"Intolerable and Egregious"
Luk
that the mayor's objections to the Brooklyn Museum's
art exhibit (an exhibit which includes rotting cow heads
and the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung) are:
"intolerable at any level of government and in any place"
and "especially egregious in New York". It isn't
the exhibit the NYT thinks is egregious. It's the Mayor.
The Mayor doesn't wish to use NY taxpayer dollars to
fund this exhibit.
The way to handle this, in my opinion, is to stop
providing public funds for art, altogether. Government
funds for art have done nothing but pervert it.
Luk
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/editorial/24fri1.html
___________________________________________
Excerpts from the NYT lead editorial:
Government has no obligation to finance art. But the
Supreme Court, while upholding the right of Congress to
legislate "advisory" standards of decency, has nonetheless
affirmed that once government decides to provide funding, it
has no right to impose "a penalty on disfavored viewpoints."
Clearly, this action amounts to such a penalty.
The Mayor's rationale derives from the fact that the city
owns the Brooklyn Museum of Art and provides nearly a
third of its operating budget. He also argues that the city's
lease with the museum requires the institution to remain
open to the public, including schoolchildren, unless the
mayor grants permission to close part of it. As it turns out,
the exhibition is not closed to anyone. Children under 17 will
be admitted to "Sensation" if acccompanied by an adult.
Hanging his stance on an access issue merely reveals the
weakness of the Mayor's argument.
The Mayor's threat plainly violates the tenor of the 1998
Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by several artists. If
he persists in stopping payments to the Brooklyn Museum,
he will have succeeded mainly in engendering another losing
lawsuit that the city will be required to defend at taxpayer
expense.
Mr. Giuliani will also have done serious harm to New York's
reputation as a world center of culture. The Mayor's threat
implies that all city-financed art in New York exists only with
the tacit approval of his office and at the discretion of his
own sensibility. It implies that he believes he has the power
to shut down a museum's entire operation, including all of its
exhibitions and educational programs, at will. This is
intolerable at any level of government and in any place, but it
seems especially egregious in New York.
________________________NYT
Jim Alder
Luk wrote:
> You gotta love it. The lead NYT editorial today says
> that the mayor's objections to the Brooklyn Museum's
> art exhibit (an exhibit which includes rotting cow heads
> and the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung) are:
> "intolerable at any level of government and in any place"
> and "especially egregious in New York". It isn't
> the exhibit the NYT thinks is egregious. It's the Mayor.
> The Mayor doesn't wish to use NY taxpayer dollars to
> fund this exhibit.
>
> The way to handle this, in my opinion, is to stop
> providing public funds for art, altogether. Government
> funds for art have done nothing but pervert it.
>
> Luk
Luk, when was the last time you saw the government invest taxpayer
dollars into something and NOT pervert it? It is, after all, their
chosen duty. Even less surprising is the media's defense of same.
Perhaps the taxpayers should be made more aware of where their money
is being spent. But the likelihood of the taxpayers being aware is
shrinking every year.
kkramer
is spent on trash. It's deplorable. Good for the Mayor.
Kramer
Luk wrote in message <37EB9DA6...@mindspring.com>...
>You gotta love it. The lead NYT editorial today says
>that the mayor's objections to the Brooklyn Museum's
>art exhibit (an exhibit which includes rotting cow heads
>and the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung) are:
>"intolerable at any level of government and in any place"
>and "especially egregious in New York". It isn't
>the exhibit the NYT thinks is egregious. It's the Mayor.
>The Mayor doesn't wish to use NY taxpayer dollars to
>fund this exhibit.
>
>The way to handle this, in my opinion, is to stop
>providing public funds for art, altogether. Government
>funds for art have done nothing but pervert it.
>
>Luk
>
Luk
> There are families scrimping and saving their money to pay their tax bills
> all over the world. Why would you say educating people on art is trash ?
What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
is art.
On the contrary, it would appear the Brooklyn Museum has no
intention of educating anyone. They've chosen to use public
funds to hang crude and boorish trash for the public to snicker at.
And frankly, I've seen the same thing in Atlanta.
> Granted, I don't like every artist's work but I sure as hell enjoy a good
> exhibit every now and then. Take art to the private sector and the children
> of the future will not be able to tell you who Picasso is. Only the rich
> will be able to enjoy it.
The government has never been able to spend money wisely. This
is just one more example. And it is unfortunate.
Luk
Luk
>
> Michael
Do you honestly believe what I described in the
Brooklyn Museum can by any definition be called art?
If so, what is your definition of art?
Luk
Luk
> Luk wrote:
> > What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
> > To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
> > human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
> > is art.
Michael wrote:
> That is simply your opinion Luk. Yes, I find some exhibits grotesque but I
> would certainly never try to censor them because I might be offended.
Let's not confuse censorship with the question of what it's
OK to force taxpayers (literally at the point of a gun)
to pay for.
> If the public gets a good laugh, who is to say
> that was not the intent of the artist ?
Same as above. Do you really feel the public should
be forced to pay artists and museums that put out the stuff?
> > The government has never been able to spend money wisely. This
> > is just one more example. And it is unfortunate.
> >
> > Luk
>
> Well, I agree the government has never been able to spend wisely. OTOH, you
> mentioned in an earlier post, not to underestimate the private benefactors.
> Let us depend on private benefactors to fund the exhibits ? Sure, then
> you'll see censorship at it's finest.
Yes, Michael. Censorship at its finest. That's what we do
here in our part of the world. It's called free market.
Luk
Luk
right to government subsidy for desecrating somebody else's
religion," he said.
Here's the whole article, from the NYT
______________________________
September 25, 1999
Artists Have Rights, and So Do Taxpayers
By MARGARET O'BRIEN STEINFELS
Rudolph Giuliani is no art critic. And he's no
constitutional lawyer either. But when the Mayor of
New York City yells "Pay for that?" and threatens to cut the
city's support of the Brooklyn Museum of Art, even many
grid-blockers, jaywalkers and scofflaws, as well as ordinary
taxpayers, are likely to give him the thumbs-up.
His bristling performance combines chutzpah with vox
populi. Come the end of the month, the check for the
Brooklyn Museum will go back in the city's coffers, unless
Arnold L. Lehman, the museum's director, cancels
"Sensation" an exhibition of so-called shock art from young
British artists. Cancel? Not likely . . . First Amendment and
all that.
"Sensation" includes dead pigs and sharks preserved in
formaldehyde, the bust of a man made from his own frozen
blood and a painting of the Virgin Mary smeared with
elephant dung. The Mayor is outraged. "You don't have a
right to government subsidy for desecrating somebody else's
religion," he said.
Indeed, what if the religion in question was Buddhism or
Judaism? What if it was a statue of the Buddha or a carving
of the Star of David that was smeared with dung?
The courts may restore those monthly checks to the
museum, but Mr. Lehman might want to think twice about
how far he will go for shock art, British or otherwise.
Because unless Charles Saatchi, the advertising magnate who
invested in this collection, plans to support the museum, it
should contemplate the fate of the National Endowment for
the Arts: Win in court, lose in Congress.
You can scream First Amendment all you want, and the
Supreme Court can support your right to show Robert
Mapplethorpe's homoerotic pictures, Andres Serrano's
crucifix in urine and Karen Finley's chocolate-covered naked
body. But Congress has every right to say, "We're not going
to pay for it." And it did, drastically reducing the
endowment's budget. Any legislative body, including the
New York City Council, can withhold tax dollars.
Why would council members do that in art-loving New
York? Because they have constituents -- among them,
Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant. Muslims,
too, venerate Mary, the mother of Jesus. Elephant dung
smeared on a church, synagogue or mosque would get the
perpetrator arrested. Dung worked into a painting of Mary is
not going to bring in the police, because the work enjoys
First Amendment protection, but that doesn't mean it merits
taxpayer support. Elected representatives with the power of
the purse will exercise their budget-cutting powers.
The creator of the Madonna painting, Chris Ofili, plants
elephant dung on and in many of his pictures, sacred and
profane. He appears to be a man with a sense of humor.
When awarded the 1998 Turner Prize, a prestigious award
for young artists given by the Tate Gallery in London, he
reportedly said, "Where's my check?"
Mr. Lehman, the Brooklym Museum's director, faces a
where's-my-check problems of his own, to the tune of the
$7 million his institution receives from the city each year.
Like the mayor himself, Mr. Lehman occupies a position of
public trust. For one thing that means he has to take moral
and political responsibility for his decisions. Bringing
"Sensation" to the Brooklyn Museum of Art was bad
judgment. If he tries to hide his bad judgment behind the
First Amendment, he will not only violate that public trust,
he will abuse it.
In the meantime, the mayor continues with his species of
performance art; call the show "shock politics" if you will.
(Maybe as performance art, it too should be protected by the
First Amendment.) And if New Yorkers have to choose
between "shock art" and "shock politics," you can be sure
most are going to choose shock politics.
Who has the right to object? Certainly, not those who make
a crusade, as well as a business, out of violating social norms
and sensitivities.
_______________
Col Klink
> here in our part of the world. It's called free market.
>
> Luk
The idea of censorship has been so far bent out of shape, it is scarcely
recognizable any more.
Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT keeps SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS from
getting their word out IN ANY FORM, IN ANY VENUE - be it private media
or public. Censorship IS NOT when the government refuses to subsidize
your views (which it should not be doing to begin with), or your
excrement.
Anyone is free to open up a "Roadside Poop Art" museum at the side of a
highway and encourage paying visitors to come in and be offended. I am
sure it would be a big hit. And if it were not, then perhaps that puts
things in perspective.
For myself, if shit covered "art" (LOL) never catches on, I wont feel I
have missed out on anything.
Col Klink
--
*************************************************************************
** "It is a capital error to theorize before one has all the facts..."
**
** Arthur Conan Doyle
**
*************************************************************************
Luk
> > Yes, Michael. Censorship at its finest. That's what we do
> > here in our part of the world. It's called free market.
> >
> > Luk
Col Klink wrote:
> The idea of censorship has been so far bent out of shape, it is scarcely
> recognizable any more.
>
> Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT keeps SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS from
> getting their word out IN ANY FORM, IN ANY VENUE - be it private media
> or public. Censorship IS NOT when the government refuses to subsidize
> your views (which it should not be doing to begin with), or your
> excrement.
I agree about censorship.
Why has this art issue become so confused in the minds of so
many people? The function of government is to provide essential
services that can't be provided by the private sector. National
defense is a legitimate example.
The function of government is not to make sure families have
art museums to stroll through on Sundays. The private sector is
more than willing to support art and museums and it has for many
centuries. The excellence of many traditional art collections is
the result.
The travesty at the Brooklyn Museum is the end result of
a government blown out of proportion by voters who expect
it to provide the ideal life for everyone. Such a government
becomes overgrown, distorted and is no longer able to
provide anything very well.
Luk
Josey
>Well, I agree the government has never been able to spend wisely. OTOH, you
>mentioned in an earlier post, not to underestimate the private benefactors.
>Let us depend on private benefactors to fund the exhibits ? Sure, then
>you'll see censorship at it's finest.
>
Censorship is when the _government_ prohibits First Amendment rights. I can
not buy your art or magazines all night and no censorship will have taken
place. If the govt does it, that's a different story. Using tax money to fund
art, though, forces people to support free speech that they might not agree
with, and it does so using the threat of governmental force (as does ANY law).
The referenced article's comparison as to what would happen if, instead of a
statue of the Virgin Mary being smeared with shit, a Star of David were so
defaced, is telling. The latter scenario would NEVER HAPPEN and be supported by
tax money. The Defamation League would be allllll over it, and rightly so.
Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
Josey
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning
of the people, by the people, for the people." --Oscar Wilde
Debby
agree with you. I don't think the virgin Mary dipped in cow dung with
penises and vaginas is art. What could be on the artists mind??? I
understand he is British. Also I wonder what the staff of the Brooklyn
Museum were thinking of. I have heard they are a pretty conservitive
bunch.... Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com> I don't get it. They don't
want religious items in public places but if you want to deface it, it's
alright.
Debby
of animals??? A Virgin Mary dipped in Cow Dung??? Swastikas painted in
different colors??? A picture of a man with the handle of a whip up his rear
end???? Do we get to draw the line somewhere???? I'm not saying they shouldn't
be allowed to show it, but Luk is right why do our tax dollars have to pay for
it???? Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Dog3 wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:37EB9DA6...@mindspring.com...
> > You gotta love it. The lead NYT editorial today says
> > that the mayor's objections to the Brooklyn Museum's
> > art exhibit (an exhibit which includes rotting cow heads
> > and the Virgin Mary decorated with elephant dung) are:
> > "intolerable at any level of government and in any place"
> > and "especially egregious in New York". It isn't
> > the exhibit the NYT thinks is egregious. It's the Mayor.
> > The Mayor doesn't wish to use NY taxpayer dollars to
> > fund this exhibit.
> >
> > The way to handle this, in my opinion, is to stop
> > providing public funds for art, altogether. Government
> > funds for art have done nothing but pervert it.
> >
> > Luk
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/editorial/24fri1.html
>
> <snip editorial>
>
> That's a really interesting take on things Luk. How do you think most
> museums survive financially ? It's sure as hell not by private donations.
