-I- What is Censorship (NY Museum Exhibit)
Chris
let's have a reasonable hashing of issues over something we can all
bitterly disagree on without feeling as though the other guy is an
asshole :)
Ok, here goes.
There is currently an exhibit in NY art, Sensations, in which some of
the displays are considered offensive to several groups. The displays
include elephant dung placed on a picture of the Virgin Mary, and a
cross/picture buried in blood. A disected pigs head, and a severed
cows head.
Groups who have been offended include not only religious groups
(several different christian denominations) but also animal rights
advocacy groups, etc.
As a result, Mayor Giuliani had originally commented that he didn't
see why the city should fund this at all.
As a result, protest insued over the protection of free speech.
Ok, that's the facts of the case. So, here's opinion time.
I believe in free speech. I think you have the right to say whatever
you want to say no matter how much I disagree. I've watched Fred
Phelps protest at universities I've attended by screaming "die you
f----" "gays burn in hell" etc. and it has burned me up. Yet, at the
same time, he does have a right to speak.
While they may have a right to speak, it doesn't mean that I feel as
though I really need to pay for it. If they can't afford to say it,
well, tough.
I have no problem with this person or persons creating these images,
or works of art. I have no problem with them displaying it.
Apparently, with 9,200 people showing up the first day, it does draw a
crowd. I have no problem with that either. I do have a problem with
it being in a public museum at no cost - several private museums in NY
are quoted in the AP Newswires as saying they were willing to host
this show.
And this is not without precedent. Two years ago, a display was to
come to this same museum (Brooklyn Museum of Art) in which a star of
david was shown being stomped on in a photo. The museum received
immense negative reaction, citing this as a statement of hatred &
anti-sematism. The exhibit was withdrawn. Did this deny the artist
their right to free speech? No, he can display that picture in any
private art house that is willing to host it.
I'm reminded of something Ronald Reagan said in a debate with Jimmy
Carter - "That's the beauty of free speech - it doesn't cost a dime
for me to keep talking"
And that I have no trouble with. But the logical leap that I see some
making bothers me. The argument that the state should not fund an
exhibit is far different then the argument that the state is censoring
it. There is no constitutional right that I know of that says the
government has to pay you to say, print, or graphically represent any
image or idea that others may dissapprove of. Or if there is, I'm
wondering why I haven't gotten a monthly check, and why I'm not
getting paid for writing this.
The only thing this issue has done, for me, is prove the lack of
viability of Hillary Clinton as a senator in NY. So far she's managed
to flip-flip-flop on the presidential pardon to terrorists (first in
favor, then making a follow up statement explaining why she favored,
and finally going on ABC and saying she had rethought the issue and
was against.. which is a good way of saying "the polls tell me people
don't like this") and now flipping & flopping on this.. *shrug* We'll
see. I personally don't think she's going to run. But you never
know. Hard to imagine a cubs fan winning in NY :) :) :) :)
Ok, so let's argue :)
CW
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
Chris <tms...@pitton.com> wrote:
> [ stuff about the show in NYC that the mayor is all hissy about,
> plus 'free speech is great, but not speech I have to pay for' ]
I tend to agree with Chris. Still..
There's this notion of not merely TOLERATING speech
you hate, but actively defending the rights of the speaker.
My tax dollars buy a hell of a lot of things I wish they did
not, from weapons of mass destruction to art I find very
offensive. I'm actually a bit more irritated about the
weapons than the art ;)
I think if we're going to fund ANY art, we must think
very very carefully before electing to withdraw funding from
specific art. What offends me is illuminating and valuable
to someone else, and vice versa. To fund MY art and to not fund
YOUR art is inherently unfair, right?
The obvious out is to decide to fund NO art. This does
not sit well with me either. While I don't necessarily think
it's a great idea to hand out grants to drugged out New Yorkers
so they can daub goo on canvas for a few years, I DO think it's
a great idea to fund museums. Once you have elected to fund a
museum, you really don't have a lot of choice but to permit
the museum staff free reign to exercise their taste, lest
you fall into the traps above. Think of it as a little like
the supreme court - you try to appoint "sound" people (i.e.
fund museums which reflect "the general" or even "MY" taste),
but once appointed (funded) you MUST let them go their own way,
lest you begin to unfairly force your taste on others.
