is *still*
: > : not the same as attacking groups of people.
: > Only a couple hundred million RELIGIOUS people. No BFD.
:
: So it is your contention that this particular portrait is the equivalent
: to a piece of art by say the Ku Klux Klan that says something to the
: effect that all Papist Fish Eaters Must Die!
:
: Well all I can say, is that we'll have to agree to disagree. I see NO
: COMPARISON WHATSOEVER. One is an interpretation of a religious icon,
: one is advocating for the death of a group of people.
:
: Biff
I do see a rough parity.
Karen
Iginio
is as black and white and absolute as your comment suggests. Given that
(a) the artist is of African descent, (b) the artist is himself Catholic,
(c) the use of elephant dung as a material is common in African art, and
(d) a small amount of this material is used in a very specific place and
not smeared helter-skelter all over the image, it is not unreasonable to
think that possibly -- just possibly -- the artist's intention was
something other than an in-your-face insult to all Roman Catholics.
Naturally, I acknowledge that this could be offensive to some, or maybe
even many, people, but I don't think it's fair or useful to get hysterical
and condemn the artist, the work, the museum, the collector, and everyone
who is open-minded and willing to look at the work and make an informed
judgment about it.
Iginio
Iginio
Iginio
Hanon
again. There have been a number of small theatre groups who have lost their
funding because they performed Chris Durang's "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It
All For You". They lost their funding because Catholic groups felt the play was
an insult to the Catholic Church, and that therefore their tax dollars
shouldn't pay for it. This seems to me to be exactly the same situation to that
which is unfolding at the Brooklyn museum, except one involves a play, and one
involves a musical. Do the people who have been supporting Mayor Guliani in
this newsgroup also support the decision to defund any theatre group that puts
on Chris Durangs play? Does any theatre group that has the nerve to put on
something more controversial than "Bye Bye Birdie" deserve to have their
funding yanked? This is not a hypothetical situation, but one which has ocurred
in the U.S.A. If Karen Horn approves of this sort of thing, I should think she
should admit it.
HANON
Noel Katz
only generated heat. Any poster who hysterically derides a work of art they
admittedly haven't seen really doesn't deserve any credence on this forum. If
such a person now says "I hated Scarlet Pimpernel," for example, how do we know
that the show's been seen?
Iginio
times. I was having a problem with my newsgroup reader and was not
aware that the message had been sent several times.
Iginio
Karen Horn
Biff McKeldin (mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu) wrote:
: asked Karen. Do you really see no difference between the portrait in
: question and a work of art depicting, let's say the Pope, with the
: legend "All Papist Fish Eaters Must Die." It's my opinion (I'm allowed
: to have that, am I not?) that the two aren't even remotely related and
: that the latter is far a worse attack on Catholics than the former.
: intangibles vs. tangibles.
Both are bad. While there are millions of Christians who are not
Catholics, there are roughly 800 million Catholics in the world who
believe that JP II is a direct sucessor to Peter, who was directly
given authority from Christ [according to Catholics] --- and Christ,
according to Christians is also God.
So the later would be seen [by Catholics] as an attack on the
authority Christ established to lead His church on earth.
[I would also feel offended, if the art in question was of
Billy Graham as well.]
This slam on Mary, would be bad because she is the mother of Jesus.
Because [as said before] Christians believe that Jesus is God, you
are attacking the person God chose to be the vessel of His incarnation.
[God made flesh.] God didn't pick a name out of a hat. She was picked
[according to Christians] for THE most significant birth on earth.
: Oh and BTW, out of curiosity, where's the proof of the historical
: existence of Mary? I'm not saying there isn't any, I just don't know of
: it?
:
Please tell me you are joking.
Karen
:
: Biff
Karen Horn
:
: Context is everything. A work of art by a Protestant in Northern
: Ireland that openly mocks Catholicism, is very different from a work of
: art by a Catholic in Brooklyn that does the same (though I don't see the
WTF?
: painting in question relating solely to Catholicism). For the simple
: reason that Catholics are an oppressed minority in Northern Ireland.
And they're not a minority here? Last I checked, Biff, catholics
are only 23% of US population....and given the media's documented
irreligious bias, Catholics IN the media controlling the strings
are very underrepresented. If you feel like playing the numbers game.