> The Mayor of NY sounds like he needs to broaden his horizens before making
> such statements. I'm guessing this statement will cost him many votes in
> the next election if he chooses to run. And what is perverted art BTW ?
>
> Michael
Col Klink
>
> Dear Mike: Do you call crosses dipped in Urine art???? How about dead bodies
> of animals??? A Virgin Mary dipped in Cow Dung??? Swastikas painted in
> different colors??? A picture of a man with the handle of a whip up his rear
> end???? Do we get to draw the line somewhere???? I'm not saying they shouldn't
> be allowed to show it, but Luk is right why do our tax dollars have to pay for
> it???? Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Because this sort of "art" (holding my nose as I use the word) is the
assault weapon of the 1st amendment, for the liberals...
Everyone not only has a right to possess it, but you have to pay for it,
too.
Col Klink
Debby
is the pits. It's very offensive. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com> Most of it
is the surprize the people in New York feel about the Brooklyn Museum. They even
offended the members of the Museum because they were calling Sean Hannity and
complaining about it. I think it was yesterdays show and you can listen to it by
going to http://www.wabcradio.com and listening on real audio. Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Dog3 wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> kkramer <kkr...@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
> news:eHRG3.360$vJ4....@news-west.eli.net...
> > There are families scrimping and saving to pay their tax bill and that
> money
> > is spent on trash. It's deplorable. Good for the Mayor.
> >
> > Kramer
>
> Last I heard NY was still a state within the United States. IMO, the Mayor
> was an idiot. He probably pissed off about 1/2 of the *voting* public.
> There are families scrimping and saving their money to pay their tax bills
> all over the world. Why would you say educating people on art is trash ?
> Granted, I don't like every artist's work but I sure as hell enjoy a good
> exhibit every now and then. Take art to the private sector and the children
> of the future will not be able to tell you who Picasso is. Only the rich
> will be able to enjoy it.
>
> Michael
Debby
offended. New York is a very Catholic Town and the picture of the Virgin Mary
has all New Yorkers very upset. The Cardinal has said he is upset. As sick as he
is he issued a statement about it. All Catholic Orthodox people are upset. Even
the Jewish Hassidieum are upset. If you take a poll I don't think you would find
too many people laughing. Second nobody is saying they can't show it. The Mayor
doesn't want to use tax dollars to pay for the show. Let some rich Catholic
basher racist pay for it. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Dog3 wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:37EC28AE...@mindspring.com...
> > Michael wrote:
> >
> >
> > What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
> > To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
> > human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
> > is art.
>
> That is simply your opinion Luk. Yes, I find some exhibits grotesque but I
> would certainly never try to censor them because I might be offended.
>
> >
> > On the contrary, it would appear the Brooklyn Museum has no
> > intention of educating anyone. They've chosen to use public
> > funds to hang crude and boorish trash for the public to snicker at.
> > And frankly, I've seen the same thing in Atlanta.
>
> Again, this is your opinion. If the public gets a good laugh, who is to say
> that was not the intent of the artist ?
>
> >
> >
> > The government has never been able to spend money wisely. This
> > is just one more example. And it is unfortunate.
> >
> > Luk
>
Demona888
>
>Dear Mike: Do you call crosses dipped in Urine art???? How about dead bodies
>of animals??? A Virgin Mary dipped in Cow Dung??? Swastikas painted in
>different colors??? A picture of a man with the handle of a whip up his rear
>end???? Do we get to draw the line somewhere???? I'm not saying they
>shouldn't
>be allowed to show it, but Luk is right why do our tax dollars have to pay
>for
>it???? Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
If Debby had her way, we'd probably be paying for pictures of "pity kittys",
dogs playing poker, unicorns and rainbows. Art isn't just for over your living
room sofa or hanging on the wall of your doctor's office. Part of the job of
art is to do things like this -- foster discussion about art and politics and
life. Art is *supposed* to stir things up. There are lots of things that I
don't like my tax dollars going for, but art ain't one of 'em.
Hester Mofet
You cannot go against nature because when you do go against nature, it's part
of nature,too. -- Love & Rockets "No New Tale to Tell"
Demona888
>
>Dear Mike: The public is not getting a good laugh. Most New Yorkers are very
>offended. New York is a very Catholic Town and the picture of the Virgin Mary
>has all New Yorkers very upset. The Cardinal has said he is upset. As sick as
>he
>is he issued a statement about it. All Catholic Orthodox people are upset.
>Even
>the Jewish Hassidieum are upset. If you take a poll I don't think you would
>find
>too many people laughing. Second nobody is saying they can't show it. The
>Mayor
>doesn't want to use tax dollars to pay for the show. Let some rich Catholic
>basher racist pay for it. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Last time I checked, Catholicism wasn't a race, Debby.
Hester Mofet <--- a former member of the One True Faith
Josey
>can
>> not buy your art or magazines all night and no censorship will have taken
>> place. If the govt does it, that's a different story. Using tax money to
>fund
>> art, though, forces people to support free speech that they might not
>agree
>> with, and it does so using the threat of governmental force (as does ANY
>law).
>>
>> The referenced article's comparison as to what would happen if, instead
>of a
>> statue of the Virgin Mary being smeared with shit, a Star of David were so
>> defaced, is telling. The latter scenario would NEVER HAPPEN and be
>supported by
>> tax money. The Defamation League would be allllll over it, and rightly so.
>>
>>
>> Just another victim of the in-house drive-by,
>> Josey
>
>been on the bandwagon for so long I lose sight of the real issues sometimes.
>OTOH, if someone considers the Star of David covered in shit who is to say
>this is not artwork ? Not my cup of tea, mind you.
>
>Michael
Oh my God, Michael.. do you realize what's happening? We're having a real live
discussion! On USENET even! Where's my fainting couch when I need it???
I'm with you in that a shit-smeared Star of David isn't my cuppa, either,
and I agree that art's in the eye of the beholder. I personally find the idea
of people mocking people's faiths (not debating it, mind ya, but mocking it
mean-spiritedly and without respect) really repugnant. I would find neither
beauty nor food-for-thought in a Star of David presented like that. I'd voice
my opinion, boycott and, if I had the energy, maybe even picket such an
exhibition (picketing being for the purpose of communicating with other
patrons, NOT to get the law after the gallery or the artist!) I wouldn't want
the law to stop its showing --- unless tax money were used for its support (and
aside from any debate about the idea of 'the commons' and 'public standards of
decency', which I do believe have merit). In fact, I'd speak out, boycott and
picket for the artist's freedom if no tax money was used and if the law was
trying to step on his first amendment rights (maybe I'd have two signs:
"Freedom of Speech!" in one hand and "This Exhibtion Sux in a Big Bigotted Way"
in another LOL)
I really think that keeping the government and its laws out of the arts (and
most other areas of our lives) is the BEST way for everyone concerned: the
artists, the museums, the art-lovers, our country itself. Law always needs to
more and more law because it's rooted in POWER; the end result is fascism.
Haya...@webtv.net
now. Have you been to a museum lately? I know here in Boston the
local science, children's and art museums, as well as the Aquarium, cost
about $8 a person to get in, plus $10 (conservative price) parking.
Meanwhile, a person who takes a photo of a crucifix submerged in urine,
or who covers herself in chocolate, or who has photos of men with
bullwhips up their rectums gets tens of thousands of dollars. Something
is out of kilter. I'm all for free expression, but if the idea of
government funded art is to make art and culture available to the
working class, than there are 2 problems: 1) what we're funding isn't
very cultural and 2) and the working class still can't afford it.
Sounds like a noble idea, but a failed policy.
€ € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € € €
Hayabusa1
Luk
> Do we get to draw the line somewhere???? I'm not saying they shouldn't
> > be allowed to show it, but Luk is right why do our tax dollars have to pay for
> > it????
Col. Klink wrote:
> Because this sort of "art" (holding my nose as I use the word) is the
> assault weapon of the 1st amendment, for the liberals...
I'm afraid that's true. And I know I'm going to get flak about
this from people who've been agreeing with me for the first
time in a long time. There's no other way to interpret it than
to believe it's an intentional assault. It's simply a way of
flashing the middle finger at the establishment.
Why did Hillary order a double life-sized nude with a triple
sized bottom to be installed in front of the Christmas line at
the White House - where it would be seen by families and
children who had enough respect and admiration to stand in
line there?
If liberals hope to further their cause, they sure could use
a good PR agency.
Luk
Luk
Demona wrote:
> Part of the job of
> art is to do things like this -- foster discussion about art and politics and
> life. Art is *supposed* to stir things up. There are lots of things that I
> don't like my tax dollars going for, but art ain't one of 'em.
Sometimes art does stir things up. But I would argue that
stirring things up is not the purpose of art.
The purpose of an art exhibit is to inspire awe because of the
technique and style that gets displayed. Picasso was not famous
*because* he painted about war (Guernica). He was famous
because he was gifted and prolific.
What about the stuff at the Brooklyn Museum? How much
technique and style are displayed at such an exhibit? Does
it inspire anyone to strive for excellence?
What ends up in an exhibit like the one in Brooklyn are
gimmicks made simply to create attention. They inspire only
disgust. But the taxpayers are forced to put out money to
support the artists and the people who promote that stuff.
Luk
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Dear Luk: They have been talking about this on WABC radio for days. I
> agree with you. I don't think the virgin Mary dipped in cow dung with
> penises and vaginas is art. What could be on the artists mind??? I
> understand he is British. Also I wonder what the staff of the Brooklyn
> Museum were thinking of. I have heard they are a pretty conservitive
> bunch.... I don't get it. They don't want religious items in public places
> but if you want to deface it, it's alright.
Good questions. I'm sure the main thing on the
artists' mind is money. The entire story of how
they manage to get money for the stuff is not
clear to me. But we do know the money
that winds up in their pockets comes from the
taxpayers. That's us.
Luk
Luk
> > Everyone not only has a right to possess it, but you have to pay for it,
> > too.
>
Michael wrote:
> Yes, up to and indcluding the people that disagree with it. And yes, the
> 1st amendment is still intact. I'm certain you would like to see it
> rescinded along with Luk. It's not going to happen.
Why are you evading the point, Michael?
Giuliani's objection is not that disgusting art gets displayed.
He doesn't like the fact that taxpayers are footing the bill
for it.
Luk
Debby
have a picture of Christ's Crusifiction by Salvadore Dalli. I have artwork by
Esher. I have no cute pictures. Some are famous reproductions but all of the art
on my walls makes you think. I have a picture of a many flying by Amnesty
International. I have alot of Science Fiction art. I have a picture of the M31
Galaxy in Andromeda. A famous print of a Chinese Emperor with his two wives. No,
no doggy and kitty pictures in my house:) Actually I hate cutsy pictures...... I
know alot of artists and once I asked him what his art ment. He said "Ment" that's
for the suckers that buy it to determine:) I am sure not all artists feel that way
but they hate the words artistic discussion and meaning. Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com> By the way, if you like it send money to the Brooklyn
Museaum, they'll need it.
Demona888 wrote:
> Debby wrote:
> >
> >Dear Mike: Do you call crosses dipped in Urine art???? How about dead bodies
> >of animals??? A Virgin Mary dipped in Cow Dung??? Swastikas painted in
> >different colors??? A picture of a man with the handle of a whip up his rear
> >end???? Do we get to draw the line somewhere???? I'm not saying they
> >shouldn't
> >be allowed to show it, but Luk is right why do our tax dollars have to pay
> >for
> >it???? Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
>
> If Debby had her way, we'd probably be paying for pictures of "pity kittys",
> dogs playing poker, unicorns and rainbows. Art isn't just for over your living
> room sofa or hanging on the wall of your doctor's office. Part of the job of
> art is to do things like this -- foster discussion about art and politics and
> life. Art is *supposed* to stir things up. There are lots of things that I
> don't like my tax dollars going for, but art ain't one of 'em.
>
> Hester Mofet
Debby
words. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com> who is sure Hester knew what she ment.
Demona888 wrote:
> Debby wrote:
> >
> >Dear Mike: The public is not getting a good laugh. Most New Yorkers are very
> >offended. New York is a very Catholic Town and the picture of the Virgin Mary
> >has all New Yorkers very upset. The Cardinal has said he is upset. As sick as
> >he
> >is he issued a statement about it. All Catholic Orthodox people are upset.
> >Even
> >the Jewish Hassidieum are upset. If you take a poll I don't think you would
> >find
> >too many people laughing. Second nobody is saying they can't show it. The
> >Mayor
> >doesn't want to use tax dollars to pay for the show. Let some rich Catholic
> >basher racist pay for it. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
>
> Last time I checked, Catholicism wasn't a race, Debby.
>
> Hester Mofet <--- a former member of the One True Faith
Debby
Gugenhiem Museum in New York and look at the contemporary paintings. Some
one will paint a canvas, call it Red on Red and get hundreds of thousands of
dollars for painting a red canvas. I'm in the wrong business, I'll tell
you:) Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Debby
it or donate any money to it. I couldn't stand to look at it. It's my opinion
and I have a right to have it as do you have the right to have yours. Ask for it
to come to where you live and you can go see it.:) Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Dog3 wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Debby <sarg...@injersey.com> wrote in message
> news:37ED23FF...@injersey.com...
