Piss Christ
Kerro
Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
I personally think it's a great looking image but some people might have
objections to it. *Does* anyone in a.p. object to it, for whatever
reason? (No it doesn't mean you're a lamer if you do - I'm just curious).
--
Kerro.
http://www.darkstar.com.au/~kerro
Reg Braddock
On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 12:33:40 -0700, Kerro <ke...@darkstar.com.au> wrote:
>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>
>I personally think it's a great looking image but some people might have
>objections to it. *Does* anyone in a.p. object to it, for whatever
>reason? (No it doesn't mean you're a lamer if you do - I'm just curious).
Ok, firstly my _personal_ reaction to the image: I don't like it. I
would also like to voice my objection to the public funding of art on
the basis of its coercive nature.
That said, I see no reason for the image to be banned. It is
Serrano's (?) right to express himself as he sees fit and it is the
right of adults to see his work if they so desire. If someone doesn't
want to, then my advice to them is not to attend. It's so simple.
This does raise another issue. With respect to X-rated videos, the
fe(d)eral govt. decided that it doesn't feel that the same consenting
adults who may see the works of Serrano or Maplethorpe in an art
gallery should not be able to see the same genre of image (esp sado
masochistic erotica) on video or in a magazines. I do not understand
why videos and magazines are deemed to be inherently corrupting
whereas images in an art gallery are not. The only thing that comes
to mind is that those who see themselves as the elite of the land
believe that they should be able to witness what they wish, whereas us
plebs, well....
So, bottom line in Canberra seems to be:
S&M or scat in a art gallery = art and gets public funding.
S&M or scat in a magazine or video = porn and will cause the world to
come to an end. Not to mention that is purchased or rented by only
those people who wish to view it.
I may be getting dimmer as the years progress, but I just do not
understand the distinction.
Reg.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen."
Aristotle.
af...@hotmail.com
Kerro <ke...@darkstar.com.au> wrote:
>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>I personally think it's a great looking image but some people might have
>objections to it. *Does* anyone in a.p. object to it, for whatever
>reason? (No it doesn't mean you're a lamer if you do - I'm just curious).
>--
>Kerro.
>http://www.darkstar.com.au/~kerro
Doesn't offend me personally but I understand why a lot of people
would be offended. I wonder if he would have done it if it would have
offended Muslim sensibilities.
The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks
Kerro <ke...@darkstar.com.au> writes:
>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>I personally think it's a great looking image but some people might have
>objections to it. *Does* anyone in a.p. object to it, for whatever
>reason? (No it doesn't mean you're a lamer if you do - I'm just curious).
I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly implies disrespect
to Christians. Serrano obviously went for a soft target. If it was as an
image of a rabbi sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry defaming Allah then
he'd have been issued with a fatwah and be in hiding.
What does offend me about this whole business however, is that:
a. People consider the breaking of social taboos to be creative art
b. The work is being exhibited by a Government body, and therefore
c. It's MY taxes which end up paying Serrano to build a career based upon
expressing filth which is way below the standards of mainstream society.
As far as I'm concerned, the only displayable art which represents true
talent is the odd nice painting. Anyone who wants to wrap a mannekin in
barbwire, paint it green and cover it in hundreds and thousands can bloody
well pay for it themselves.
The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks
S...@below.if you.want (Stephen) writes:
>In article <61ioh7$5...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,
> alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big
>Bollocks) wrote:
>>What does offend me about this whole business however, is that:
>>a. People consider the breaking of social taboos to be creative art
>Well, what about Caravaggio, Da Vinci and Michelangelo? considered shocking in
>their time.
Great. I assume when you're not posting here you spend your time cruising
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality looking for the next ground-
breaking masterpiece.
>>b. The work is being exhibited by a Government body, and therefore
>The government has a duty to promote art, without putting fetters on it in the
>name of decency.
Great. How much do you think I'd get for a blurred Polaroid my mate took
of me vomiting in a rugby club toilet a few years ago? I'll call it
"Pissed Cougar", start talking about intersubjectivity and the $ should
come rolling in...