All that said, I agree with Chris, I just don't know
why ;)
Trinity
Chris <tms...@pitton.com> wrote in message
news:37f76007...@news.pitton.com...
<snip exhibit description>
> And that I have no trouble with. But the logical leap that I see
some making bothers me. The argument that the state should not fund
an
> exhibit is far different then the argument that the state is
censoring it. There is no constitutional right that I know of that
says the
> government has to pay you to say, print, or graphically represent
any image or idea that others may dissapprove of. Or if there is, I'm
> wondering why I haven't gotten a monthly check, and why I'm not
getting paid for writing this.
Perhaps refusing to fund an exhibit is a far cry from outright
censoring it...but the gov't simply can't start giving money to those
artists "it" deems artworthy, and refusing to fund anything
controversial. At least, I don't think it should. They'd be in the
business of determining what is and isn't art, and I really don't
think the gov't is the best institution for figuring that out.
Hell, I don't know if any institution can figure that out.
Anyway, I think the National Endowment for the Arts is a Good Thing.
I think it's wonderful that we have a system set up to facilitate the
creation and distribution of art. I like living in a society where we
value it's creation so much that we've decided to give financial aid
to new and up and coming artists...and so, I'd have to say that if
some of the money goes to support some art that may be deemed
"inappropriate" by a few people, then oh well. It's worth it to me.
And I think the gov't prolly spends FAR more on other things (much
more dangerous, and with much more social impact, like the "war on
drugs" or defense spending) and I'd rather worry about those, than
perhaps the 1% or so that gets spent on some crazy artist. *shrug*
<snip>
--
Trinity
Have you considered that the evolution
of an effective psychological and social
refuge against assimilation into the
dominant culture may be the most
important thing that *can* work
against "the ills of society"?
-- Randy aka Coi...@MindSpring.com
Ganesh Rao
irks me. First of all, it's a huge step backwards for the art world. The
Brooklyn Museum is finally coming into its own, and it is pretty ridiculous
that Giuliani has total control over this issue. I think he was quoted as
saying something like, "it's only art if I would be able to do it too" (or
something equally ridiculous). On top of that, the artist who created these
paintings is very devout and religious, and the Virgen is black, from
Africa. The dung is representative of qualities from African culture, I
*think*, so it's not like this guy just drew the Virgen and flung some crap
on it. I'm very interested in how this suit will turn out..
nesh
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"french homework bores me...signs of the impending
apocalypse do not. be excited with me. " --Matt Swagler
http://members.xoom.com/NeshX/home2.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Chris <tms...@pitton.com> wrote in message
news:37f76007...@news.pitton.com...
> And that I have no trouble with. But the logical leap that I see some
> making bothers me. The argument that the state should not fund an
> exhibit is far different then the argument that the state is censoring
> it. There is no constitutional right that I know of that says the
> government has to pay you to say, print, or graphically represent any
> image or idea that others may dissapprove of. Or if there is, I'm
> wondering why I haven't gotten a monthly check, and why I'm not
> getting paid for writing this.
>
Elusis
> Ok, I figure, what the hell, we've had a bitter flame war about BS,
> let's have a reasonable hashing of issues over something we can all
> bitterly disagree on without feeling as though the other guy is an
> asshole :)
I don't feel like arguing free speech. I just want to point out that
the artist who did the infamous "Virgin Mary with dung" picture won the
Turner prize last year, Great Britain's highest honor for new artists.
This is why I like England.
Elusis
--
http://www.dreamscape.com/elusis ~*~ wear your butterflies proudly -TA
~*~ I am the rightful heir to the flaming global throne of evil. I WILL
TAKE THIS WORLD AS MINE so if you people could just cooperate it would
be very nice. -JV ~*~ Buttless chaps make good business sense! -Dances
Chris
wrote:
>I tend to agree with Trinity... I've been following this case, and it really
>irks me. First of all, it's a huge step backwards for the art world. The
>Brooklyn Museum is finally coming into its own, and it is pretty ridiculous
>that Giuliani has total control over this issue. I think he was quoted as
>saying something like, "it's only art if I would be able to do it too" (or
>something equally ridiculous). On top of that, the artist who created these
>paintings is very devout and religious, and the Virgen is black, from
>Africa. The dung is representative of qualities from African culture, I
>*think*, so it's not like this guy just drew the Virgen and flung some crap
>on it. I'm very interested in how this suit will turn out..