> > Dear Mike: I wish I could show you the art that they are discussing. It
> really
> > is the pits. It's very offensive. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com> Most
> of it
> > is the surprize the people in New York feel about the Brooklyn Museum.
> They even
> > offended the members of the Museum because they were calling Sean Hannity
> and
> > complaining about it. I think it was yesterdays show and you can listen to
> it by
> > going to http://www.wabcradio.com and listening on real audio. Debby
> > S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
> >
>
> So what Debby, it's still art or the Brooklyn Museum would not have tried to
> show it. Go ahead and censor it, cut your own nose off.
>
> Michael
Debby
Senator in New York I will die. I can't do anything about it, but I wish I could.
Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk wrote:
> > Debby wrote:
>
> > Do we get to draw the line somewhere???? I'm not saying they shouldn't
> > > be allowed to show it, but Luk is right why do our tax dollars have to pay for
> > > it????
>
Debby
he was famous for that. It is one of his best known paintings and it hangs in New
York. I used to go see it. Its good for art to stir things up. Look at Editorial
Cartoons they are art and they are ment to stir things up. In the middle ages
pictures were ment to be political editorials.They didn't have money for newspapers
but they had great paintings that told them what was going on in the world. In a
way maybe Mike and Hester are right in some ways, I mean look at Heronomous Bach.
Have you seen his paintings on Pergatory and Hell??? I wouldn't want to censor
those. Some art is offensive. What about a recent painting that I saw of Jesus as
the Anti Christ??? Ever seen that one??? It's facinating but offensive as hell. I
guess Art is in the eye of the beholder. I still wouldn't want to pay for it with
my tax dollars. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk wrote:
> Demona wrote:
>
> > Part of the job of
> > art is to do things like this -- foster discussion about art and politics and
> > life. Art is *supposed* to stir things up. There are lots of things that I
> > don't like my tax dollars going for, but art ain't one of 'em.
>
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Dear Luk: Actually when Picasso painted All the Evils of the World, about that war,
> he was famous for that. It is one of his best known paintings and it hangs in New
> York. I used to go see it.
But did Picasso became famous *because* of his political opinions?
Wasn't it because he was an established artist that his political
opinions interested anyone?
Luk
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Dear Luk: Actually when Picasso...
> Have you seen his paintings on Pergatory and Hell???
> I wouldn't want to censor those. Some art is offensive.
That's a tricky point. Some of Picasso's art is
rather obscene. He did enjoy kicking up a fuss.
So is it still art?
I'd still consider it art. Even though the subject
matter is/was unnecessarily provocative, his highly
developed technique is still present. He had an
amazing sense of design. Not that I like
everything he did.
I have a book of Rodin drawings and water colors.
(I realize he was a sculptor, but this book has
wonderful work in it.) In most of those drawings
(and water colors) the subject is people making love,
and usually it's homosexual in nature. But I
still like the book because of Rodin's technique
with the medium. (I just have to remember not to
put it out where kids can get hold of it.) I've also
admired a book of old Japanese illustrations that are
*very* explicit. The work is excellent and I love
Japanese art. Didn't buy that one. It just went
too far.
But - the newer, obscene art I've seen doesn't
display such technique. I can't find any reason to
call it art, or any justification for displaying
it to the public.
Luk
Col Klink
> > Yes, up to and indcluding the people that disagree with it. And yes, the
> > 1st amendment is still intact. I'm certain you would like to see it
> > rescinded along with Luk. It's not going to happen.
>
> Why are you evading the point, Michael?
> Giuliani's objection is not that disgusting art gets displayed.
> He doesn't like the fact that taxpayers are footing the bill
> for it.
Doggy boy is busy erecting his scarecrow, it may be a while before he
comes down from the job.
What he fails utterly to understand, as evinced in his post included
above, is that subsidized art is actually abuse of government. His poop
headed artistic heros are free to cover themselves in shit, along with
the neanderthals that wish to watch it. I just dont want to pay for it.
Thats not censorship, regardless of the 10 cent education Doggy boy got
on the subject of American government. If he feels so strongly about it,
he is free to support it himself. He is full of enough shit that I am
sure that would pay for the materials his heroes use.
As Casey Stengel said, "You can look it up..."
Col Klink
Donna
true crime newsgroup and your dumbass political posts have no place here. I
wish someone (I'm sure not wasting my time) would report you to your ISP for
violation of USENET rules.
Seek help, you useless fuckwad.
--
_____
Donna
"We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them. "
-- Titus Livius
Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Sharonpo
>Yes, up to and indcluding the people that disagree with it. And yes, the
>1st amendment is still intact. I'm certain you would like to see it
>rescinded along with Luk. It's not going to happen.
>
>Michael
>
Damn, you're no fun. I was looking forward to seeing Luk rescinded.
Demona888
No, Debby, I honestly didn't.
Hester Mofet
Demona888
>
>Dear Hester: Actually that is not my taste in art. For instance in my bedroom
>I
>have a picture of Christ's Crusifiction by Salvadore Dalli. I have artwork
>by
>Esher. I have no cute pictures. Some are famous reproductions but all of the
>art
>on my walls makes you think. I have a picture of a many flying by Amnesty
>International. I have alot of Science Fiction art. I have a picture of the
>M31
>Galaxy in Andromeda. A famous print of a Chinese Emperor with his two wives.
>No,
>no doggy and kitty pictures in my house:) Actually I hate cutsy
>pictures...... I
>know alot of artists and once I asked him what his art ment. He said "Ment"
>that's
>for the suckers that buy it to determine:) I am sure not all artists feel
>that way
>but they hate the words artistic discussion and meaning. Debby
>S.<sarg...@injersey.com> By the way, if you like it send money to the
>Brooklyn
>Museaum, they'll need it.
Well,Debby, you impressed me. You have better taste than I gave you credit for.
I adore Dali, though the Crucifixion is not one of my favorites. I also enjoy
Holbein, Magritte and (tackily enough to some) the pre-Raphaelites.
Demona888
>
>
>
>Demona wrote:
>
>> Part of the job of
>> art is to do things like this -- foster discussion about art and politics
>and
>> life. Art is *supposed* to stir things up. There are lots of things that I
>> don't like my tax dollars going for, but art ain't one of 'em.
>
>Sometimes art does stir things up. But I would argue that
>stirring things up is not the purpose of art.
****I would agree with you for the most part, but there is some art that is
created to cause a stir. I think this exhibit might be an example of that.
Surely the portrait of Myra Hindley done in children's handprints set out to
commence a ruckus, don't you think?
>The purpose of an art exhibit is to inspire awe because of the
>technique and style that gets displayed. Picasso was not famous
>*because* he painted about war (Guernica). He was famous
>because he was gifted and prolific.
****Agree.
>What about the stuff at the Brooklyn Museum? How much
>technique and style are displayed at such an exhibit? Does
>it inspire anyone to strive for excellence?
****It inspires people to think and debate the nature of art. I believe that is
a noble purpose unto itself.
>What ends up in an exhibit like the one in Brooklyn are
>gimmicks made simply to create attention. They inspire only
>disgust. But the taxpayers are forced to put out money to
>support the artists and the people who promote that stuff.
>
>Luk
Demona888
If *you* don't want taxpayers money to pay for art, what else don't you want it
to pay for? There's no reason that we can't cut welfare down to nothing. There
are private agencies who could take it over. Do we get to vote on what we pay
for? Certainly, we can try to elect officials who think the way we do, but
outside of that, what is there?
I'm not being sarcastic, I am asking this seriously. Should there be some sort
of referendum on it? Should we make sure that we get to see an example of all
the exhibits that could possibly come into town this year so that we can pick
which one we want to spend money on? How many people would ever bother with
that? I would because I like art, but I doubt many others would bother.
Hester Mofet
Luk
Demona wrote:
> there is some art that is created to cause a stir. I think this
> exhibit might be an example of that. Surely the portrait of
> Myra Hindley done in children's handprints set out to commence
> a ruckus, don't you think?
I'm not familiar with that portrait. But doesn't it
sound kind of gimmicky to you? And if it's
simply a gimmick, why should it qualify as art?
> >What about the stuff at the Brooklyn Museum? How much
> >technique and style are displayed at such an exhibit? Does
> >it inspire anyone to strive for excellence?
>
> ****It inspires people to think and debate the nature of art. I believe that is
> a noble purpose unto itself.
No. I can't identify any noble purpose to that exhibit. That
it has stimulated debate is a byproduct. I doubt very much
that the people involved in setting up the exhibit had any thoughts
beyond money and the kicks they'd get by causing irritation to
people of taste.
But things don't have to have a noble purpose to be allowed to
exist. The issue about the Brooklyn Museum exhibit is whether
it should be financed by the taxpayers. Or whether a museum
that devotes itself to such trash should continue to be supported
by public funds.
Luk
Lo52964
writes
>Yes, up to and indcluding the people that disagree with it. And yes, the
>1st amendment is still intact. I'm certain you would like to see it
>rescinded along with Luk. It's not going to happen.
Dear Idiot ( used in the Greek sense only)
The first ammendment requires the GOVERNMENT only to tolerate almost anything.
It does not require us or them to pay for anything.
Some of us crusty old reactionaries told you pinkos that this is where funding
the arts would lead, but Noooo.
I might like rotting heads, hell I'm on alt.true crime, I even like
Maplethorpe's photos but I don't expect someone else to pay for my seeing them.
" Don't talk to me about justice, it is bad enough to be mixed up with the
law."
LO5 2964
Luk
Debby wrote:
> I know alot of artists and once I asked him what his art ment. He said "Ment" that's
> for the suckers that buy it to determine:) I am sure not all artists feel that way
> but they hate the words artistic discussion and meaning.
Absolutely!
When I took Art History I couldn't believe the drivel written in
art books about the artwork. I could just see the artists turning
over in their graves. The textbooks used the word "monumental"
three times on every page.
Luk
Luk
Demona wrote:
> To Debby and Luk --
>
> If *you* don't want taxpayers money to pay for art, what else don't you want it
> to pay for?
For what's necessary in a civilized society and can't be
handled any other way.
> There's no reason that we can't cut welfare down to nothing. There
> are private agencies who could take it over.
If there are private agencies who can and would handle
a problem, there's no need to create a governmental agency
to do it. And there's every reason not to.
> Do we get to vote on what we pay for?
Not very often. (~:
> Certainly, we can try to elect officials who think
> the way we do, but outside of that, what is there?
> I'm not being sarcastic, I am asking this seriously. Should there be some sort
> of referendum on it? Should we make sure that we get to see an example of all
> the exhibits that could possibly come into town this year so that we can pick
> which one we want to spend money on? How many people would ever bother with
> that? I would because I like art, but I doubt many others would bother.
All good questions.
Luk
Luk
> >1st amendment is still intact. I'm certain you would like to see it
> >rescinded along with Luk. It's not going to happen.
> >
>
Sharonpo wrote:
> Damn, you're no fun. I was looking forward to seeing Luk rescinded.
You and a lot of people.
Luk
(~:/
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Dear Luk: Because Hilliary doesn't care about anyone but herself. If she becomes
> Senator in New York I will die. I can't do anything about it, but I wish I could.
yup
Luk
Lo52964 wrote:
> I might like rotting heads, hell I'm on alt.true crime, I even like
> Maplethorpe's photos but I don't expect someone else to pay for my seeing them.
Point well made.
Every9man
who are far more upset with Giuliani making unilateral decisions as to what to
do with our tax money than we are with an art exhibit that we dont have to
attend.
He's making a fool of himself for a change.
Barbara
From: Debby <sarg...@injersey.com>
Dear Mike: The public is not getting a good laugh. Most New Yorkers are very
offended. New York is a very Catholic Town and the picture of the Virgin Mary
has all New Yorkers very upset. The Cardinal has said he is upset. As sick as
he
is he issued a statement about it. All Catholic Orthodox people are upset. Even
the Jewish Hassidieum are upset. If you take a poll I don't think you would
find
too many people laughing. Second nobody is saying they can't show it. The Mayor
doesn't want to use tax dollars to pay for the show. Let some rich Catholic
basher racist pay for it. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Dog3 wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:37EC28AE...@mindspring.com...
> > Michael wrote:
> >
> >
> > What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
> > To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
> > human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
> > is art.
>
> That is simply your opinion Luk. Yes, I find some exhibits grotesque but I
> would certainly never try to censor them because I might be offended.
>
> >
> > On the contrary, it would appear the Brooklyn Museum has no
> > intention of educating anyone. They've chosen to use public
> > funds to hang crude and boorish trash for the public to snicker at.
> > And frankly, I've seen the same thing in Atlanta.
>
> Again, this is your opinion. If the public gets a good laugh, who is to say
> that was not the intent of the artist ?
>
> >
> >
> > The government has never been able to spend money wisely. This
> > is just one more example. And it is unfortunate.
> >
> > Luk
>
> Well, I agree the government has never been able to spend wisely. OTOH, you
> mentioned in an earlier post, not to underestimate the private benefactors.
