10 Reasons Why Giuliani's NYC Decency Squad Is A Fraud.
Rjerehnson
From: artis...@aol.com (ARTISTpres)
Date: 04/05/2001 9:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20010405091508...@ng-mf1.aol.com>
[Please Forward Widely]
Top 10 Reasons Giuliani Decency Panel is Absurd
by Robert Lederman
In his 4/4/2001 press conference announcing the Art Decency Commission New York
City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said:
"The panel will examine situations in which there is perceived or in reality an
affront, an attack, a debasement of religion, ethnicity, race, sexual
orientation, gender."
Giuliani has repeatedly called the Brooklyn Museums recent exhibitions,
anti-Catholic bigotry. Lets assume for the sake of argument that the Mayor
is absolutely right.
Also for the sake of argument, lets further assume that the Mayor is right
that tax dollars should never be used for any art or any cultural work, film,
live performance, television show or museum exhibit that is or can be perceived
as, "...an affront, an attack, a debasement of religion, ethnicity, race,
sexual orientation, gender."
Here are ten of countless possible examples of well-known works of art on
display in NYC museums that receive tax dollars from the City and that can be
readily perceived as an affront by one or more ethnic, racial, religious or
sexually-oriented groups.
1. The Ten Commandments prohibit the making or displaying of any "graven
image", i.e. all depictions of the human body, God, pagan deities or any object
intended to be worshiped such as a crucifix, or statue of a saint. While the
Jewish Old Testament has been the inspiration for much of Christian religious
art, such works directly contradict a basic tenant of Judaism and of the Ten
Commandments. Thats why synagogues never have paintings or statues. Should
religious Jews, who make up a very large minority group in NYC and a very
significant portion of the tax base, have their tax dollars used to display
images of Christian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Assyrian, Central American and
African deities? The Brooklyn Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art have
two of the worlds largest such collections. The City significantly funds
both.
2. Most NYC museums have paintings and/or statues about Columbus "discovering"
America. What we now know from journals written by eyewitnesses on those
journeys of exploration was that Columbus enslaved and murdered the native
inhabitants wherever he landed. Paintings and statues by artists such as
Frederick Remington depicting the conquest of the West and of American cavalry
killing Native Americans are on display in many NYC museums. Native American
activists have made it known over the past 25 years that they find such
depictions insulting and offensive. Should their tax dollars pay to maintain
the images of conquerors like Columbus or of General Custer and other genocidal
"Indian fighters" in NYC museums?
3. The Museum of Modern Art, The Metropolitan Museum and the Brooklyn Museum
have vast collections of religious and burial artifacts from Native American,
Middle Eastern, African, Oceanic and Central American cultures. Many if not
most of these artifacts were obtained by dubious means, often stolen or
smuggled out of their native countries. Some, like the Egyptian mummies, are
actual human remains stolen from their burial sites. How do the millions of New
York City taxpayers descended from these cultures feel about their ancestral
remains and cultural heritage being stolen and put on display in New York City
museums?
4. The Met has a number of paintings depicting Plato, a Greek philosopher who
advocated man-boy love-a felony crime in NY State. The Museum of Modern Art
(MOMA) has a number of paintings of prepubescent girls by Balthus, a well-known
German pedophile. MOMA also has numerous paintings by Salvador Dali, a
surrealist well known for bashing Catholicism. In one, his wife hangs crucified
on the cross instead of Jesus. Should MOMAs 65 million-dollar gift from
Giuliani be withdrawn? Shouldnt Giulianis Decency Commission remove all
these paintings?
5. If tax dollars can be removed from a museum that allegedly attacks religion
why not remove funding for museums supporting religion? Using government funds
for supporting religion is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Why
should Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Taoists or atheists pay for the exhibition of
thousands of paintings created specifically in order to convince people that
Jesus is God?
6. A satirical portrait of Oscar Wilde could be a perceived affront to gays. An
unflattering painting or news photo included in a documentary exhibit about
Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton could be perceived as an
affront to African-Americans. Should such works be banned?
7. A fundamentalist Christian might find the statues of Egyptian, Greek and
Roman gods which fill NYC art museums to be an abomination. The Met in
particular is filled with paintings and sculptures of nudes depicting sexual
situations, homosexuality, rape, incest etc. Should they all be removed? How
about the hundreds of African fertility sculptures on display depicting exposed
genitalia which are far more explicit than the works in the controversial
Brooklyn Museum shows? Are statues and paintings of nude children, the nude
putti and angels popular in so many Greek, Roman and Renaissance works of art,
child pornography? Isnt child pornography a felony crime in New York?
8. The Rockefeller familys MOMA shows a number of paintings stolen from Jews
by the Nazis, which have been the object of civil lawsuits. The Rockefeller
family were major supporters of Hitler. Their company, Standard Oil, owned 1/2
of IG Farben, the Nazi chemical and munitions cartel which built and operated
Auschwitz. MOMA has received hundreds of millions of tax dollars from the
Giuliani administration. Isnt that an affront to all Jews and a desecration
of the Holocaust?
9. Some feminists might find the thousands of erotic female nudes in NYC
museums (almost all of which were painted by men) to be sexist and
exploitative. Women are more than 50% of NYC taxpayers. Should all female nudes
be removed if a few women complain that they were offended?
10. Many sects of Protestants and Baptists consider the Pope and the Catholic
Church to be the anti-Christ. Millions of New Yorkers are members of these
Christian sects. Should all Catholic-influenced Renaissance art be removed from
all the museums based on it offending these taxpayers?
Be assured, Im not advocating the removal of any of these works. The point
is that all art can be perceived as offensive by someone and more than likely
has been perceived that way at some time or another.
The Catholic Church censored Michelangelos Sistine Chapel murals by painting
fig leaves on the figures despite this masterpiece having been commissioned by
a Pope. The French rioted over Impressionism. Many Americans still consider
Picasso and Mattise, let alone the Abstract Expressionists, to be non-artists
with less talent than their own children have.
As the archetypal example of a cultural lowbrow, Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly
said, "if I can do it its not art". Should some taxpayers wishes be
followed and all modern paintings be removed from taxpayer funded NYC museums?
Is Giuliani a prude, a cultural philistine, just plain crazy or is there a
perfectly logical governmental agenda to his Decency Commission? For a detailed
explanation of the real agenda behind this seemingly absurd effort see my
articles, Giuliani Decency Commission Exposed and Giuliani on Art, Hitler on
Art at:
http://baltech.org/lederman/
Bush-Nazi connection, Giuliani, Manhattan Institute, eugenics, West Nile Virus
information
http://baltech.org/lederman/
http://baltech.org/lederman/spray/
http://www.levymultimedia.com/lederman/index.htm
Street artist information
http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html
Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists Response To Illegal State Tactics)
ARTIS...@aol.com (718) 743-3722
x
expression[speech/press].a little exhibition that had elephant dung
splattered to a painting that may have resembled religion to some one.the
city should not fund any war or police monument they 're obsence to allot of
people.if a gallery chose to display art for art then those offended should
stay home,it not like they had ano clue of what the exhibition was/is.
Kronnilingus Calrissyen
cunts. tasteless by anyone's standards and undeserving of public funds.
Kron