I think that is the one that is getting the most play, to mark this as
some hyper religious issue. But remember, there were serious threats
to the museum and patrons by animal rights advocates because dead
animals were shown in contorted fashions that they believed to be
cruel, inhumane, etc.
CW
Chris
wrote:
>Perhaps refusing to fund an exhibit is a far cry from outright
>censoring it...but the gov't simply can't start giving money to those
>artists "it" deems artworthy, and refusing to fund anything
>controversial. At least, I don't think it should. They'd be in the
>business of determining what is and isn't art, and I really don't
>think the gov't is the best institution for figuring that out.
>
>Hell, I don't know if any institution can figure that out.
It's a tough one. Example: Fred Phelp's son is an art major. He has
done several paintings that depict people being burned to death for
their sins.. and the titles are, well, offensive. However, several
who have seen them without seeing the titles have thought that they
were brilliantly painted.. there was a story about this in the KC
star. So, let's say the Kansas City Museum of Art decided to display
these. Would you feel your tax dollars were well spent?
>Anyway, I think the National Endowment for the Arts is a Good Thing.
>I think it's wonderful that we have a system set up to facilitate the
>creation and distribution of art. I like living in a society where we
>value it's creation so much that we've decided to give financial aid
>to new and up and coming artists...and so, I'd have to say that if
>some of the money goes to support some art that may be deemed
>"inappropriate" by a few people, then oh well. It's worth it to me.
See, though, this has nothing to do with the NEA. These weren't
funded by the NEA, and other art museums within new york offerred to
show this display.
Which makes me think of another argument.. there are several privately
owned museums in NY that could have benefitted from the traffic of
9,200 people. And while I'm sure people like me would still be
offended at some of the work, I'd also recognize that it was good
business for them. When a public museum takes the display at an
offer, they pull it away from private institutions that could have
displayed it with no flack.. pulling some money out of the other guy's
pocket.
What Guiliani did was pretty much what a lot of his constituency
demanded - and let's not say religious right. The biggest protester
of this display isn't the religious organizations, it's been animal
activists groups who are mortified by the display of disfigured dead
animals.
Now, to my argument: I think government funded art -IS- censorship. I
think when the govt. starts funding art in any form, it immediately
starts censoring by handing out money. It tells people: "if you want
to get funded, here's what gets money, here's what doesn't" and it
plays favorites - once you've gotten an NEA grant, you have a great
chance of getting one again, and it's more difficult for someone who
hasn't had one before. In fact, there has been great criticism of
people staying for what seems like forever on the NEA bankroll with
little to show for it - that's censorship of lots of people doing work
on their own.
And let's not say that without the NEA no art would happen.. look at
the Blair Witch Project. Done by kids maxing out credit cards,
selling a car, etc. for under $60k, that little work will almost break
$200M.
"Attrition" a film done and shown at the montreal film expo was made
for $6,200 (six thousand, two hundred) and picked up by Mirimax for
almost $100,000. Neither of those got NEA funding, nor did they
require tax dollars to be shown.
But, I will =bet= you money that if you told the 18 year old kid who
made the movie "attrition" that he could get $121,000 in an NEA grant
for a film about how men name their penis - which happened last year -
he might have made a far different film from the one he did, a
beautiful story of a dying man.
I honor the arts - I'll buy books, see films, go to plays, support the
local theater, I support the art I hope succedes for it's merits. But
I think funding the art, in any form, in effect censors it by telling
people that some art already has a predetermined NEA value on it that
may be greater/less then they think, and if they want that money, they
just have to change what they are doing.
CW
Elusis
> Chris <tms...@pitton.com> wrote:
> > [ stuff about the show in NYC that the mayor is all hissy about,
> > plus 'free speech is great, but not speech I have to pay for' ]
>
> I tend to agree with Chris. Still..
>
> There's this notion of not merely TOLERATING speech
> you hate, but actively defending the rights of the speaker.