> Let us depend on private benefactors to fund the exhibits ? Sure, then
> you'll see censorship at it's finest.
>
> Michael
Every9man
From: demo...@aol.com (Demona888)
Date: Sat, 25 September 1999 10:33 PM EDT
Message-id: <19990925223349...@ng-fm1.aol.com>
Debby wrote:
>
>Dear Hester: Actually that is not my taste in art. For instance in my bedroom
>I
>have a picture of Christ's Crusifiction by Salvadore Dalli. I have artwork
>by
>Esher. I have no cute pictures. Some are famous reproductions but all of the
>art
>on my walls makes you think. I have a picture of a many flying by Amnesty
>International. I have alot of Science Fiction art. I have a picture of the
>M31
>Galaxy in Andromeda. A famous print of a Chinese Emperor with his two wives.
>No,
>no doggy and kitty pictures in my house:) Actually I hate cutsy
>pictures...... I
>know alot of artists and once I asked him what his art ment. He said "Ment"
>that's
>for the suckers that buy it to determine:) I am sure not all artists feel
>that way
>but they hate the words artistic discussion and meaning. Debby
>S.<sarg...@injersey.com> By the way, if you like it send money to the
>Brooklyn
>Museaum, they'll need it.
/Well,Debby, you impressed me. You have better taste than I gave you /credit
for.
/I adore Dali, though the Crucifixion is not one of my favorites. I also enjoy
/Holbein, Magritte and (tackily enough to some) the pre-Raphaelites.
/Hester Mofet
How about Mark Rothko, David Smith, Milton Avery, Edvard Munch and Basquiat?
Cliff or Linda Griffith
Using tax money to fund
> art, though, forces people to support free speech that they might not agree
> with, and it does so using the threat of governmental force (as does ANY law).
Something about this sentence bothers me. When the police line up for
crowd-control and melée-prevention along the parade-route of the
KuKluxKlan, isn't tax money being used "to force people to support free
speech that they might not agree with"? (Or, to avoid "Oh, no, that's
the right of *assembly*", change the KKK to a group carrying placards
with hateful slogans.)
That's the thing about free speech: we're all supposed to support it,
whether we agree with what is "said", or not.
Linda
Cliff or Linda Griffith
particular exhibit at the Kimbell, but AFAIK, I don't really have a
"say". *Could* they have a referendum, and then go with the majority?
I remember that I didn't get a vote when it came to financing any of
those wars or "skirmishes", so I doubt I'd get to vote on an art
exhibit. But it only seems fair.
Linda
Demona888 wrote:
>
> To Debby and Luk --
>
> If *you* don't want taxpayers money to pay for art, what else don't you want it
> to pay for? There's no reason that we can't cut welfare down to nothing. There
> are private agencies who could take it over. Do we get to vote on what we pay
> for? Certainly, we can try to elect officials who think the way we do, but
> outside of that, what is there?
> I'm not being sarcastic, I am asking this seriously. Should there be some sort
> of referendum on it? Should we make sure that we get to see an example of all
> the exhibits that could possibly come into town this year so that we can pick
> which one we want to spend money on? How many people would ever bother with
> that? I would because I like art, but I doubt many others would bother.
>
Lucy A. Afar
Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> Demona wrote:
>
> > Part of the job of
> > art is to do things like this -- foster discussion about art and
politics and
> > life. Art is *supposed* to stir things up. There are lots of things
that I
> > don't like my tax dollars going for, but art ain't one of 'em.
>
> Sometimes art does stir things up. But I would argue that
> stirring things up is not the purpose of art.
>
> technique and style that gets displayed. Picasso was not famous
> *because* he painted about war (Guernica). He was famous
> because he was gifted and prolific.
>
Yet one of his purposes was "to shock the bourgeois". Not the only
purpose, to be sure, but nevertheless one of them. Like a naughty
little boy, he enjoyed it a great deal. I guess he also did succeed -
of course, before he became fashionable and the bourgeois started to
enjoy being shocked.
Lucy
> What about the stuff at the Brooklyn Museum? How much
> technique and style are displayed at such an exhibit? Does
> it inspire anyone to strive for excellence?
>
> What ends up in an exhibit like the one in Brooklyn are
> gimmicks made simply to create attention. They inspire only
> disgust. But the taxpayers are forced to put out money to
> support the artists and the people who promote that stuff.
>
> Luk
>
>
--
"Foolery, sir, does walk about the orb like the sun; it shines
everywhere."
Shakespeare
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lucy A. Afar
Debby <sarg...@injersey.com> wrote:
> Dear Hester: Actually that is not my taste in art. For instance in my
bedroom I
> have a picture of Christ's Crusifiction by Salvadore Dalli. I have
artwork by
> Esher. I have no cute pictures. Some are famous reproductions but all
of the art
> on my walls makes you think. I have a picture of a many flying by
Amnesty
> International. I have alot of Science Fiction art. I have a picture
of the M31
> Galaxy in Andromeda. A famous print of a Chinese Emperor with his two
wives. No,
> no doggy and kitty pictures in my house:) Actually I hate cutsy
pictures...... I
> know alot of artists and once I asked him what his art ment. He said
"Ment" that's
> for the suckers that buy it to determine:) I am sure not all artists
feel that way
> but they hate the words artistic discussion and meaning. Debby
> S.<sarg...@injersey.com> By the way, if you like it send money to
the Brooklyn
> Museaum, they'll need it.
>
So you like M31 too, Debby? I remember seeing the picture of this
beautiful galaxy when I was in my first university year and I fell in
love with it, instantly. It reminds me somehow of Rubens' Andromeda.
I'm not exactly crazy about Rubens, but his Andromeda always moved me:
she has a calm, inner beauty, as if light springs out of her very body,
in a very galaxy-like fashion.
Since you obviously can appreciate non-human art forms, I guess you'd
like to have a look at this site:
http://www.koko.org/koko/gorilla_art/stink.html
I find this particularly beautiful, moving and charming. Enjoy!
Lucy
> Demona888 wrote:
>
> > Debby wrote:
> > >
> > >Dear Mike: Do you call crosses dipped in Urine art???? How about
dead bodies
> > >of animals??? A Virgin Mary dipped in Cow Dung??? Swastikas
painted in
> > >different colors??? A picture of a man with the handle of a whip
up his rear
> > >end???? Do we get to draw the line somewhere???? I'm not saying
they
> > >shouldn't
> > >be allowed to show it, but Luk is right why do our tax dollars
have to pay
> > >for
> > >it???? Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
> >
> > If Debby had her way, we'd probably be paying for pictures of "pity
kittys",
> > dogs playing poker, unicorns and rainbows. Art isn't just for over
your living
> > room sofa or hanging on the wall of your doctor's office. Part of
the job of
> > art is to do things like this -- foster discussion about art and
politics and
> > life. Art is *supposed* to stir things up. There are lots of things
that I
> > don't like my tax dollars going for, but art ain't one of 'em.
> >
> > Hester Mofet
> > You cannot go against nature because when you do go against nature,
it's part
> > of nature,too. -- Love & Rockets "No New Tale to Tell"
>
>
--
Luk
Debby wrote:
> what you can do is call your local museaums and volunteer to do work for
> them and you can have more of a say at what goes up in your museums.
Do you really think a volunteer has any say?
Luk
Luk
>> What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
>> To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
>> human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
>> is art.
Doktor Pete wrote:
> it's elephant dung, not human.
That is true.
I apologize.
> this exhibition was first shown (ISTR) at the Royal Academy of
> Art in London, a body that receives no public money.
And enthusiastically received?
> Personally, I think there may be an element of bread and circuses in
> this. There's been an unbelievable amount of hype (certainly on this
> side of the Atlantic) about many of the artists involved. However, some
> of them are both popular and producing worthwhile, lasting works.
Clearly there's a sector of the public that clamors for it.
The smuttier the better.
Can we then take it the British had better sense than to
ask the taxpayers to foot the bill ?
Luk
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
> Thanks for the input Dok.
Yes, thanks Dok.
> As usual, my countrymen and women garble or get the facts
> wrong and then proceed to blunder forth frothing.
But..
> As I understand it, no public funding went to the artists in this exhibit, just
> like no funding went directly to Mapplethorpe or Andres Serrano (and I don't
> think any should).
Well whyever not?
> Some (miniscule in the large picture of wasted tax dollars and fraudulent pork
> barrel programs) tax money helps to support institutions who have the task of
> presenting contemporary art to the interested members of the public.
Some
but penny saved is a penny earned.
> Some people not only would like to censor particular art and artists, they would
> like to use their particular tastes to censor these institutions and prevent
> certain works from public view and debate.
Censor them altogether?
Now that you mention it..
> Mostly these are the same people who don't know or understand art in context and
> depth and think artists are merely slackers who put a drain on their wallets and
> prevent them from enjoying one extra $2 Mocha Latte per year
Mocha Latte?
Oh the drink.
> (which is just
> about the actual amount of real money each U.S. taxpayer contributes indirectly
> to the arts every year).
A dollar here a dollar there..
> They just like posturing, ranting, raving and being ... well , "frugal" when it
> comes to where their tax dollars and art intersect.
Intersect?
I like it.
It's so (um) graphic.
> These are the same
> taxpayers who don't even blink when billions (vs. millions for support of the
> arts) of their tax dollars go towards rebuilding their luxury condos and
> vacation homes after they build them where they are bound to be damaged by
> weather or other natural disasters.
Would you expect me to walk five miles to the water or just what?
> Luk's just a good party (as in Republican) gal.
Better than being a bad party gal.
> She can't help but start these
> dumb art threads. It would be nice if she'd study and understand these things
> in depth before chiming in with her "leaders"
But..it was the Washington Post.
I only..
> (Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich and other corrupt, career, pork barrel
> polititions).
Jesse? What did Jesse say?
> Anyway, thanks again for your perspective.
Yes thanks again, Dok.
> LS
Luk
esa...@mindspring.com
Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I can't identify any noble purpose to that exhibit. That
> it has stimulated debate is a byproduct.
No, that was its purpose, hot-pants. Mayhaps you could <mmf> post a
<heh heh HEH> binary of the subject and we'll judge from <HAR HAR>
there... BAW, HAW HAW HAW........
(I owed you)
e-tonic
Every9man
From: "Dog3" <do...@mindspring.com>
Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
...
> > Col Klink wrote:
> > > Everyone not only has a right to possess it, but you have to pay for
it,
> > > too.
> >
>
> Michael wrote:
>
> > Yes, up to and indcluding the people that disagree with it. And yes,
the
> > 1st amendment is still intact. I'm certain you would like to see it
> > rescinded along with Luk. It's not going to happen.
>
> Why are you evading the point, Michael?
> Giuliani's objection is not that disgusting art gets displayed.
> He doesn't like the fact that taxpayers are footing the bill
> for it.
>
> Luk
Well, the only suggestion I have is to legislate it and see what happens.
He is only one man and not a majority and he's voicing his opinion. He
doesn't like the fact taxpayers are footing the bill ? Well I'm sure there
are other issues he could take up to further his political goals. There are
a lot of things the taxpayers don't like footing the bill for.
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The biggest shame is that the museum will have to litigate the issue to test
the constutionality of Giuliani's fiat.
Talk about a waste of the taxpayer's money!
Barbara
Every9man
From: "Dog3" <do...@mindspring.com>
<Haya...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9567-37E...@newsd-111.bryant.webtv.net...
Michael, even WITH government-funded art only the rich can afford to go
now. Have you been to a museum lately? I know here in Boston the
local science, children's and art museums, as well as the Aquarium, cost
about $8 a person to get in, plus $10 (conservative price) parking.
Meanwhile, a person who takes a photo of a crucifix submerged in urine,
or who covers herself in chocolate, or who has photos of men with
bullwhips up their rectums gets tens of thousands of dollars. Something
is out of kilter. I'm all for free expression, but if the idea of
government funded art is to make art and culture available to the
working class, than there are 2 problems: 1) what we're funding isn't
very cultural and 2) and the working class still can't afford it.
Sounds like a noble idea, but a failed policy.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Hayabusa1
I go to the museums at least once a month. Yes it's expensive but imagine
the cost if government funding is taken ? The government bankrolls so much
other crap I don't see yanking funding on art even though some of it is
objectionable. OTOH, I do see Luk's and others points regarding this issue.
The government does not subsidize the local movie houses and we pay to get
in. I'd probably be the first to complain if the government began
subsidizing movie theatres.
Michael
The fact is Michael, that indirectly , they do. When filming takes place in
this City, who do you think pays for the extra police on duty to secure the
area?
Barbara
Cliff or Linda Griffith
> Linda said:
> >Something about this sentence bothers me. When the police line up for
> >crowd-control and melée-prevention along the parade-route of the
> >KuKluxKlan, isn't tax money being used "to force people to support free
> >speech that they might not agree with"? (Or, to avoid "Oh, no, that's
> >the right of *assembly*", change the KKK to a group carrying placards
> >with hateful slogans.)
> >
> >That's the thing about free speech: we're all supposed to support it,
> >whether we agree with what is "said", or not.