And it's not just Catholics, you'll find very FEW media types as
regular church/synagogue goers. Statistically in the US a bit under
50% attend religious services a few times a month. Less than 10% of
the media types do when you look at surveys they themselves take.
: Whereas the Catholic Church can be seen by some in New York as an
: oppressive institution (though, it's true, that anti-Catholic bigotry
: still runs rampant in many Protestant communities in the U.S. -- or at
: least did in the 70s when I was attending high school).
This is silly any way. X religion may be attacked and Y religion may not?
You have obviously not run across the modern day anti-Catholic hatred
of Jack Chick comics. The old "priests rape nuns and hide their
aborted babies in the secret passage ways" crap.
: I'm not sure I buy your notion of anti-Semitism as anti-religious.
It IS!
: Certainly Hitler was not interested in converting people to
: Christianity, he wanted to exterminate people of Jewish culture and
: ethnicity for what he considered racial reasons. No doubt the Nazis
[tongue in cheek mode on] You know it's amazing. But there are really
millions of RELIGIOUS practising Jews out there. [tongue in cheek mode
off] There are people who think they are going to hell automatically
if "they don't accept Jesus as their personal lord and savior." There
are a lot of mocking and hurtful people out there. I think it has gotten
better over the years with tolerance issues, especially since the holocaust-
but it only takes one generation to "forget." Look at all the
crap that's out there like "the holocaust never really happened, it's
all propaganda blah, blah...." to me that's very dangerous.
: found the mocking of Jewish religious symbols useful in their propaganda
: -- but the goal was the eradication of people of Jewish heritage, not
: their conversion to Christianity. And of course Semite refers to
: ethnicity, not to religion.
I don't see that. I see Hitler as using the Jewish religion as
a scapegoat to band his "Aryans" together. Hitler hated all religion.
Protestant pastors and Catholic priests who spoke out most often
found their asses in concentration camps too.
: You are right, however, that I have no business deciding for Karen (or
: anybody else) what she should consider an attack on herself as a
: Catholic. However, I still reserve the right to express my perplexity
: that anyone can consider the painting in question in the same light as
: he would a direct attack on any group of people, be they Catholic, gay,
: Jewish, black or what have you.
This Shit Madonna IS a direct attack on a group of people.
: As for the rest of your post, I am in agreement.
:
: Biff
Karen
Karen Horn
: Let's make this discussion a little less "off-topic". There have been some
: theatre groups who have attempted to perform Christopher Durang's comedy
: "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You", but the city officials have
: banned the productions because, (A) the theatre groups were receiving tax
: dollars, and (B) Catholic groups found the play heretical, and didn't
: understand why their tax dollars should support a production that dumps on
: their religion. Does Karen Horn support this, and if not, why not?
: HANON
I've not personally read that work. I have read other Catholics say
[in print] that it mocks the Eucharist and other beliefs.
I am not for censoring any 100% commercial venture.
I do not know exactly HOW far Durang went over the line. And as
has been stated here many times in the past, if people "wanted to"
they could find something offensive about CATS or anything else.
Part of this problem is that art/plays/books etc. often does offend.
And you could argue that if "anything" could offend, then you'd
end up doing nothing.
I still say institutions who take public $$$$s are accountable
to the taxpayers they are taking money from. And if the public
screams about it, then they should take heed. If they want to
do anything "over the line" they should do it all on their own money.
Then the public has no bitching rights. But if YOU, the public,
are paying the freight, then yes, they call some shots.
Karen
Karen Horn
: One of the things that's annoying me most about this discussion is
: Karen's persistent use of exaggerated descriptions of the work in
: question. I haven't seen it myself, and obviously she hasn't either,
: but from all of the reviews I've read, the picture is not "covered in
: shit." Apparently it includes one strategically placed small mound of
Sorry, I was "treated" to a picture of it, courtesy of my AOL account.
: elephant dung, and from what I read, the usage of this material is
: common in Nigerian art. Although many people may still find this
: offensive, I believe that we should at least be accurate in our
: description of what we are criticizing. I don't think that these
: provocative and untruthful descriptions of the work serve any purpose
: but to emotionalize the issue. Karen, could you please try to be a
: little more temperate?
Well, maybe the "artist" ought to be a little more temporate.