> My tax dollars buy a hell of a lot of things I wish they did
> not, from weapons of mass destruction to art I find very
> offensive. I'm actually a bit more irritated about the
> weapons than the art ;)
Yes, the day I can get an itemized refund of all my tax money and my
parents' tax money [1] that has been spent on Stealth bombers, subsidies
for chemical weapons makers, tax refunds for corporations, the drug war,
and supporting things like the School of the Americas, I'll gladly see
Chris and anyone else get their art subsidies back.
Given that several years back, the average American had about 60 cents
of their entire tax bill go for the arts (including the NEA, NPR, PBS,
NEH, etc.) [2], I reckon my refund will go much farther.
Elusis
[1] Since they'll probably be long dead by the time there's ever a
chance in hell of that happening...
[2] As contrasted with upwards of $20-30 or more per capita in some
European countries. And we wonder why they think we're uncultured
jerks...
Chris
wrote:
>Yes, the day I can get an itemized refund of all my tax money and my
>parents' tax money [1] that has been spent on Stealth bombers, subsidies
>for chemical weapons makers, tax refunds for corporations, the drug war,
>and supporting things like the School of the Americas, I'll gladly see
>Chris and anyone else get their art subsidies back.
*shrug* yep, I believe in a flat tax. Wether it's Jerry Brown or
Steve Forbes proposing it. :)
>Given that several years back, the average American had about 60 cents
>of their entire tax bill go for the arts (including the NEA, NPR, PBS,
>NEH, etc.) [2], I reckon my refund will go much farther.
True.
>Elusis
> [1] Since they'll probably be long dead by the time there's ever a
>chance in hell of that happening...
> [2] As contrasted with upwards of $20-30 or more per capita in some
>European countries. And we wonder why they think we're uncultured
>jerks...
True. But last year Americans spent $7.89B (Billion) at movie
theaters, (compared to the entirety of Europe's $720M) 3.3B in
stageshows & broadway performances (theater) compared to $980M for all
of Europe's stageshow performances. Or, shockingly, that our museums,
art exhibits, etc. received $91B (BILLION) in donations & patronage,
comparative to the government assisted $9B for all of europe's
museums, etc.
When people have their money taken out of their pocket in taxes for a
service, they tend to think that "that's that" but by having people
fill as though their gift helps keep something going, donations are
considerably larger here in the states.
While we may be "uncultured" in terms of what's forced on us to spend
for the arts, we spend more to support the arts then any other country
in the world.. and all of Europe by ten fold. And when artists from
around the world do well, where do they wind up selling the art that
they have created? :)
PBS is something that just shouldn't be publically funded now. And I
like PBS. A lot. I donate to PBS when I can. But last year, Sesame
Street toy revenues were over a billion. Not counting Barney,
Teletubbies, etc. if PBS were to take a percentage kickback on all the
toys and royalties, it would more then pay for itself, the wall street
journal has run the numbers.
If our support of PBS was as simple as buying the toys that we do
anyway, it'd make things so much simpler ;)
CW
Andrew Onifer
>On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:00:10 -0400, "Trinity" <lafo...@pilot.msu.edu>
>It's a tough one. Example: Fred Phelp's son is an art major. He has
>done several paintings that depict people being burned to death for
>their sins.. and the titles are, well, offensive. However, several
>who have seen them without seeing the titles have thought that they
>were brilliantly painted.. there was a story about this in the KC
>star. So, let's say the Kansas City Museum of Art decided to display
>these. Would you feel your tax dollars were well spent?
>
it should do. Unfortunately, most people would rather ban what they find
offensive.
jay
--
You a newbie? Get the pack
Email new...@rmta.org
& I tried to tell my life story to the rain, &
& but it just ran into the sewer... &
& Andrew J. Onifer III aon...@bigfoot.com &
& http://www.bigfoot.com/~aonifer/ PGP Key at WWW Page &
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
Elusis <elu...@delight.rmta.org> wrote:
><amoli...@visi-dot-com.com> wrote:
>> Chris <tms...@pitton.com> wrote:
Elusis is agreeing with me in this thread, and disagreeing
with /nad in another.
OK YOU FUCKIN IMPOSTER, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU
AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH ELUSIS?
Chris
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 16:26:44 GMT, Chris <tms...@pitton.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:00:10 -0400, "Trinity" <lafo...@pilot.msu.edu>
>{tax dollars spent on stuff}
>>It's a tough one. Example: Fred Phelp's son is an art major. He has
>>done several paintings that depict people being burned to death for
>>their sins.. and the titles are, well, offensive. However, several
>>who have seen them without seeing the titles have thought that they
>>were brilliantly painted.. there was a story about this in the KC
>>star. So, let's say the Kansas City Museum of Art decided to display
>>these. Would you feel your tax dollars were well spent?