>
> should be required to donate to any cause, however objectionable, that is put
> forward by anyone. After all, say you, "we're all supposed to support" free
> speech.
No, it's the Constitution that says that, in the same general section
that says we're supposed to support gun ownership by private citizens.
>
> I don't think your analogy is proper. In your example, the cops are there to
> ensure that the free speech rights of the KKK are not violated. The proper
> analogy to that situtation is if the NYPD was forced to provide protection for
> a *privately sponsored* exhibit which inspired protests that might result in
> injury to the artists or those visiting the exhibit. I don't think most people
> would object to such a thing (some would, of course). But if, instead, our tax
> dollars were being used to *fund* that KKK march, I think there'd be lots of
> protests. The distinction may be subtle, but I think it's important--the
> government should ensure that no one's right to free speech is abridged, but
> should never be in the position of *promoting* that speech.
I see your point, but I also agree that the distinction is subtle. I
did say in another post (thread?) that I wouldn't want that art exhibit
in my area; but/and I think a referendum is in order.
What would happen (or should happen) if New Yorkers demonstrated against
the tax-supported exhibit? Should the NYPD be forced to provide
protection? You said, "provide protection for a *privately sponsored*
exhibit which inspired protests that might result in injury to the
artists or those visiting the exhibit". I don't know if it matters or
not, but I wonder which group is being protected: "the artists and
visitors" or the demonstrators? The KKK or the demonstrators against
them? I was kinda thinking that the exhibit has some right to be there,
the KKK has some right to be there, and so do the protesters...but they
came later. In the case of the KKK, I would think it'd be the
protesters who need the protection. (But that may just be because I
don't like the KKK. Haven't etched my opinion in stone about the "art"
exhibit.)
Linda
>
> Maggie
>
> "I don't pay them for sex. I pay them to leave."--Clark Gable on why he used
> prostitutes
Cliff or Linda Griffith
> I dont think talk radio is indicative of the general climate here. I think talk
> radio in general attracts the more conservative, reactionary fringe, than those
> with more liberal leanings. I dont really understand why.
Amen!!! Don't know about *everywhere*, but in the D-FW area, that's
true.
(I may be showing my "persecution complex", as Cliff says, but I feel
the need to comment about Catholicism/Christianity. You, Barbara, may
not be saying it, but I've picked up on a differentiation being made in
other people's posts from 'way back. Catholics *are* Christians.)
OTOH, I imagine that this exhibit offends some people from *all*
religions, and maybe even from none. There are probably atheists who
don't see caca as a true artistic medium.
Linda
Cliff or Linda Griffith
Begin here the list of politicians who care about anyone other than
themselves (with examples of their altruism, please):
Donna
news:19990926160318...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
> >"Donna" donn...@rocketmail.com
>
> >Sharonpo = sucking Luks' dick.
> >
> >Does he like you to rim him too?
>
>
>
> Sharonpo 20
> Luk 10
> Donna 0
I'll take that as a yes.
--
_____
Donna
"We fear things in proportion to our ignorance of them. "
-- Titus Livius
Maggie
>> >Something about this sentence bothers me. When the police line up for
>> >crowd-control and melée-prevention along the parade-route of the
>> >KuKluxKlan, isn't tax money being used "to force people to support free
>> >speech that they might not agree with"? (Or, to avoid "Oh, no, that's
>> >the right of *assembly*", change the KKK to a group carrying placards
>> >with hateful slogans.)
>> >
>> >That's the thing about free speech: we're all supposed to support it,
>> >whether we agree with what is "said", or not.
>>
>> ***But what is "support"? Under your theory, it sounds as if the government
>> should be required to donate to any cause, however objectionable, that
>is put
>> forward by anyone. After all, say you, "we're all supposed to support"
>free
>> speech.
Linda said:
>No, it's the Constitution that says that, in the same general section
>that says we're supposed to support gun ownership by private citizens.
****Does that mean we're supposed to buy them all guns?
I think you are confused about the meaning of the word "support." The second
amendment (gun ownership) is in the Bill of Rights and I can't find the word,
"support" anywhere in there. What are you talking about?
>>
maggie said:
>> I don't think your analogy is proper. In your example, the cops are there
>to
>> ensure that the free speech rights of the KKK are not violated. The proper
>> analogy to that situtation is if the NYPD was forced to provide protection
>for
>> a *privately sponsored* exhibit which inspired protests that might result
>in
>> injury to the artists or those visiting the exhibit. I don't think most
>people
>> would object to such a thing (some would, of course). But if, instead,
>our tax
>> dollars were being used to *fund* that KKK march, I think there'd be lots
>of
>> protests. The distinction may be subtle, but I think it's important--the
>> government should ensure that no one's right to free speech is abridged,
>but
>> should never be in the position of *promoting* that speech.
>
Linda said:
>I see your point, but I also agree that the distinction is subtle. I
>did say in another post (thread?) that I wouldn't want that art exhibit
>in my area; but/and I think a referendum is in order.
>
>What would happen (or should happen) if New Yorkers demonstrated against
>the tax-supported exhibit? Should the NYPD be forced to provide
>protection? You said, "provide protection for a *privately sponsored*
>exhibit which inspired protests that might result in injury to the
>artists or those visiting the exhibit". I don't know if it matters or
>not, but I wonder which group is being protected: "the artists and
>visitors" or the demonstrators? The KKK or the demonstrators against
>them? I was kinda thinking that the exhibit has some right to be there,
>the KKK has some right to be there, and so do the protesters...but they
>came later. In the case of the KKK, I would think it'd be the
>protesters who need the protection. (But that may just be because I
>don't like the KKK. Haven't etched my opinion in stone about the "art"
>exhibit.)
***It's the NYPD's job to provide protection to all citizens legally exercising
their rights. Of course they'd have to protect the artists, the museum, the
protestors, the KKK and anyone else involved.
Debby
they used it as the cover on a time travel science fiction book of mine. I have
another one, lesser well known, I don't know the name offhand. It has a big swan
and in the backround is the "desert" with all the bones. Maybe you can help me
with the name. The swan is built like a bird and a ruined building at the same
time and has a big hole in it. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Demona888 wrote:
> Debby wrote:>
> >Dear Hester: Which Dali is your favorite??? I'm just curious..... Debby
> >S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
>
> The boring one -- The Persistence of Memory.
Every9man
Date: Mon, 27 September 1999 03:37 AM EDT
Message-id: <37EF3A23...@home.com>
1.Jerrold Nadler-Rep from New York. Also on Judiciary Committee. Cant give you
examples of altruism. Anyone can always assume self interest from anything that
anyone else does, cant they?
2. Barney Frank.
That's the longest list I can think of :( Any more names would surely start a
flame war.
Barbara
Debby
wants to shut down the museum and fired the Board of Trustees. I really think he is
going too far. Second we all knew it was elephant dung, but I didn't know the
symbolism until last night. The painter is an African who is Catholic. Elephant
dung in Africa is the symbol of reserection and regeneration and he wanted to make
her a Black Maddona which is the way Africans would like to see our lady, but why
the penises and vaganias is beyond me.... But I am not offended anymore by this
painting now that I know more about it. As far as the dead animal heads, well it's
not something I want to see but how many people keep stuffed deers heads and so
forth on thier walls:) The SK pictures would not offend me at all. Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Doktor Pete wrote:
> In <37EC28AE...@mindspring.com>, Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Michael wrote:
> >
> >> There are families scrimping and saving their money to pay their tax bills
> >> all over the world. Why would you say educating people on art is trash ?
> >
> >What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
> >To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
> >human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
> >is art.
>
> The Chris Ofili picture of the Madonna is hardly "smeared" with faeces -
> besides, it's elephant dung, not human. (If you want to condemn using
> human excrement in art, the most notable example I've seen recently was
> in Gilbert & George's Naked Shit Paintings. I liked them, but then I
> come from a decadent socialist society ;) ) IMNSHO, Ofili is a
> remarkable image-maker, his works are striking and memorable, and they
> seem to be inluenced by elements of his African heritage, as well as
> contempory street culture.
>
> >On the contrary, it would appear the Brooklyn Museum has no
> >intention of educating anyone. They've chosen to use public
> >funds to hang crude and boorish trash for the public to snicker at.
> >And frankly, I've seen the same thing in Atlanta.
>
> They might snicker, but if past experience is anything to go by, it'll
> draw enormous crowds.
>
> >> Granted, I don't like every artist's work but I sure as hell enjoy a good
> >> exhibit every now and then. Take art to the private sector and the children
> >> of the future will not be able to tell you who Picasso is. Only the rich
> >> will be able to enjoy it.
> >
> >The government has never been able to spend money wisely. This
> >is just one more example. And it is unfortunate.
>
> Considering your response, I find it ironic that this exhibition was
> first shown (ISTR) at the Royal Academy of Art in London, a body that
> receives no public money.
>
> Personally, I think there may be an element of bread and circuses in
> this. There's been an unbelievable amount of hype (certainly on this
> side of the Atlantic) about many of the artists involved. However, some
> of them are both popular and producing worthwhile, lasting works.
> --
> "Mankind was born free, and is everywhere in chainstores."
> Doklands Mafia | http://www.fluxus.freeserve.co.uk
Every9man
Message-id: <37EF3474...@home.com>
Maggie wrote:
> Linda said:
> >Something about this sentence bothers me. When the police line up for
> >crowd-control and melée-prevention along the parade-route of the
> >KuKluxKlan, isn't tax money being used "to force people to support free
> >speech that they might not agree with"? (Or, to avoid "Oh, no, that's
> >the right of *assembly*", change the KKK to a group carrying placards
> >with hateful slogans.)
> >
> >That's the thing about free speech: we're all supposed to support it,
> >whether we agree with what is "said", or not.
>
> ***But what is "support"? Under your theory, it sounds as if the government
> should be required to donate to any cause, however objectionable, that is put
> forward by anyone. After all, say you, "we're all supposed to support" free
> speech.
No, it's the Constitution that says that, in the same general section
that says we're supposed to support gun ownership by private citizens.
>
> I don't think your analogy is proper. In your example, the cops are there to
> ensure that the free speech rights of the KKK are not violated. The proper
> analogy to that situtation is if the NYPD was forced to provide protection
for
> a *privately sponsored* exhibit which inspired protests that might result in
> injury to the artists or those visiting the exhibit. I don't think most
people
> would object to such a thing (some would, of course). But if, instead, our
tax
> dollars were being used to *fund* that KKK march, I think there'd be lots of
> protests. The distinction may be subtle, but I think it's important--the
> government should ensure that no one's right to free speech is abridged, but
> should never be in the position of *promoting* that speech.
I see your point, but I also agree that the distinction is subtle. I
did say in another post (thread?) that I wouldn't want that art exhibit
in my area; but/and I think a referendum is in order.
What would happen (or should happen) if New Yorkers demonstrated against
the tax-supported exhibit? Should the NYPD be forced to provide
protection? You said, "provide protection for a *privately sponsored*
exhibit which inspired protests that might result in injury to the
artists or those visiting the exhibit". I don't know if it matters or
not, but I wonder which group is being protected: "the artists and
visitors" or the demonstrators? The KKK or the demonstrators against
them? I was kinda thinking that the exhibit has some right to be there,
the KKK has some right to be there, and so do the protesters...but they
came later. In the case of the KKK, I would think it'd be the
protesters who need the protection. (But that may just be because I
don't like the KKK. Haven't etched my opinion in stone about the "art"
exhibit.)
Linda
>
> Maggie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Referendums are rarely viable as the referendum that is supposed to take place
is at the ballot box and it would be unweildy to have one on every special
interest issue.
I think they should be saved for substantial ones .
This Mayor wouldnt allow a referendum , as proposed by the City Council, as to
whether we should spend billions of dollars to relocate Yankee Stadium from the
Bronx to the middle of traffic congested Manhattan, he's not about to allow one
for this:)
Barbara
Every9man
From: Cliff or Linda Griffith <grif...@home.com>
Every9man wrote:
> I dont think talk radio is indicative of the general climate here. I think
talk
> radio in general attracts the more conservative, reactionary fringe, than
those
> with more liberal leanings. I dont really understand why.
/Amen!!! Don't know about *everywhere*, but in the D-FW area, that's
true.
/(I may be showing my "persecution complex", as Cliff says, but I feel
/the need to comment about Catholicism/Christianity. You, Barbara, may
/not be saying it, but I've picked up on a differentiation being made in
/other people's posts from 'way back. Catholics *are* Christians.)
You're right, I wasnt saying it. We could conceivably, by the numbers, be a
Christian town but we're not a Catholic one.
And you're right, others do make that differentiation. Probably because the
Catholic religion seems so very different from the other Christian ones. I
doubt anyone would refer to a Presbyterian town:)
/OTOH, I imagine that this exhibit offends some people from *all*
/religions, and maybe even from none. There are probably atheists who
/don't see caca as a true artistic medium.
/Linda
Oh, for sure. Everyone has their own special definition of what "art" is and it
usually depends on whether or not the person defining it likes the particular
work of "art" that sets off the discussion.
I think Luk's definition is extremely restrictive and I have never really heard
one that satisfies everyone, not even the more ,allegedly , sophisticated "art"
critics.