ONE "strategically placed" piece of shit is one too many.
Let's not forget all those porno cutouts either. I've never
seen african art covered in THAT.
: Iginio
Karen
Karen Horn
Biff McKeldin (mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu) wrote:
: Karen Horn wrote:
: >
: > Biff McKeldin (mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu) wrote:
And now the question is:
Are children under 18 allowed by law to see porno in New York
city? One little "detail" the defenders of this work often leave
out is the fact that in addition to shit, the Madonna is also covered
with porno cutouts.
and if children are allowed to view it, does the museum also risk
getting charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor"
or stuff like that.
Seems to me they might get nailed either way.
: Why I find this whole thing distressing, is that the only possible loser
: is other artists and institutions. Giuliani will help shore up his
Well, then maybe the "Artistic directors" of this crap will decide
if this crap is really worth showing?
: up-state Senate vote; the BMA is now on the cultural map; as is the
: artist who created the portrait of the Madonna; as is the entire
: exhibition. However, the next museum/theater company/art institution
: that receives any public funds may now think twice before engaging in
: anything controversial.
Frankly, IMO, as they should. NO public monies come without strings
attached. None. Zip. Nada. Did I say "none?"
: So in a sense all parties connected to the
: specific controversy win, while the rest of us lose. And so it goes.
:
No, the motherfuckers who "create" this shit just have to fund it
themselves and find space for it. I don't advocate any laws stopping them
from creating, conceiving, showing, etc. said work. Just not on the
public dime.
Are there gray areas? Yes. This one, however, is so far over the
line that this "artistic director" jerks should have seen it themselves.
It just goes to show how "out of step" they are with the sensibilities of
millions that they even considered this WORTH showing on the public dime.
To be a cynic, I think they did anticipate this.
: Biff
Karen
Karen Horn
: I think Ignio has shed some useful light while too many of the posts here have
#1 I was "treated" to said picture on AOL
#2 I don't have to have personally seen a mound of bodies shoveled
into a pit after an "ethnic cleansing" to know "this is a BAD
thing"
#3 "picture of the madonna with shit and obscene Hustler type cutouts"
is enough for me to know this is patently offensive.
Must I have a picture of a man wiping his ass with the Torah to
know "this is a bad thing?"
Personally, I feel quite safe in saying "this is a bad thing."
Karen
Tim Gowen
<mcke...@elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu> writes
>If there were an exhibit of Harvey Milk (the first openly gay American
>elected official, who was assassinated in 1978 along with the mayor of
>San Francisco) -- or any other gay icon -- that utilized dung or any
>other substance of questionable taste, not only would I say that a gay
>(or straight) mayor would be wrong for cutting funding to the museum, I
>would say it's just like the portrait of the Madonna that utilized
>elephant dung that insulted many Catholics (and I assume a few
>Episcopals as well). If, however, the exhibit contained the phrase
>"Harvey Milk and all faggots roast in hell," while I WOULD STILL OPPOSE
>THE PULLING OF FUNDING, I would not say it was like that portrait of the
>Madonna, because the clarity of the statement would NOT leave the intent
>of the exhibit open for interpretation.
>
>Are you suitably impressed?
Well the key to my ideal quote involved your going of the flow with
interest groups to whom you're sympathetic. The culture in New York
means that you could finish such a show off without having to cut
funding. The act my be different to what the mayor's done, but the
result is the same.
Hanon
work that are the ones most in need of public funding. Karen Horn supports the
withdrawl of public funds from anyone who "offends" someone. So much for
free-expression. Or, as she says:
<<I am not for censoring any 100% commercial venture.
>>
In other words, any group receiving public funds SHOULD expect rigorous
censorship. So if you're a small theatre group, and you receive any money from
the government, you can't put on a play that might provoke Catholics. Or
Blacks. Or gays. Or Jews. Or Protestants. Why does this not seem like America
to me? When exactly did America get in the censorship business? By the way, I'm
a taxpayer too, and I DO want my tax money to help pay for challenging, thought
provoking art, even if I might personally find it offensive. To end with some
more of Karen's words:
<<I still say institutions who take public $$$$s are accountable
to the taxpayers they are taking money from. And if the public
screams about it, then they should take heed. If they want to
do anything "over the line" they should do it all on their own money.>>
Perhaps I'm alone, but the phrases "take heed" and "over the line" send chills
down my spine.