>>
>Yes, because it would bring about much needed discussion. Well, that's what
>it should do. Unfortunately, most people would rather ban what they find
>offensive.
Neh, I don't want to ban it. Don't take it that way. If he wants to
do that art, that's fine. If he wants to display it, that's fine. I
just don't think he needs to do it with my money.
I am doing nothing to prevent him from making his art. I just also
don't want to do anything to promote it either.
CW
Andrew Onifer
>On 3 Oct 1999 18:28:46 GMT, aon...@mindspring.com (Andrew Onifer)
>wrote:
>>it should do. Unfortunately, most people would rather ban what they find
>>offensive.
>Neh, I don't want to ban it. Don't take it that way.
I wasn't. I was speaking about people in general.
Chris
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 20:02:02 GMT, Chris <tms...@removepitton.com> wrote:
>>On 3 Oct 1999 18:28:46 GMT, aon...@mindspring.com (Andrew Onifer)
>>wrote:
>>>Yes, because it would bring about much needed discussion. Well, that's what
>>>it should do. Unfortunately, most people would rather ban what they find
>>>offensive.
>>Neh, I don't want to ban it. Don't take it that way.
>
>I wasn't. I was speaking about people in general.
OK. :)
CW
Elinor M. Kahana
If mankind you would degrade, degrade first the arts..... William Blake
Remember that there are many in this country who would like to censor alot of
the music we listen to. And don't use the argument that it isn't publically funded, so
it doesn't matter. People who wish to censor, start with what is publically funded,
because they know they can appeal to people's hands on their purse strings and there
parochial tastes, if they have them, and then the move on from there, not just
censoring expression but much more. Also, I would suggest that people go to such
exhibits and learn something about them, before they latch onto knee jerk reactions
and fascist tactics. ellie.
Jake Boubaki
softly:
<museum exhibit, religions and animal right people pissed>
>As a result, Mayor Giuliani had originally commented that he didn't
>see why the city should fund this at all.
And said he'd remove funding if they didn't stop the exhibit, and
take away the museum's (publicly owned) building, and even more
IIRC. Some sort of vendetta reaction, it seemed to me. Oh, and
remove the museum's board.
<snip>
>And that I have no trouble with. But the logical leap that I see some
>making bothers me. The argument that the state should not fund an
>exhibit is far different then the argument that the state is censoring
>it.
The arguments as I've heard it is that the state (Giuliani) wants to
be able to pick and choose which exhibits get funds and which don't,
when there is already an art-aware board set up to do this. IOW, he
want's the subjective control of what does or does not get shown in
this public museum, and that's what I object to. The only argument in
favor of removing the funding that isn't based on an opinion of the
current art piece is the argument that the state shouldn't be funding
the museum at all, no matter what's shown (which I don't agree with,
either, FTR).
I find it no different than the multitude of internet censorship bills
that have been attempted with language such as "objective" or
"indecent." They're totally subjective terms. Having someone (such
as Giuliani) apply them to a public forum such as the internet, or in
this case a public museum, is IMO censorship.
>There is no constitutional right that I know of that says the
>government has to pay you to say, print, or graphically represent any
>image or idea that others may dissapprove of. Or if there is, I'm
>wondering why I haven't gotten a monthly check, and why I'm not
>getting paid for writing this.
I don't think anyone's claimed that there is. However, there are
various constitutional rights that you can not discriminate because
of, for example, religious views. Therefore, if you're going to have
a public museum funded by state dollars, you can't use such views to
pick and choose which exhibits are acceptable.