>>c. It's MY taxes which end up paying Serrano to build a career based upon
>>expressing filth which is way below the standards of mainstream society.
>In twenty years, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
>That is unless you want to return to the Victorian days when table legs were
>covered up less they offend public decency.
And will they enjoy having funded it? I look back on some of the "art"
produced in 1977 and ask myself how the hell anyone, let alone a
government, could fund such bollocks.
>>As far as I'm concerned, the only displayable art which represents true
>>talent is the odd nice painting. Anyone who wants to wrap a mannekin in
>>barbwire, paint it green and cover it in hundreds and thousands can bloody
>>well pay for it themselves.
>So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then? Pity, a little bit
>of work by one of them is worth more than you will earn in your lifetime.
Nope. It's generally only cashed up poofs who seem to enjoy them.
>Remember Blue poles? That was a great investment, not only artistically, but
>financially as well.
It's all a bit like that chip ad they had on TV awhile ago... you know the
one? For Thins, I think.
Troy Heywood
>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>
>I personally think it's a great looking image but some people might have
>objections to it. *Does* anyone in a.p. object to it, for whatever
>reason? (No it doesn't mean you're a lamer if you do - I'm just curious).
>--
>Kerro.
>http://www.darkstar.com.au/~kerro
I object to it on the grounds that it has about as much
artistic merit as a shit in a bucket. Once again, the attempts to
censor what is at best a mediocre attempt at art (re: Mapplethorpe)
has simply given publicity beyond the artist's dreams to their less
than impressive works. I didn't even know about the Mapplethorpe stuff
until I saw a doco with Jesse Helms going off on his biblical and
moralistic tangents about how damaging it was to the minds of
innocents etc etc. Bad art, designed purely for shock effect (as
opposed to genuine art that has shock value as a by-product) should be
ignored and left to stew in it's own juices (no pun intended) in the
art gallery where no-one will probably bother looking at it.
If anything though, it exposed how the Jeff K critics refuse
to acknowledge they appear to have a genuine small-l liberal (as in
the classical sense, not American style) leader who isn't prepared to
make policy based on theological dogma. I also question this notion
that the separation between art and pornography is whether its in a
gallery or not. It's a rather elitist view to claim that only
something in a gallery constitutes art when the term art has been used
to embrace such universalist expressions of the self. Suffice to say,
I doubt people will look back in twenty years on Serrano and classify
this particular work as "an artistic triumph".
--
Troy Heywood
E-mail at tr...@cobweb.com.au or tro...@hotmail.com
Visit my web page at http://www.cobweb.com.au/~troyh
tk
S...@below.if you.want (Stephen) wrote, in the context of a debate on
"piss christ"
>Ever read the satanic verses ? ... apart from being a tedious piece of
>intellectual waffle, it really is offensive to muslims. Whilst disagreeing
>entirely with the concept of a Fatwah, Rushdie must have been a complete moron
>if he honestly thought that the Muslims would not react angrily.
I certainly don't want to get into a debate about "piss christ"
because I haven't seen it, and generally with works of art you need to
stand in front of them and look at them for awhile in order to take
them in. With paintings, it has to be the originals, by the way.
Gauguin for example hadn't done much for me till I saw the originals.
It is also important to distinguish between explicit subject matter
and the artistic intent disclosed to a viewer who keeps their
perceptions open.
But the comments about Rushdie! I have read every one of Rushdie's
works, and he is a fine novelist: to say that the "Satanic Verses" is
a "tedious piece of intellectual waffle" is simply wrong and quite
unworthy of even debating.
...We are afloat
On our dreams as on a barge made of ice,
Shot through with questions and fissures of starlight
That keep us awake, thinking about the dreams
As they are happening.
-- My Erotic Double, John Ashbery
fra...@nospam.onaustralia.com.au
Peter Mackay
In article <61ioh7$5...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,
alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Pl wrote:
> I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly implies disrespect
> to Christians. Serrano obviously went for a soft target. If it was as an
> image of a rabbi sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
> seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry defaming Allah then
> he'd have been issued with a fatwah and be in hiding.