I've heard endless discussions about someone throwing colored stripes on canvas
and calling it art and yet I think Mark Rothko was one of the greatest artists
I've encountered.
Barbara
Barbara
Debby
eleaphant dung to symbolize the Black Virgin Mary the way Africans want to see
Our Lady. Eleaphant dung in Africa is the simbol of reserection and rebirth.
Why the penises and vagianas I don't know but I am not as offended as I was.
You didn't think this was done in human shit, did you???? Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk wrote:
> Luk wrote:
>
> >> What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
> >> To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
> >> human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
> >> is art.
>
> Doktor Pete wrote:
>
> > it's elephant dung, not human.
>
> That is true.
> I apologize.
>
> > this exhibition was first shown (ISTR) at the Royal Academy of
> > Art in London, a body that receives no public money.
>
> And enthusiastically received?
>
> > Personally, I think there may be an element of bread and circuses in
> > this. There's been an unbelievable amount of hype (certainly on this
> > side of the Atlantic) about many of the artists involved. However, some
> > of them are both popular and producing worthwhile, lasting works.
>
Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk wrote:
> Debby wrote:
>
> > Dear Luk: A lot of art is very gimmicky. That is because the artist
> > gets and idea and does alot of one idea in his works.
>
> That sounds more imaginative than gimmicky.
>
> Don't you think that's quite different from using a quirky
> idea as a crutch? Or from deliberately appealing to those
> seek out the vulgar for its own sake?
>
> > For instance how many impressionisic picures of
> > flowers do you want to look at or bowls of fruit :)
>
> Frankly I'm amazed, to this day, at what some people
> can do with a vase of flowers as a subject.
>
> > How about animal art where they
> > have an animal like a chimp or and elephant do it. Is it art????
>
> I commented on that earlier. I don't really think it's the
> chimp that's creating the art. I think the result depends
> on the materials the chimp is set up with, the cropping
> that's done after he's finished and perhaps even the mounting.
> You can work with kids the same way. It helps them
> learn, and the results can be lovely.
>
> > I saw a program on
> > t.v where an artist likes to cut up trees and display them with rocks, is that
> > art????
>
> It depends on the amount of creativity and design involved.
>
> I have little respect for some of things we see in
> museums. I don't think it's art when someone throws
> a coat over a hook and hangs it in a museum. Nor do
> I have any interest in looking at a simple canvas painted
> black all over. Even one with a stripe. If there's no
> craft involved, it isn't art.
>
> Luk
Debby
up. He did open a cadaver or two..... He mostly studied people and
movement. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk wrote:
> Debby wrote:
>
> > Dear Luk: I adore Rodin, although sculpture is not my favorite medium
> > the way he could make a human being look lifelike was amazing. Actually
> > most sculptors like Michelangelo and so forth always used some drawing
> > and watercolor because that's how they planned the sculptures. It's
> > amazing the study of the human body that they had to do to get it right
> > as opposed to primitive pictures that are two dimentional.
>
> I'm trying to remember what I read about Michelangelo.
> Didn't he dig up bodies to learn about all that stuff?
>
> Luk
Debby
Debby
not that big a percentage of the population. We are not only talking about
Manhattan, we are talking about all the borroughs also, Bronx, Queens, Statin
Island, etc.. New York is more of a liberal town and the Jewish vote is very
demonstrative, most Jews get into politics as a defence against political
predgeduce, but there are more Catholics then Jews and Protestants. Frankly I have
been listening to new news broadcasts about this and Gulliani wants to go to far if
he wants to shut down the Brooklyn Museum and fire the board... If you want to hear
a really interesting show go to http://www.wabcradio.com/ and go to the archives
and listen to Lynn Samuels show from yesterday. She talks about this quite
extensively. She also talks about WACO, and her support for Pat Bucannon:) It's
quite a wild show.You can also see the webpage she is trying to put up at
lynnsamuels.bigfoot.com and she answers all of her e-mail:) Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Every9man wrote:
> From: Debby <sarg...@injersey.com>
>
> /Dear Barb: Now that is a big surprize for all the Catholics that live in New
> York
> /What would you say is New Yorks major religion. By Catholic I include Greek
> and
> /Roman Orthodox, any religion that reveres the Virgin Mary.
>
> Perhaps you mean Christian Debby? For sure Christians probably outnumber any
> other religion here but there is a charge often made but never really
> substantiated that Jews here have more political power than anyone else, if
> not numbers ( and yes, I realize that I am generalizing) . Politicians are
> often sensitive to and in fact often pander to the "Jewish vote". Perhaps it
> is because Jews are known to ( and again I am aware I am generalizing) take
> their right to vote seriously and excercize same ~religiously~.
> Therefore, if anything, I"d say New York was a Jewish ( and Liberal) , not a
> Catholic ( and Conservative) town.
>
> /From what I hear no one
> /is upset with Gulliani at all over this.
>
> Perhaps we travel in different circles. Even people who find the subjects of
> the exhibit to be extrememly offensive dont wish to try to prevent someone else
> from going.
>
> /Most people agree with him. However the
> talk radio shows are getting great ratings over this subject. Some love to
> /bash
> Gulliani, it depends weather you are listening to a left wing or right wing
> radio
> /station. I don't know how Gulliani plays in other parts of the country but in
> New
> /York City its a love hate relationship:)
>
> True, but after what will be 8 years of this clown even some of his most
> fervent supporters are getting tired of his antics. Some of his closest
> political advisors have resigned rather than deal with the way he goes off at
> the mouth, saying the first thing that comes into his mind without thinking of
> the ramifications political or otherwise.
> Of the advisors he has left, too many are yes men.
>
> I dont think talk radio is indicative of the general climate here. I think talk
> radio in general attracts the more conservative, reactionary fringe, than those
> with more liberal leanings. I dont really understand why.
>
> Barbara
>
> Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
>
> Every9man wrote:
>
> > New York's not a Catholic town Debbie, and believe me, there are many of us
> > who are far more upset with Giuliani making unilateral decisions as to what
> to
> > do with our tax money than we are with an art exhibit that we dont have to
> > attend.
> > He's making a fool of himself for a change.
> > Barbara
> >
> > From: Debby <sarg...@injersey.com>
> >
> > Dear Mike: The public is not getting a good laugh. Most New Yorkers are very
> > offended. New York is a very Catholic Town and the picture of the Virgin Mary
> > has all New Yorkers very upset. The Cardinal has said he is upset. As sick as
> > he
> > is he issued a statement about it. All Catholic Orthodox people are upset.
> Even
> > the Jewish Hassidieum are upset. If you take a poll I don't think you would
> > find
> > too many people laughing. Second nobody is saying they can't show it. The
> Mayor
> > doesn't want to use tax dollars to pay for the show. Let some rich Catholic
> > basher racist pay for it. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
> >
> > Dog3 wrote:
> >
> > > x-no-archive: yes
> > >
> > > Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:37EC28AE...@mindspring.com...
> > > > Michael wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
> > > > To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
> > > > human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
> > > > is art.
> > >
> > > That is simply your opinion Luk. Yes, I find some exhibits grotesque but I
> > > would certainly never try to censor them because I might be offended.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On the contrary, it would appear the Brooklyn Museum has no
> > > > intention of educating anyone. They've chosen to use public
> > > > funds to hang crude and boorish trash for the public to snicker at.
> > > > And frankly, I've seen the same thing in Atlanta.
> > >
> > > Again, this is your opinion. If the public gets a good laugh, who is to
> say
> > > that was not the intent of the artist ?
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The government has never been able to spend money wisely. This
> > > > is just one more example. And it is unfortunate.
> > > >
> > > > Luk
> > >
> > > Well, I agree the government has never been able to spend wisely. OTOH,
> you
> > > mentioned in an earlier post, not to underestimate the private benefactors.
> > > Let us depend on private benefactors to fund the exhibits ? Sure, then
> > > you'll see censorship at it's finest.
> > >
> > > Michael
Debby
Debby S.<sarge500@injersey..co>
Lord Sir wrote:
> Thanks for the input Dok.
>
> As usual, my countrymen and women garble or get the facts wrong and then proceed
> to blunder forth frothing.
>
> As I understand it, no public funding went to the artists in this exhibit, just
> like no funding went directly to Mapplethorpe or Andres Serrano (and I don't
> think any should).
>
> Some (miniscule in the large picture of wasted tax dollars and fraudulent pork
> barrel programs) tax money helps to support institutions who have the task of
> presenting contemporary art to the interested members of the public.
>
> Some people not only would like to censor particular art and artists, they would
> like to use their particular tastes to censor these institutions and prevent
> certain works from public view and debate.
>
> Mostly these are the same people who don't know or understand art in context and
> depth and think artists are merely slackers who put a drain on their wallets and
> prevent them from enjoying one extra $2 Mocha Latte per year (which is just
> about the actual amount of real money each U.S. taxpayer contributes indirectly
> to the arts every year).
>
> They just like posturing, ranting, raving and being ... well , "frugal" when it
> comes to where their tax dollars and art intersect. These are the same
> taxpayers who don't even blink when billions (vs. millions for support of the
> arts) of their tax dollars go towards rebuilding their luxury condos and
> vacation homes after they build them where they are bound to be damaged by
> weather or other natural disasters.
>
> Luk's just a good party (as in Republican) gal. She can't help but start these
> dumb art threads. It would be nice if she'd study and understand these things
> in depth before chiming in with her "leaders"
> (Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich and other corrupt, career, pork barrel
> polititions).
>
> Anyway, thanks again for your perspective.
>
> LS
>
>
>
> In article <7slhbs$l3v$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>, dok@!spam.lart.com says...
> >
> >In <37EC28AE...@mindspring.com>, Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Michael wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are families scrimping and saving their money to pay their tax bills
> >>> all over the world. Why would you say educating people on art is trash ?
> >>
> >>What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
> >>To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
> >>human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
> >>is art.
> >
> >The Chris Ofili picture of the Madonna is hardly "smeared" with faeces -
> >besides, it's elephant dung, not human. (If you want to condemn using
> >human excrement in art, the most notable example I've seen recently was
> >in Gilbert & George's Naked Shit Paintings. I liked them, but then I
> >come from a decadent socialist society ;) ) IMNSHO, Ofili is a
> >remarkable image-maker, his works are striking and memorable, and they
> >seem to be inluenced by elements of his African heritage, as well as
> >contempory street culture.
> >
> >>On the contrary, it would appear the Brooklyn Museum has no
> >>intention of educating anyone. They've chosen to use public
> >>funds to hang crude and boorish trash for the public to snicker at.
> >>And frankly, I've seen the same thing in Atlanta.
> >
> >They might snicker, but if past experience is anything to go by, it'll
> >draw enormous crowds.
> >
> >>> Granted, I don't like every artist's work but I sure as hell enjoy a good
> >>> exhibit every now and then. Take art to the private sector and the children
> >>> of the future will not be able to tell you who Picasso is. Only the rich
> >>> will be able to enjoy it.
> >>
> >>The government has never been able to spend money wisely. This
> >>is just one more example. And it is unfortunate.
> >
> >Considering your response, I find it ironic that this exhibition was
> >first shown (ISTR) at the Royal Academy of Art in London, a body that
> >receives no public money.
> >
> >Personally, I think there may be an element of bread and circuses in
> >this. There's been an unbelievable amount of hype (certainly on this
> >side of the Atlantic) about many of the artists involved. However, some
> >of them are both popular and producing worthwhile, lasting works.
Debby
the Board. I don't agree with this. However being in New Jersey I can't do
anything about it. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com> If there are any New
Yorkers lurking out there.... DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!
Every9man wrote:
> From: "Dog3" <do...@mindspring.com>
>
> Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Maggie
>>
>> > Dear Luk: Because Hilliary doesn't care about anyone but herself. If
>she
>becomes
>> > Senator in New York I will die. I can't do anything about it, but I
>wish I
>could.
>>
>> yup
>
>Begin here the list of politicians who care about anyone other than
>themselves (with examples of their altruism, please):
>
>
>
>
Barbara said:
>1.Jerrold Nadler-Rep from New York. Also on Judiciary Committee. Cant give
>you
>examples of altruism. Anyone can always assume self interest from anything
>that
>anyone else does, cant they?
>
>2. Barney Frank.
>
>
>That's the longest list I can think of :( Any more names would surely start
>a
>flame war.
***Oh yes. And I'm sure we can *all* agree on Frank and Nadler.
Every9man
Date: Mon, 27 September 1999 11:12 AM EDT
Message-id: <19990927111259...@ng-fl1.aol.com>
>> Debby wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Luk: Because Hilliary doesn't care about anyone but herself. If
>she
>becomes
>> > Senator in New York I will die. I can't do anything about it, but I
>wish I
>could.
>>
>> yup
>
Linda said:
>Begin here the list of politicians who care about anyone other than
>themselves (with examples of their altruism, please):
>
>
>
>
Barbara said:
>1.Jerrold Nadler-Rep from New York. Also on Judiciary Committee. Cant give
>you
>examples of altruism. Anyone can always assume self interest from anything
>that
>anyone else does, cant they?