HANON
Bart Cosgrove
presented at the Brooklyn Museum? I think we need to consider the source
here. I understand the artist was raised in the Catholic Church, therefore
his commentary on that experience would seem to me to be "allowed" to be
more provocative than it would if he were raised as, for example, a
Jehovah's Witness. If a similar work were created using the image of Malcolm
X , the example you proposed, it would seem to me, to be potentially less
offensive if the artist were commenting on his/her experience within the
Nation of Islam rather than on the "person" of Malcolm X.
Mary may have been a "person", but her significance is far greater, in my
experience as someone raised in the Church, as a religious "icon". Within
the Church her image is frequently used; so, it does not surprise me that
her image would be used by the artist in a work commenting on his experience
of the Church. I am sure you know that many people raised within the
Catholic Church have "problems" with it as an institution. In fact, many
Catholics, as well as others, feel that the Church is as much a political as
a religious establishment, and uses its power, perhaps appropriately,
perhaps not, in a political way. While I feel that the Church and its
members have, historically, been subjected to persecutions, I am not at all
comfortable with the notion that it is appropriate for the Church to be
immune to critical commentary from within. Nor do I feel that such
commentary is necessarily anti-Catholic's religious/spiritual beliefs, as
opposed to openly confronting the Church's political activity.
Don't you think that it is significant who is making such comment, and what
the basis of their comment is?
Mila
Stephen Oles <mur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7tgdts$b2$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Biff McKeldin
>
>
> : Oh and BTW, out of curiosity, where's the proof of the historical
> : existence of Mary? I'm not saying there isn't any, I just don't know of
> : it?
> :
>
> Please tell me you are joking.
No. I haven't heard of historical proof that Mary existed (or Christ or
Moses or Mohammad for that matter). I know if one is a Christian, it's
an article of faith. I accept that. But I don't accept the fact that
one person's faith should become my historical fact. I am genuinely
asking, what is the historical proof? This doesn't happen to be an area
that I've studied, so I'm curious.
Biff
Noel Katz
good.
Not so long after, there began a religious movement called Catholicism. Many
have criticized its actions. In all the arts, there has been a significant
amount of work in this vein, most often by people who were raised Catholic,
such as James Joyce, Christopher Durang, or the artist in question.
This artist did something *bad* (IMHO), depicting Mary surrounded by cut-out
photos of genitals and using the classic African art material, elephant dung.
The curator of one of the country's great art museums put it in a show. The
Brooklyn Museum, I've always felt, presents "safe" shows and here was an
exception.
The mayor of New York had exactly one motivation in instantly cancelling a
payment of $7 million to the museum: He's trying to curry favor with the
Republican party for a spot, someday, on a national ticket. I'm not saying he
wasn't offended, but an offended party makes a public statement and that's it;
this was brown-nosing.
Tom Duane is an HIV+ city councilman I'd like to see become our first openly
gay mayor. There's no way in hell he'd ever advocate cutting funding of a
museum because he was offended by an artwork showing there. That includes all
the ridiculous, clearly non-analagous examples given in this thread.
The people of New York City pay very high taxes. 60% of us disagree with the
mayor's actions. Statewide, his approval rating has plummeted. When people
from other jurisdictions complain about public funding of art, I wish they'd
take note that most New Yorkers aren't making a similar complaint. We're proud
to be the greatest art center in the world and we're outraged by this blow to
one of our city's top ten museums. It's interesting to look into the locations
of the posters on this thread.
Except for the redundancy: Again and again, the anti-art people from California
have asked "What if it were a gay-bashing or black-bashing image?" and again
and again the liberals have responded "We might be offended, but we wouldn't
cut funding." No one ever questioned the mayor's right to be offended.
I would agree that on matters of taste, voices should be heard. And the
curator's decision to display the painting is open for debate. Biff has been
very articulate here. Others have sounded like rabid dogs and there's ample
evidence in this tread to answer the question posed in the title of another
thread.
Noel Katz
question, the debate on this forum is something we're all aware is viewed by
minors and yet one contributor consistantly uses f***, motherf***** and s***.
Now, in the case of the latter term, it may be purely descriptive, but most of
us were doing just fine with the term, "dung." Thank you for elevating the
discussion.