I'm all in favour of ridiculing religions. If their gods were worth a pinch
of parrot poop, they'd have struck down the offending image, or at least
swayed the judge's deliberations.
~ m
u U Cheers!
\|
|> -Peter Mackay
/ \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
_\ /_
Peter Mackay
In article <61k7o0$c...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,
alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Pl wrote:
> >So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then? Pity, a little bit
> >of work by one of them is worth more than you will earn in your lifetime.
>
> Nope. It's generally only cashed up poofs who seem to enjoy them.
I'm not a cashed-up poof, and I enjoy Blue Poles. I prefer the landscapes
and portraiture upstairs, but Blue Poles is a fascinating piece of work. I
have a 1 000 piece jigsaw puzzle of it, which is an enjoyable way to spend
a morning.
psilocybe
It's just a photo, it is supposed to make you think, it is not intended
to replace your opinion or force you to DO anything like lose your faith
or go to hell. I think most people who are offended are not actually
offended, they just know that they SHOULD be offended and react
accordingly.
Philski
--
Please Note: Any opinions expressed above are mine and in no way
connected with the Australian National Review. (webmaster only)
For a different view of the Australian Political Scene, have a tour of
the AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL REVIEW. http://www.spirit.com.au/anreview/ .
A politically incorrect forum of opinion and comment,
where YOUR input is welcome. The review is a national
magazine, this site features highlights Editor: Alan Fitzgerald.
martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kerro <ke...@darkstar.com.au> writes:
>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
It is an interesting issue. What level of censorship is appropriate to
art? My gut feeling is that the image is ok, but on the other hand I'm
not sure I would feel the same way about an image disrespectful of
Islam, or many other minorites in Australia. On the other hand, I am
certainly in favour of Salman Rushdie's right to publish Satanic
Verses. I think that one distinction is that an image or other artform
disrespectful to a minority is more likely to be an attack, where an
artform disrespectful to a dominant paradigm is more easily considered
to have artistic or legitimate critical properties. I guess in either
case, the bottom line is that art should be extended the benefit of
the doubt. Even if it offends me, or anyone else, it should be allowed
to stand unless it is at the extreme end of the spectrum. I think
everyone knows what extreme is, and I could give examples, but they
would be a bit too unpleasant to post.
Martin
mar...@ix.net.au
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBND1+aMO85JRlUevmEQKc9ACeInfz/sJ0ZQFQ44JyI+uEbBHOGD0AoLey
3yaTZfQKIN5QzJyDFj8/QE81
=X/7e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kerro
Mark Addinall wrote:
>
> Kerro wrote:
> >
> > Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
> >
> > objections to it. *Does* anyone in a.p. object to it, for whatever
> > reason? (No it doesn't mean you're a lamer if you do - I'm just curious).
>
> I do find it offensive that a picture of me taking a shit
> over a Budda image, or indeed a little plastic abo would
> be banned at once as the most vile form of vilification.
Well, it's "Performance Art", innit...?
>
> Make freedom of speech fee, or do not. The in-between
> annoys me.
I don't know...the in-between is probably the best we're ever going to
get. (Except for Usenet, of course).
---
Kerro.
http://www.darkstar.com.au/~kerro
Kerro
Helen Darville wrote:
[...]
>
> 1) The image doesn't offend me. If it wasn't for the giveaway title (and
> the controversy), I wouldn't know the origin of the red/orange
> colouring.
Right. If it was called "Christ in Gold", it could sit on the mantelpiece
of even the most devout Christian.
>
> 2) I can see how some people, particularly Christians, could be offended
> by it. However, no-one is forcing them to go to the art gallery and view
> it. Their offence should not be allowed to impinge on the freedom of
> those who choose to view it.
A fairly common viewpoint...
>
> 3) As the Greased Cougar (I think) and a few other people have pointed
> out, the crucifixion is something of a "soft target". It is easy to mock
> the dominant culture, simply because it's everywhere. It's even become
> vaguely trendy to do so. Can anyone imagine a musician/writer/artist
> doing, say, a "Piss Jahweh" or even a "Muhammad Prophet Superstar" and
> living to tell the tale?