>
>2. Barney Frank.
>
>
>That's the longest list I can think of :( Any more names would surely start
>a
>flame war.
/***Oh yes. And I'm sure we can *all* agree on Frank and Nadler.
/Maggie
I could understand why you might think that Barney Frank is all about self
interest, but why do you have such distrust in Jerry?
Barbra
Maggie
>>Begin here the list of politicians who care about anyone other than
>>themselves (with examples of their altruism, please):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Barbara said:
>>1.Jerrold Nadler-Rep from New York. Also on Judiciary Committee. Cant give
>>you
>>examples of altruism. Anyone can always assume self interest from anything
>>that
>>anyone else does, cant they?
>>
>>2. Barney Frank.
>>
>>
>>That's the longest list I can think of :( Any more names would surely start
>>a
>>flame war.
>
>/***Oh yes. And I'm sure we can *all* agree on Frank and Nadler.
barbara said:
>I could understand why you might think that Barney Frank is all about self
>interest, but why do you have such distrust in Jerry?
***I am not about to be dragged into an endless discussion with you about the
relative merits of your sacred cows. Suffice it to say that appearing on
numerous night time talking-head shows does not in my book count as public
service.
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Message-id: <19990927112455...@ng-fl1.aol.com>
>Linda said:
>>Begin here the list of politicians who care about anyone other than
>>themselves (with examples of their altruism, please):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Barbara said:
>>1.Jerrold Nadler-Rep from New York. Also on Judiciary Committee. Cant give
>>you
>>examples of altruism. Anyone can always assume self interest from anything
>>that
>>anyone else does, cant they?
>>
>>2. Barney Frank.
>>
>>
>>That's the longest list I can think of :( Any more names would surely start
>>a
>>flame war.
>
maggie said:
>/***Oh yes. And I'm sure we can *all* agree on Frank and Nadler.
barbara said:
>I could understand why you might think that Barney Frank is all about self
>interest, but why do you have such distrust in Jerry?
/***I am not about to be dragged into an endless discussion with you /about the
relative merits of your sacred cows. Suffice it to say that appearing on
/numerous night time talking-head shows does not in my book count as public
/service.
/Maggie
I take that to mean that you have no idea what Jerry does or doesnt do as a
Congressperson, nor do you seem to care nor am I about to get into a pissing
match about how good he is or what he has done.
That's ok, I was just curious to know if you had any information that I didnt .
Barbara
Every9man
From: Debby <sarg...@injersey.com>
/Dear Barbara: Although there are alot of Jewish people in New York they still
are
/not that big a percentage of the population.
I think that's what I said Deb. That they were big in political power, if not
in numbers.
/We are not only talking about
/Manhattan, we are talking about all the borroughs also, Bronx, Queens, Statin
/Island, etc.. New York is more of a liberal town and the Jewish vote is very
/demonstrative, most Jews get into politics as a defence against political
/predgeduce, but there are more Catholics then Jews and Protestants.
You mean that there are more Catholics than Jews or any other Christian -sect (
if that's the right word)? I'd love to see the demographics but I somehow doubt
that there are more Catholics than Jews even taking on the entire 5 boroughs.
I'm prepared to be wrong of course:)
/Frankly I have
been listening to new news broadcasts about this and Gulliani wants to go to
far if
/he wants to shut down the Brooklyn Museum and fire the board...
Hadnt heard that one. I think he is losing it fast:) If true it probably means
that he is afraid to lose in a court challenge over the freedom of speech
issue.
Barbara
/ If you want to hear
a really interesting show go to http://www.wabcradio.com/ and go to the
archives
/and listen to Lynn Samuels show from yesterday. She talks about this quite
/extensively. She also talks about WACO, and her support for Pat Bucannon:)
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Why the penises and vagianas I don't know but I am not as offended as I was.
> You didn't think this was done in human shit, did you????
No.
But does it matter?
Luk
Luk
Debby wrote:
> Dear Luke: Then you agree with Dr. Laura, "If I can do it, it aint art".
I agree with Doctor Laura about a lot of things.
She explained before she said it that she is has no
artistic talent. I have no quarrel with that statement.
What she means is that much of the art that takes
up valuable museum space today displays no talent
whatsoever. It's just a gimmick - something to
"entertain" based on the fact that the artist "got
away with something", such as hanging a coat on
a hook and calling it art.
Luk
Debby
Actually most local politicians are very altruistic because they work for no money.
Your town councils, planning boards, shcool boards, (except for Newark and New York
because of corruption) get no money and are voluntary. I would say there are alot
of altruistic politicians and thank God for them:) Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Every9man wrote:
> Subject: Re: "Intolerable and Egregious"
> From: Cliff or Linda Griffith <grif...@home.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 September 1999 03:37 AM EDT
> Message-id: <37EF3A23...@home.com>
>
> Luk wrote:
> >
> > Debby wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Luk: Because Hilliary doesn't care about anyone but herself. If she
> becomes
> > > Senator in New York I will die. I can't do anything about it, but I wish I
> could.
> >
> > yup
>
> Begin here the list of politicians who care about anyone other than
> themselves (with examples of their altruism, please):
>
> 1.Jerrold Nadler-Rep from New York. Also on Judiciary Committee. Cant give you
> examples of altruism. Anyone can always assume self interest from anything that
> anyone else does, cant they?
>
> 2. Barney Frank.
>
> That's the longest list I can think of :( Any more names would surely start a
> flame war.
>
> Barbara
Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Maggie wrote:
> >> Debby wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dear Luk: Because Hilliary doesn't care about anyone but herself. If
> >she
> >becomes
> >> > Senator in New York I will die. I can't do anything about it, but I
> >wish I
> >could.
> >>
> >> yup
> >
> Linda said:
> >Begin here the list of politicians who care about anyone other than
> >themselves (with examples of their altruism, please):
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Barbara said:
> >1.Jerrold Nadler-Rep from New York. Also on Judiciary Committee. Cant give
> >you
> >examples of altruism. Anyone can always assume self interest from anything
> >that
> >anyone else does, cant they?
> >
> >2. Barney Frank.
> >
> >
> >That's the longest list I can think of :( Any more names would surely start
> >a
> >flame war.
>
> ***Oh yes. And I'm sure we can *all* agree on Frank and Nadler.
>
Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com> Now there is an example of an artist that got
gimmicky....
Every9man wrote:
> From: Cliff or Linda Griffith <grif...@home.com>
>
> Every9man wrote:
> > I dont think talk radio is indicative of the general climate here. I think
> talk
> > radio in general attracts the more conservative, reactionary fringe, than
> those
> > with more liberal leanings. I dont really understand why.
>
Debby
posts. The artist was an african catholic and the elephand dung is ment to
symbolize regeneration and rebirth. He wanted a black madonna which is the way
Africans want to see Our Lady. I wish we had an African lurker to say weather he
thought it would bee offensive. I have added an African newsgroup to find
out. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Luk
Lord Sir wrote:
> Well, Debby, every once in a while you really pleasently surprise me.
>
> You went from your initial reaction to gathering more facts and information and
> learned something new , opened your mind, drew new conclusions and shared the
> information with us. Thanks. I had a feeling the elephant dung had a cultural
> connotation which we are unfamiliar with. It won't surprise me if there is a
> similar cultural connotation to the use of sexual organs in the art work.
Oh please....
> Too many people are simply too quick to pass judgement on things they really
> just don't fully understand.
Don't understand or don't swallow?
Luk
Desilets
Before your compliments go to Debby's head, she is wrong.
The artist is not African, he is British. He spent a whole of 6 weeks in
Africa , the rest of his art career in England. This whole art exhibit has
been described more of a social satire and not a cultural connotation. I
have no idea where she got that idea. I quote from another AP article this
morning : .."The artist has said he used the pornographic images because
classical images of Mary are often sexually charged."
From Feb 1999 Salon Magazine
"Modern art is a load of bullshit"
-----------------WHY CAN'T THE ART WORLD ACCEPT SOCIAL
-------------------SATIRE FROM A BLACK ARTIST?
BY BENJAMIN IVRY
British artist Chris Ofili hardly looks the type to foment revolutions: A
handsome, diminutive man, the 30-year-old looks African, but he was born in
Manchester and has spent his entire art career in England -- except for six
weeks in Africa, where he got the idea to use elephant dung as a substance
in his art, for its sculptural qualities and metaphorical resonance. Not
straight out of the elephant, mind you, but chemically treated to avoid
putrefaction, odor and flies -- unlike the gruesome work of his colleague,
British artist Damien Hirst, whose cross-sectioned cows and other rotting
animalia have offended gallery goers for some time now. In contrast to
Hirst's putrefyingly sinister work and aggressively grubby persona, Ofili is
self-confident and good-humored, given to disarming asides in interviews,
such as his declaration about his sculpture "Elephantastic," which displays
a sculpted cock and hairy balls: "My balls are hairy."
Yet when Ofili recently won 20,000 pounds sterling as part of the Tate
Gallery's noted Turner Prize, reaction was ill-humored indeed: The Web site
ArtNet snobbily commented that Ofili is "known for garishly colored,
ethnic-naive paintings with chunks of elephant dung attached to their
surfaces." The assessment echoed a Brit tabloid's headline about a previous
show at the Royal Academy featuring Ofili's work: "Foul Porn Invades Brit
Art Gallery." An enraged British military draughtsman dumped a wheelbarrow
of cow manure on the sidewalk in front of the exhibit, to prove that "modern
art is a load of bullshit." It's a sentiment with which Ofili himself might
agree.
It's hard to escape the conclusion that what has offended some people about
Ofili is not just the elephant dung, but the combination of a black artist
and dung. The military draughtsman admitted that while he was no fan of
Hirst's dead animals, Ofili's dung was "the final straw." Yet Ofili is, in
addition to being an imaginative artist, also a humorist and social critic
of the art scene. He placed boxed ads in the tony Brit art magazine Frieze
that read, simply, "Elephant Shit," amid ads announcing other art shows. He
used lumps of dung to prop up some of his paintings. "Somehow it makes the
painting feel more relaxed, instead of being pinned upon the wall like it's
being crucified ... [The painting can] stand in its own shit and watch the
other paintings being crucified on the wall." He has placed dung in a paper
bag for his installment "Bag of Shit," and in 1993, held a Shit Sale in
Brick Lane Market in London. He has played with the street parlance of
"shit" as drugs, and the fact that some people have assumed he was selling
drugs because of his dreadlocked hairstyle -- hence his work "Shithead": a
piece of elephant dung, which resembles hashish, incorporating his own hair.
Ofili is all too aware of ethnic categorizing in the art world, which
expects a black artist to be naive, tribal or shamanistic, and so declares
about his six weeks in Zimbabwe: "It's [a] great country, but it's a foreign
country for me and the idea of looking for your roots and stuff is
ridiculous." He sees his success of the moment as having a token aspect, due
to the fact that "maybe there aren't many good artists that coincidentally
happen to be within the mainstream category of a British artist: white,
heterosexual, more often than not, men." Ofili's art, despite its serious
treatment of problems of culture and "sexual stereotyping," as the Turner
Award citation points out, is also often amusing. The Turner Prize, despite
its traditional-sounding name, has only existed since 1984 and was judged
this year by a hardly academic small group that included Pet Shop Boy Neil
Tennant and offbeat author Marina Warner.
Still, one of the last taboos for black artists is that of laughter: We are
accustomed to somber, portentous and grandiose personalities like Nobel
Prize-winner Toni Morrison. But what can prepare a gallery-goer for Ofili's
works, which carefully offer a scroll with the name of the elephants from
British zoos who donated the material -- Liang-Liang from London Zoo, Geetza
or Eza, the latter two, Ofili explains, being "the same elephant, in fact,
but it's got two names." With the celebratory gusto of Laurent de Brunhoff's
Babar the elephant books, or F. Poulenc's orchestral suite they inspired,
Ofili follows the elephants, not just for joy but for decorative power. He
points out: "I'm interested in ideas of beauty ... and elephant dung in
itself is quite a beautiful object. But a different sort of beauty. And I
want to bring the kind of beauty and decorativeness of the paintings
together with the apparent concept of ugliness of the shit and put them
together and try and make them exist."
But if some Brits seem unhappy with the idea of a droll black artist, the
American art scene can be even more humorless. A recent Whitney Museum
retrospective of gifted African-American artist Bob Thompson (1937-1966), an
inspired combination of Nicolas Poussin, Emil Nolde and James Thurber,
produced an admirable catalog published by the Whitney and the University of
California Press. However, critics focused mainly on Thompson's death by
drug overdose in his 20s, comparing him to Jean-Michel Basquiat, with whom
he had nothing in common apart from being black. Thompson's art was given a
murky, ill-focused cataloging by an unknown and unidentified Africanist
scholar named Shamim Momin. But it cries out for analysis by someone as
astutely entrenched in the Western art tradition as he himself was.
What brings creators like Thompson and Ofili together is more than their
insistence on individuality, and the humor and beauty of their work; it's
that they both refuse to be pigeonholed in any way. The brouhaha following
Ofili's prize shows that his social satire is needed more than ever in the
art world today. Not that he was humbled at all by the violent reaction --
as he climbed the rostrum to accept his Turner Prize, he reportedly
deadpanned: "Thank God. Where's my check?"