Hanon
presented at the Brooklyn Museum? I think we need to consider the source
here. I understand the artist was raised in the Catholic Church, therefore
his commentary on that experience would seem to me to be "allowed" to be
more provocative than it would if he were raised as, for example, a
Jehovah's Witness. If a similar work were created using the image of Malcolm
X , the example you proposed, it would seem to me, to be potentially less
offensive if the artist were commenting on his/her experience within the
Nation of Islam rather than on the "person" of Malcolm X.
Mary may have been a "person", but her significance is far greater, in my
experience as someone raised in the Church, as a religious "icon". Within
the Church her image is frequently used; so, it does not surprise me that
her image would be used by the artist in a work commenting on his experience
of the Church. I am sure you know that many people raised within the
Catholic Church have "problems" with it as an institution. In fact, many
Catholics, as well as others, feel that the Church is as much a political as
a religious establishment, and uses its power, perhaps appropriately,
perhaps not, in a political way. While I feel that the Church and its
members have, historically, been subjected to persecutions, I am not at all
comfortable with the notion that it is appropriate for the Church to be
immune to critical commentary from within. Nor do I feel that such
commentary is necessarily anti-Catholic's religious/spiritual beliefs, as
opposed to openly confronting the Church's political activity>>
I think the people who are offended by this painting are enjoying their own
self-rightousnous. Whenever you mention that the artist was Catholic, and that
he uses elephant dung in all of his paintings, as is typical in much primitive
African art, you never hear the protestors say, "wow, it's relief to find that
the artist didn't set out to offend Catholics". On the contrary, they usually
respond with something like, "don't be stupid! OF COURSE any picture with
elephant crap hurled at the Virgin Mary is Catholic-bashing!" It's interesting
that the artist in question has another painting in this exhibition, with the
names of black icons like Cassius Clay and Miles Davis painted on...you guessed
it, elephant dung! Will this cause the protestors to feel that at the very
least they might have misjudged the intent of the artist? Of course not.
They're having too much fun being offended. This is why they say, "I don't need
to see that painting to know that it's offensive". They're quite frightened
about having to come to terms with the possibillity that the painting is
innocuous, because after all, then the party would be over.
HANON
Stephen Oles
deal. What isn't mentioned is that the image of the Virgin is surrounded by
pictures of nude buttocks and body parts clipped from porno magazines. Now,
if this isn't deliberate provocation, if not harrassment, I don't know what
is.
Again, I defend this artist's right to paint and show whatever he wants, but
we should not pretend he accidently offended Catholics. This piece is about
provocation to the point that its aesthetic value, if any, is irrelevent.
If this picture is not meant to be anti-Catholic, then "The Triumph of the
WIll" isn't meant to be pro-Nazi. (Gee, there are so many other possible
interpretations ...)
-- Steve in VB
Iginio <igi...@usa.net> wrote in message news:37FC1613...@usa.net...
> Well I'm sorry, but I don't think that's necessarily true. Not everything
> is as black and white and absolute as your comment suggests. Given that
> (a) the artist is of African descent, (b) the artist is himself Catholic,
> (c) the use of elephant dung as a material is common in African art, and
> (d) a small amount of this material is used in a very specific place and
> not smeared helter-skelter all over the image, it is not unreasonable to
> think that possibly -- just possibly -- the artist's intention was
> something other than an in-your-face insult to all Roman Catholics.
> Naturally, I acknowledge that this could be offensive to some, or maybe
> even many, people, but I don't think it's fair or useful to get hysterical
> and condemn the artist, the work, the museum, the collector, and everyone
> who is open-minded and willing to look at the work and make an informed
> judgment about it.
>
> Iginio
>
> Beb11572 wrote:
>
> > >One of the things that's annoying me most about this discussion is
> > >Karen's persistent use of exaggerated descriptions of the work in
> > >question. I haven't seen it myself, and obviously she hasn't either,
> > >but from all of the reviews I've read, the picture is not "covered in
> > >shit." Apparently it includes one strategically placed small mound of
> > >elephant dung, and from what I read, the usage of this material is
> > >common in Nigerian art. Although many people may still find this
> > >offensive, I believe that we should at least be accurate in our
> > >description of what we are criticizing.
> >