I don't know that it's particularly *trendy* to mock Christianity. That
was probably more the case 10-20 years ago - kind of old hat now....
>
> 4) Freedom of speech cuts both ways. If we grant it to Serrano and his
> "Piss Christ", then we have to grant it to those who mock or denigrate
> minority religions and groups.
Sure, why not?
--
Kerro.
http://www.darkstar.com.au/~kerro
The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks
Rebecca Dominguez <mi...@mail.ozramp.net.au> writes:
>Politically, I am offended as it seems to be that it is popular to be
>"anti christian".. kinda politically correct. And that is (in my
>opinion) why it has been allowed to stay in the gallery.
>It is not trendy to be anti other religions, or maybe they are listened
>to much more for some reason.
Because people who were Christians 500 years ago were un-nice to people
who weren't Christians 500 years ago. Therefore, PC logic dictates that
current anti-Christian stuff is simply "balancing the books".
Sludge
alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Planet
Big Bollocks) wrote:
>Kerro <ke...@darkstar.com.au> writes:
>
>>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>
>>I personally think it's a great looking image but some people might have
>>objections to it. *Does* anyone in a.p. object to it, for whatever
>>reason? (No it doesn't mean you're a lamer if you do - I'm just curious).
>
>I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly implies disrespect
>to Christians. Serrano obviously went for a soft target. If it was as an
>image of a rabbi sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
>seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry defaming Allah then
>he'd have been issued with a fatwah and be in hiding.
>
>What does offend me about this whole business however, is that:
>a. People consider the breaking of social taboos to be creative art
>b. The work is being exhibited by a Government body, and therefore
>c. It's MY taxes which end up paying Serrano to build a career based upon
>expressing filth which is way below the standards of mainstream society.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, the only displayable art which represents true
>talent is the odd nice painting. Anyone who wants to wrap a mannekin in
>barbwire, paint it green and cover it in hundreds and thousands can bloody
>well pay for it themselves.
Propping up a cross in piss is brilliant art. Otherwise it would not
have caused the fuss it did. Art is all about presenting alternatives,
creating new concepts, knocking down cultural towers of bullshit and
hitting hypocrisy hard where it hurts.
If there is anything on earth today that truly demonstrates the
sickness of human society and the blind gullibility of a great many
people, it is the sadistic indoctrination of children by the
persistent waving of this gross symbol of torture in front of their
eyes until they become completely desensitized, brainwashed and
subservient to a ruthless, authoritarian and oppressive subculture.
Serrana is a genius!
Mark Addinall
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> In article <61k7o0$c...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,
> alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Pl wrote:
>
> > >So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then? Pity, a little bit
> > >of work by one of them is worth more than you will earn in your lifetime.
> >
> > Nope. It's generally only cashed up poofs who seem to enjoy them.
>
> I'm not a cashed-up poof, and I enjoy Blue Poles. I prefer the landscapes
> and portraiture upstairs, but Blue Poles is a fascinating piece of work. I
> have a 1 000 piece jigsaw puzzle of it, which is an enjoyable way to spend
> a morning.
Keeps you out of the way on a cold morning in the slammer
I suppose.
Mark.
The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks
pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter Mackay) writes:
>In article <61ioh7$5...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Pl wrote:
>> I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly implies disrespect
>> to Christians. Serrano obviously went for a soft target. If it was as an
>> image of a rabbi sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
>> seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry defaming Allah then
>> he'd have been issued with a fatwah and be in hiding.
>I'm all in favour of ridiculing religions. If their gods were worth a pinch
>of parrot poop, they'd have struck down the offending image, or at least
>swayed the judge's deliberations.
Don't worry Pete. I'm sure if your mobile phone explodes next time you
answer it (a favoured trick of Mossad I'm told) then most ppl on this
newsgroup would think it was God's will. :)
Rebecca Dominguez
Helen Darville wrote:
> 2) I can see how some people, particularly Christians, could be offended
> by it. However, no-one is forcing them to go to the art gallery and view
> it. Their offence should not be allowed to impinge on the freedom of
> those who choose to view it.