SALON | Feb. 10, 1999
I grew up in NYC and concede Debby was correct in NY having a
larger Catholic population than Jewish. NYC is far from a Jewish town.
For NYC demographics:
http://post.sunyit.edu/rashids/demo2.htm
Desilets
Lord Sir wrote in message <7so7vv$5...@edrn.newsguy.com>...
>Well, Debby, every once in a while you really pleasently surprise me.
>
>You went from your initial reaction to gathering more facts and information
and
>learned something new , opened your mind, drew new conclusions and shared
the
>information with us. Thanks. I had a feeling the elephant dung had a
cultural
>connotation which we are unfamiliar with. It won't surprise me if there is
a
>similar cultural connotation to the use of sexual organs in the art work.
>
>Too many people are simply too quick to pass judgement on things they
really
>just don't fully understand.
>
>LS
>
>
>
>In article <37EF7B64...@injersey.com>, Debby says...
>>
>>Dear Doctor Pete: First of all the only "circus" is by Gulliani himself.
He says
>>he
>>wants to shut down the museum and fired the Board of Trustees. I really
think he
>>is
>>going too far. Second we all knew it was elephant dung, but I didn't know
the
>>symbolism until last night. The painter is an African who is Catholic.
Luk
> > I can't identify any noble purpose to that exhibit. That
> > it has stimulated debate is a byproduct.
E-ffusive wrote:
> No, that was its purpose, hot-pants.
Was not.
> Mayhaps you could <mmf> post a
> <heh heh HEH> binary of the subject and we'll judge from <HAR HAR>
> there... BAW, HAW HAW HAW........
>
> (I owed you)
Did not.
Well I used to do binaries here. But then I got cut off.
Doesn't work any more. I just get a snippy error message.
Anyway, are you going to share your sensitivities
with us? What are your views on elephant dung?
Luk
Debby
radio show. I gave the website if you want to listen to it. It is
http://www.wabcradio.com You can listen to it on your G2 player. The show was
last night from 6-9:00. You probably would enjoy it, she talks about WACO and Pat
Bucannon and how much she detests Clinton lately:) Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Lord Sir wrote:
> Thanks for posting this. No time to reply more fully. I wonder if Debby can
> provide some cites to back up her information ?
>
> Debby ?
>
> LS
>
> In article <#LSnkxRC$GA.345@cpmsnbbsa05>, "Desilets" says...
Mark Denman
They are not there to defend the Rights of the KKK. The KKK (or the
Nation of Islam) have the Right to Assembly and Freedom of Speech. The
Police do not infringe on that Right. It is not the KKK which requires
the police presence - it is the decision of the jurisdiction the march
is held in to prevent riots and injury.
Now, if the art display were held in a private gallery that was under
threat of firebombing or riot or what have you, then there would be a
reason to use taxpayer money to protect life and preserve public order.
But there is no duty to pay money to the people putting on the show.
--
Mark Denman ~W.W.J.J.D.?~ <"what would judge judy do?">
=======================================================================
the ALARUMS-L mailing list - a chatty forum about pencil and paper RPGs
http://lists.accglobal.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=alarums&text_mode=0
Mark Denman
judged. Just say "I'm an artist" and find a place at the public tit.
Cliff or Linda Griffith
snippets:
Maggie wrote:
>
> >> Linda said:
> >> >That's the thing about free speech: we're all supposed to support it,
> >> >whether we agree with what is "said", or not.
> >>
> maggie said:
> >> ***But what is "support"? Under your theory, it sounds as if the government
> >> should be required to donate to any cause, however objectionable, that
> >is put
> >> forward by anyone. After all, say you, "we're all supposed to support"
> >free
> >> speech.
>
> Linda said:
> >No, it's the Constitution that says that, in the same general section
> >that says we're supposed to support gun ownership by private citizens.
>
> ****Does that mean we're supposed to buy them all guns?
>
> I think you are confused about the meaning of the word "support." The second
> amendment (gun ownership) is in the Bill of Rights and I can't find the word,
> "support" anywhere in there. What are you talking about?
If you've read any of my posts to the gun-threads, you should know that
I'm not advocating buying guns for anybody.
I'm not confused about the meaning of the word "support", and I think
you and I both understand the various uses quite well. In addition to
"to maintain or provide for (a person, institution, etc.) with money, or
subsistence", SUPPORT means "to give approval to or be in favor of;
subscribe to; uphold", and *that's* the way I was using it. And I think
you knew that, all along.
"Disingenuous" seemed to be the Word of the Month sometime back, and I
think it accurately describes your interpretation of my statements
quoted above. "Support" will have to be the WotM for October, I guess,
because "lacuna" appears to have been selected for September.
Linda
Maggie
***Well, pardon me. When you introduced the word "support" into a thread about
government funding of artists, I naturally assumed you meant *monetary*
support. So which side of the issue are you on? I don't think anyone is
arguing that the artists' rights to produce and display their art should be
taken away. And I don't believe any of us is asking that people be required to
"give approval to" or "be in favor of" art that isn't pleasing to us. In
practice then, what does this "support" mean?
Every9man
From: Mark Denman <mde...@pacbell.net>
/There is no true ART anymore - there are no standards by which ART is
/judged. Just say "I'm an artist" and find a place at the public tit.
--
/Mark Denman ~W.W.J.J.D.?~ <"what would judge judy do?">
Define "true art" please and please provide any description available of how,
by who and why these "standards" are set.
Barbara
Every9man
himself:)
Barbara
From: Debby <sarg...@injersey.com>
Dear Barbara: ... Barney Frank is hysterical:) Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Actually most local politicians are very altruistic because they work for no
money.
Your town councils, planning boards, shcool boards, (except for Newark and New
York
because of corruption) get no money and are voluntary. I would say there are
alot
of altruistic politicians and thank God for them:) Debby
S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Every9man wrote:
> Subject: Re: "Intolerable and Egregious"
> From: Cliff or Linda Griffith <grif...@home.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 September 1999 03:37 AM EDT
> Message-id: <37EF3A23...@home.com>
>
> Luk wrote:
> >
> > Debby wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Luk: Because Hilliary doesn't care about anyone but herself. If she
> becomes
> > > Senator in New York I will die. I can't do anything about it, but I wish
I
> could.
> >
> > yup
>
> Begin here the list of politicians who care about anyone other than
> themselves (with examples of their altruism, please):
>
> 1.Jerrold Nadler-Rep from New York. Also on Judiciary Committee. Cant give
you
> examples of altruism. Anyone can always assume self interest from anything
that
> anyone else does, cant they?
>
> 2. Barney Frank.
>
> That's the longest list I can think of :( Any more names would surely start a
> flame war.
>
> Barbara
esa...@mindspring.com
Luk <lukn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> E-ffusive wrote:
> > No, that was its purpose, hot-pants.
>
> Was not.
Probably not, but it sounded all clinically serious and stuff. Had ya
going there for a second, didn't I, like I was going to reveal that I'm
actually DMC?
> > (I owed you)
> Did not.
"E-jected."
> Well I used to do binaries here. But then I got cut off.
> Doesn't work any more. I just get a snippy error message.
Yeah, that Netscape sure gets tricky. Just don't use DJN or you'll get
called a troll by a couple of trolls.
> Anyway, are you going to share your sensitivities
> with us? What are your views on elephant dung?
You'd look hot in it. Of course, you'd look hot in a paper bag. I
don't know what it is, but you make me nuts. Mmmmm.
e-ja... no, e-racer
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Luk
> From: Mark Denman <mde...@pacbell.net>
>
> /There is no true ART anymore - there are no standards by which ART is
> /judged. Just say "I'm an artist" and find a place at the public tit.
Barbara wrote:
> Define "true art" please and please provide any description available of how,
> by who and why these "standards" are set.
Isn't that the problem?
You appear to expect your fellow taxpayers to fund
that which has no definition and no standards.
Luk
Doktor Pete
wrote:
>Thanks for the input Dok.
>
>As usual, my countrymen and women garble or get the facts wrong and then proceed
>to blunder forth frothing.
Oh believe it, plenty of my countrymen and women like to fume about
subjects they know nothing about as well. The UK tabloid press raises
anti-intellectualism to the state of being a virtue.
>As I understand it, no public funding went to the artists in this exhibit, just
>like no funding went directly to Mapplethorpe or Andres Serrano (and I don't
>think any should).
I think you're right. Many (most? all?) of the works are from the
private collection of Charles Saatchi, the UK's largest art collector.
Visual artists make their money from one-off sales, not from public
exhibitions.
>Some (miniscule in the large picture of wasted tax dollars and fraudulent pork
>barrel programs) tax money helps to support institutions who have the task of
>presenting contemporary art to the interested members of the public.
One worry I do have is that any money being spent is raising the value
of the Saatchi collection, as it gains further exposure and notoriety.
He's a very rich man (and a bit of a bastard by all accounts) and hardly
needs anyone else's money to increase his net worth. All that said,
it's the single most "important" collection of contemporary British art,
and to deny it a public would be churlish.
>Some people not only would like to censor particular art and artists, they would
>like to use their particular tastes to censor these institutions and prevent
>certain works from public view and debate.
>
>Mostly these are the same people who don't know or understand art in context and
>depth and think artists are merely slackers who put a drain on their wallets and
>prevent them from enjoying one extra $2 Mocha Latte per year (which is just
>about the actual amount of real money each U.S. taxpayer contributes indirectly
>to the arts every year).
Ouch. I don't know the figures for public arts funding in the UK, but I
do know that we're very near the bottom of the European league table.
>They just like posturing, ranting, raving and being ... well , "frugal" when it
>comes to where their tax dollars and art intersect. These are the same
>taxpayers who don't even blink when billions (vs. millions for support of the
>arts) of their tax dollars go towards rebuilding their luxury condos and
>vacation homes after they build them where they are bound to be damaged by
>weather or other natural disasters.
>
>Luk's just a good party (as in Republican) gal. She can't help but start these
>dumb art threads. It would be nice if she'd study and understand these things
>in depth before chiming in with her "leaders"
>(Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich and other corrupt, career, pork barrel
>polititions).
Well, that's the benefit of having a smaller economy over here. For the
most part, you can't make enough money out of political corruption, and
thus have to stay in the corporate sector. Mind you, the Public Finance
Initiative looks like it might have corrected that little drawback...
>Anyway, thanks again for your perspective.
Yours too.
Doktor Pete
wrote:
>Luk wrote:
>
>>> What is the goal of the Brooklyn Museum in setting up this exhibit?
>>> To educate the public? If so they're educating the public that
>>> human waste is art - and that smearing the Virgin Mary with feces
>>> is art.
>
>Doktor Pete wrote:
>
>> it's elephant dung, not human.
>
>That is true.
>I apologize.
That's OK. I can easily believe that there's already a lot of
misinformation about Sensation.
>> this exhibition was first shown (ISTR) at the Royal Academy of
>> Art in London, a body that receives no public money.
>
>And enthusiastically received?
For the most part, very much so. It drew the largest crowds that the RA
had seen in many years. It was a *very* atypical exhibition for them -
the RA tends to specialise in works by DWEMs.
>> Personally, I think there may be an element of bread and circuses in
>> this. There's been an unbelievable amount of hype (certainly on this
>> side of the Atlantic) about many of the artists involved. However, some
>> of them are both popular and producing worthwhile, lasting works.
>
>Clearly there's a sector of the public that clamors for it.
There certainly is.
>The smuttier the better.
Nothing in Sensation (unless Sarah Lucas's photograph of herself wearing
boots and smoking a fag is in it - I don't recall) is half as sensuous
as Georgia O'Keefe's paintings, sadly.
>Can we then take it the British had better sense than to
>ask the taxpayers to foot the bill ?
It wasn't an option. It was a private exhibition at a private venue.
The present government (and most previous ones, to be fair) is terrified
of public disapproval by spending money on the arts. It's got to the
stage where the Royal Opera House is closed most of the time, because
they can't afford to stage any productions. I'm no lover of opera -
most works between Monteverdi and Philip Glass set my teeth on edge -
but I think it's a deplorable state of affairs.
Luk
> > > No, that was its purpose, hot-pants.
> >
> > Was not.
>
> Probably not, but it sounded all clinically serious and stuff. Had ya
> going there for a second, didn't I, like I was going to reveal that I'm
> actually DMC?
DMC dmc DMC d M c......
I won't sleep tonight until I figure out who DMC is.
Oh well..as long as the D doesn't stand for Democrat..
> > > (I owed you)
> > Did not.
>
> "E-jected."
only by rec.toys.cars
> > Anyway, are you going to share your sensitivities
> > with us? What are your views on elephant dung?
>
> You'd look hot in it. Of course, you'd look hot in a paper bag. I
> don't know what it is, but you make me nuts. Mmmmm.
I figured I'd lost out to Kojak.
If you'd rather not tell us how you stand on elephant dung,
that's OK by me. I'm really frazzled from trying to explain
the facts of life to Lord Sir. It's been rough.
> e-ja...
edgy?
Luce