Jake
--
Remove strychnine to e-mail
I ride tandem with the random
Things don't run the way I planned them
-Peter Gabriel
Rosser Schwarz
[fred phelp's son, an artist]
: Would you feel your tax dollars were well spent?
if the art communicates something, then yes. err, let me rephrase:
if the piece can be seen as a communicative effort, which is my sole
qualifier for art, then yeah. just because something doesn't appeal to
my particular tastes is in no way indicative of its necessarily being
art.
hell, i look at the dutch masters, as an artibrary example, and think,
"yeah. pretty. nice technique. so?" i don't feel particularly
communicated with, however. and there's scads of money being thrown
around for the honour of having one of them in your museum, for effort
to restore/keep them in pristine condition, etc..
if anything, i'm more likely to want to give money to the new, unproven
things, the artists who push the edge, test the boundaries of convention
and "reality," for sake of the possibly being able to walk away from an
encounter with one of their pieces that leaves me with a new and fresh
glimpse into the world as seen through the eyes and sensibilities of
someone who has something they need to say.
ftr, i know my "standards" of what define art are far too loose for me
to be the one controlling the purse strings.
that's okay, it's not my job to.
[big snip]
: Now, to my argument: I think government funded art -IS- censorship.
you and i chased this point around for a bit some time earlier this
year, or perhaps late last year.
and i still disagree. ;)
: I think when the govt. starts funding art in any form, it immediately
: starts censoring by handing out money. It tells people: "if you want
: to get funded, here's what gets money, here's what doesn't"
so does the "commercial art industry," for lack of a better term, which
is both your proposed and the only viable alternative. [1]
it takes money to feed artists, buy their supplies, tools, et cetera.
that has to come from somewhere.
: and it plays favorites
so does the "commercial art industry."
to use an only slightly removed analogue:
"that tori amos chick has sold a fistfuckload of records. if she were
to do another, it'd almost *certainly* sell, so i'll bankroll it."
versus:
"that rosser schwarz dude hasn't ever sold a record that i've heard of
(though i *have*... err, kinda), but he wants to make a record with my
money. umm. lemme think on that... not."
[small snip, corrolary of previous argument]
: In fact, there has been great criticism of
: people staying for what seems like forever on the NEA bankroll with
: little to show for it - that's censorship of lots of people doing work
: on their own.
this is only partly relevant, but it is a valid criticism. i agree with
it, but it can be easily resolved without striking the whole system.
: And let's not say that without the NEA no art would happen...
i don't even remotely disagree. hell, i make what i aspire to call art,
and i've not seen a fecking dime from the nea.
: I honor the arts - I'll buy books, see films, go to plays, support the
: local theater, I support the art I hope succedes for it's merits.
me, too.
: But I think funding the art, in any form, in effect censors it by
: telling people that some art already has a predetermined NEA value
: on it that may be greater/less then they think, and if they want
: that money, they just have to change what they are doing.
so does the commercial scene.
face it. as long as there's a need for money to be able to accomplish
stuff, there are going to be people (or institutions) that have it, and
people that need it.
those who have are in the position to dictate to those who need. the
nea tries, to some extent, to dictate a little differently. after all,
there's no way commercial scene will. it's too capricious, and, well,
just plain greedy to be at all fair about it.
if anything, the nea exists to bankroll projects that might be seen to
have no commercial viability whatsoever. and i'm willing to throw a few
dollars away here and there for the chance that something beautiful or
powerful or communicative might happen that otherwise wouldn't have.
it's an ugly system. it's got warts. but it's better than what we'd
have otherwise. and until the, imo, greater problem of money goes away,
we've all gotta accept a few warts now and again.
but now we're edging up on stepping off into the deep end and straight
into rosser's utopian delusions, so we'll just stop there. ;)
--rosser
[1] okay, there are also artists' communes, one of which i toyed with
joining briefly when i was living in florida. however, these communes
are funded by wealthy patrons, so there's still money in the picture.
it's just removed from the artists and their work. however, they're so
rare that i can't see them as a "viable alternative" proper.
--
the revolution begins and ends with you.
-- pulp
rosseratqualiadotorg
Ryan
>On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 16:26:44 GMT, Chris <tms...@pitton.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:00:10 -0400, "Trinity" <lafo...@pilot.msu.edu>
>{tax dollars spent on stuff}
>>It's a tough one. Example: Fred Phelp's son is an art major. He has
>>done several paintings that depict people being burned to death for
>>their sins.. and the titles are, well, offensive. However, several
>>who have seen them without seeing the titles have thought that they
>>were brilliantly painted.. there was a story about this in the KC
>>star. So, let's say the Kansas City Museum of Art decided to display
>>these. Would you feel your tax dollars were well spent?