No.. no one if forcing us to see it, but we are being forced to pay for
the exhibition through our taxes and I don't think that that is fair.
Rebecca
Joseph Askew
Stephen (S...@below.ifyou.want) wrote:
: >>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
Nope. Not in the slightest. I'm more offended by the morons who
think that this sort of juvenile masturbation is art.
: >I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly implies disrespect
: >to Christians. Serrano obviously went for a soft target. If it was as an
: >image of a rabbi sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
: >seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry defaming Allah then
: >he'd have been issued with a fatwah and be in hiding.
: Ever read the satanic verses ? ... apart from being a tedious piece of
: intellectual waffle, it really is offensive to muslims. Whilst disagreeing
: entirely with the concept of a Fatwah,
: Rushdie must have been a complete moron
Actually the Satanic Verses aren't that offensive to Muslims. Going
on the descriptions I've heard of the offending bits. But then old
Rushdie is both a well known leftie and a Muslim himself. So he can
get away with it. If Bruce Ruxton wrote it who would bet that he
would face the modern left wing equivalent of a Blasphemy charge
in front of the Race Relations industry?
: if he honestly thought that the Muslims would not react angrily.
He probably thought they were as spineless as all the Christians
he has made a living out of insulting over the years.
: >What does offend me about this whole business however, is that:
: >a. People consider the breaking of social taboos to be creative art
: Well, what about Caravaggio, Da Vinci
: and Michelangelo? considered shocking in
: their time.
Produce a shred of evidence that Da Vinco or Michelangelo were ever
considered shocking. Caravaggio might have been but not for his Art
but for his life. People tend to object to Artists who beat people
to death. This is modern mythology in the making. Modern Art has
lost the ability to appeal to the eye and so relies on hype instead.
Which demands press attention. Which in turns demands that Art be
shocking and "confrontational". Which Piss Christ was intended to
be.
: >b. The work is being exhibited by a Government body, and therefore
: The government has a duty to promote art,
No it doesn't. It is a pleasant task that governments like to dabble
in. So they can appear to be modern Renaissance Princes I assume.
But there is no duty involved.
: without putting fetters on it in the
: name of decency.
Pig's Arse. The government does exist to put the fetters on expression.
Whether that is for commercial reasons, or racial or simple good taste.
This is why Salo is still unshowable.
: >c. It's MY taxes which end up paying Serrano to build a career based upon
: >expressing filth which is way below the standards of mainstream society.
: In twenty years, people will look back and
: wonder what all the fuss was about.
So you say. Based on what I wonder?
: That is unless you want to return to the Victorian days when table legs were
: covered up less they offend public decency.
I suggest you produce a shred of evidence that any table legs were ever
covered up in Victorian times lest they offend public decency. And your
moronic argument, aside from being stupid beyond belief, is also a total
Strawman. For the last 2000 years (more or less) such images were
illegal, but tablelegs were uncovered. The choice is not between any
expression or none. There is a world of grey you ignore.
: >As far as I'm concerned, the only displayable art which represents true
: >talent is the odd nice painting. Anyone who wants to wrap a mannekin in
: >barbwire, paint it green and cover it in hundreds and thousands can bloody
: >well pay for it themselves.
: So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then?
In common with all other people with any sense of taste of style,
no they are not. They are rather sad really. At least Warhol had
the sense to hold what he did in proper contempt. I wonder what
he would have thought of Piss Christ.
: Pity, a little bit
: of work by one of them is worth more than you will earn in your lifetime.
True but then the world is full of morons and idiots with government
funding. Not one of them would survive a day without support from
the governments and the big foundations.
: Remember Blue poles? That was a great investment, not only artistically, but
: financially as well.
It was a total waste of money, assuming that common sense and good
taste will eventually triumph. If it was a good financial investment
I suggest we sell it now and realise whatever return we can get before
people wise up about such things.
Joseph
--
Here's to Sam and Shari Askew on the birth of Ethan John & Isaac David
I think Spam should NOT be sent to root@localhost, postmaster@localhost,
abuse@localhost, root@bizserve, webm...@cyberpromo.com, cust...@usps.gov
and most of all not to pres...@whitehouse.gov, first...@whitehouse.gov
Kerro
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> In article <61k7o0$c...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,> > >So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then? Pity, a little bit
> > >of work by one of them is worth more than you will earn in your lifetime.
> >
>
> I'm not a cashed-up poof, and I enjoy Blue Poles. I prefer the landscapes
> and portraiture upstairs, but Blue Poles is a fascinating piece of work. I
> have a 1 000 piece jigsaw puzzle of it, which is an enjoyable way to spend
> a morning.
Good to hear. I'm not a cashed-up poof either but I've got a Jackson
Pollock print in my lounge room wall (also a Rothko and a Picasso - I
*am* a wanker, however).
--
Kerro.
http://www.darkstar.com.au/~kerro
CRK
S...@below.if you.want (Stephen) wrote:
>In article <61ioh7$5...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,
> alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big
>Bollocks) wrote:
>>Kerro <ke...@darkstar.com.au> writes:
>>>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
Not particularly, but I don't consider it that nice to look at either.
>>c. It's MY taxes which end up paying Serrano to build a career based upon
>>expressing filth which is way below the standards of mainstream society.
>In twenty years, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
>That is unless you want to return to the Victorian days when table legs were
>covered up less they offend public decency.
I have no wish to go back to that era, but I sure as hell don't want
the money which our government makes me part with end up getting spent
on something so utterly useless in my eyes - refer to quote below.
>-----------------------------------------
>Stephen O'Dowd
>"If you can't talk about it, point to it"
>sodowdathotmaildotcom
>-----------------------------------------
C. R. K.
"Art is in the eye of the beholder"
David Moss
pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>In article <61ioh7$5...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Pl wrote:
>> I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly implies disrespect
>> to Christians. Serrano obviously went for a soft target. If it was as an
>> image of a rabbi sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
>> seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry defaming Allah then
>> he'd have been issued with a fatwah and be in hiding.
>I'm all in favour of ridiculing religions. If their gods were worth a pinch
>of parrot poop, they'd have struck down the offending image, or at least
>swayed the judge's deliberations.
You miss the point Peter. The image is offensive to Christians,
whether it is offensive to Christ, or God is between the artist and
said deity. During the Gulf War we made sailors apologise when it was
revealed they had performed actions offensive to Islam when they were
at sea. (clowning around with towels on their heads) Consistency
demands we should respect the feelings of Christians when offensive
material is displayed in one of our capital cities.
As for blasphemers being struck down, the latest "Darwin Awards"
release has a good story along those lines. It seems a party were out
fishing when a thunderstorm threatened. Other boats began heading back
to shore but the award nominee, instead of weighing anchor and heading
in, stood up in the bows, arms outstretched and screamed "Here I am
God, come and get me !" Seconds later he was burned to a crisp by a
direct hit from a bolt of lightning. Two surviving members of the
party joined the ministry shortly afterwards.
David Moss,
personal opinion only.
http://www.geocities.com/~dmoss for information on
Living in Australia - without Deadly Deliverance
Helen Darville
Rebecca Dominguez wrote:
> No.. no one is forcing us to see it, but we are being forced to pay for
> the exhibition through our taxes and I don't think that that is fair.
You are also forced to pay for Medicare, the Australian Armed Forces,
ATSIC, Centrelink, the public University system, schools, and the
Australia Council through your taxes. You may well object to your tax
money going to support any or all of those government bodies. However,
your tastes (artistic or otherwise) do not determine how tax dollars are
distributed.
By all means protest against how your tax dollars are spent. Write to
Jeff Kennett. (But remember that there are times when we all have to
watch our tax monies go towards something we don't approve). Register
your irritation with him next time you're at the ballot box.
I'm glad that Serrano is able to exhibit his "Piss Christ". I'm also
glad that I have the choice to go to the art gallery, or to stay away.
And I don't mind my tax dollars going to fund exhibitions in art
galleries. The same batch of funding also gave us the wonderful
Rembrandt exhibition.