>>
>Yes, because it would bring about much needed discussion. Well, that's what
>it should do. Unfortunately, most people would rather ban what they find
>offensive.
Yup. Though it's always fun to watch politicians stumble onto TV, wave
their arms around, and yell "That's not art!". :) I nearly wet myself
when the Crossfire cohost started going on about how he has "seen
Leonardo's and Michelangelo's paintings" and how the NY Sensations exhibit
painting was blasphemous trash, blah blah blah. Media-heads are soooo
cute..
-Ryan http://www.lionking.org/~ryan/
ry...@lionking.org ICQ: 1953628 PGP key ID: 0x3EDDA6CA
"The truth lies in-between the first and fortieth drink" -Tori Amos
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
Jake Boubaki <bou...@teleport.strychnine.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 14:14:51 GMT, tms...@pitton.com (Chris) whispered
>softly:
>
><museum exhibit, religions and animal right people pissed>
>>As a result, Mayor Giuliani had originally commented that he didn't
>>see why the city should fund this at all.
>
>And said he'd remove funding if they didn't stop the exhibit, and
>take away the museum's (publicly owned) building, and even more
>IIRC. Some sort of vendetta reaction, it seemed to me. Oh, and
>remove the museum's board.
If he really said this stuff, you may safely assume that
he's merely grandstanding for the media. There's NO WAY he has the
authority to do this, he'd have to move all this stuff through
umpteen committees and get approval from several contentious
bodies. I hate politicians who say 'they' are going to do many
things that they have no authority to do. What a loser.
Angela Reid
> There is currently an exhibit in NY art, Sensations, in which some of
> the displays are considered offensive to several groups. The displays
> include elephant dung placed on a picture of the Virgin Mary, and a
> cross/picture buried in blood. A disected pigs head, and a severed
> cows head.
I've shared my opinion on funding the arts before, but I wanted to drop this
tidbit in:
"NEW YORK (Billboard) - David Bowie is offering a virtual guided tour of the
controversial art show "Sensations: Young British Artists From The Saatchi
Collection." The tour, which features all 141 pieces in the show, takes
place on Bowie's Web site, www.davidbowie.com. The exhibit premiered online
Saturday, the day its physical counterpart was to open at the Brooklyn
(N.Y.) Museum of Art. The high-profile show, which comprises pieces from the
private collection of British advertising executive Charles Saatchi, has
turned into a political hotbed, drawing the ire of New York City mayor Rudy
Guiliani. The mayor, who has described the exhibit of "sacrilegious" and
"offensive," has threatened to evict the museum and cut off its municipal
funding if the show is not halted. The museum is suing the city for the
right to proceed with the exhibit - the city has said it will countersue.
The U.S. Senate also voted Thursday to halt federal funding for the museum
unless it cancels the showing. Among the show's pieces are a frozen
rendition of an artist's head made with nine pints of his blood; a painting
of the Virgin Mary adorned with elephant dung and pictures of buttocks cut
out of porn magazines; and carcasses of dissected animals embalmed in
formaldehyde. Bowie's virtual tour - which serves as the official guide for
the exhibit - provides RealAudio commentary on the pieces in the collection.
It also includes artist biographies and photos, as well as comments by
Bowie. In addition, the site has a chat area where exhibit patrons may
discuss the art, its meaning and the controversy surrounding it."
Don't just talk about it. Go see it.
Angela
Elinor M. Kahana
> <amoli...@visi-dot-com.com> wrote:
> > Chris <tms...@pitton.com> wrote:
> > > [ stuff about the show in NYC that the mayor is all hissy about,
> > > plus 'free speech is great, but not speech I have to pay for' ]
> >
It is the lack of free speech that you will have to pay much moredearly for. ellie.
amoli...@visi-dot-com.com
funding from the Brooklyn Museum, as well as the eviction, is
basically a done deal. It's all being appealed and stuff, but
apparently the Mayor actually CAN do this (either that or the
other components of the city government fell in line instantly).
What kind of whacked out city government do they USE
in NYC? I think the feds should declare NYC a cultural resource,
and restructure the government so this sort of idiocy is less
likely to happen ;)
On the up side, it's apparently hurt Guliani's (sp?)
would be senate race.
I'm still sort of hoping that the media has it wrong,
and it's still just threats.