Personally, I'd have Rembrandt over Serrano any day. That's my taste.
And I can no more impose my taste on you - or anyone else - than fly to
the moon by flapping my arms. Choice is the issue. Freedom of choice.
David Moss wrote:
> During the Gulf War we made sailors apologise when it was revealed they had
> performed actions offensive to Islam when they were at sea. (Clowning around with
> towels on their heads). Consistency demands we should respect the feelings of
> Christians when offensive material is displayed in one of our capital cities.
David has a good point here, although my instinct is to go in the
opposite direction vis a vis freedom. The politically correct clown who
pasted our sailors for playing "raghead" in the middle of a war zone is
just as big an enemy of free speech as the people who try to get Serrano
banned from public view. An integral part of freedom is the freedom to
offend. Without exception.
Cheers,
Helen Darville
---------------------------------------------------
Visit me at http://www.uq.edu.au/~enhdemid
---------------------------------------------------
af...@hotmail.com
Sludge wrote:
>alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Planet
>Big Bollocks) wrote:
>>Kerro <ke...@darkstar.com.au> writes:
>>
>>>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>>
>>>I personally think it's a great looking image but some people might have
>>>objections to it. *Does* anyone in a.p. object to it, for whatever
>>>reason? (No it doesn't mean you're a lamer if you do - I'm just curious).
>>
>>I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly implies disrespect
>>to Christians. Serrano obviously went for a soft target. If it was as an
>>image of a rabbi sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
>>seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry defaming Allah then
>>he'd have been issued with a fatwah and be in hiding.
>>
>>What does offend me about this whole business however, is that:
>>a. People consider the breaking of social taboos to be creative art
>>b. The work is being exhibited by a Government body, and therefore
>>c. It's MY taxes which end up paying Serrano to build a career based upon
>>expressing filth which is way below the standards of mainstream society.
>>
>>As far as I'm concerned, the only displayable art which represents true
>>talent is the odd nice painting. Anyone who wants to wrap a mannekin in
>>barbwire, paint it green and cover it in hundreds and thousands can bloody
>>well pay for it themselves.
>Propping up a cross in piss is brilliant art. Otherwise it would not
>have caused the fuss it did. Art is all about presenting alternatives,
>creating new concepts, knocking down cultural towers of bullshit and
>hitting hypocrisy hard where it hurts.
So if I drop a truck load of horseshit on your driveway and called it
art you'd come rushing out to congratulate me for "creating new
concepts, presenting alternatives" etc etc and call me brilliant?
Very easy to praise Serrano's work when when you're not the one being
offended.
Boris Nazarov
> 2) I can see how some people, particularly Christians, could be offended
> by it. However, no-one is forcing them to go to the art gallery and view
> it. Their offence should not be allowed to impinge on the freedom of
> those who choose to view it.
>
I am a christian and I am extremely offended by that piece of trash
Serrano calls
art. Of course, no one is forced to view it in the gallery, but it has
recieved wide
media coverage, on the television and the newspapers, you cannot say
people choose
not to watch or look at it because the person does not have choice over
the matter.
The image was created to offend people, and does not have anything to
do with
art at all. He got his 15 minutes of fame. How about some consideration
for
others. Imagine the outcry if the image was of an aboriginal who was
being
pissed on, it would not have even been shown in the gallery. He is the
one
who should be censored and vilified.
Boris Nazarov.
Tim Archer
David Moss <d-m...@adfa.oz.au> wrote
> pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter Mackay) wrote:
> >I'm all in favour of ridiculing religions. If their gods were worth
> >a pinch of parrot poop, they'd have struck down the offending image,
> >or at least swayed the judge's deliberations.
Sounds fair to me. I think most religions have such ridiculous doctrines,
that they're simply begging to be derided.
> You miss the point Peter. The image is offensive to Christians,
> whether it is offensive to Christ, or God is between the artist and
> said deity. During the Gulf War we made sailors apologise when it was
> revealed they had performed actions offensive to Islam when they were
> at sea. (clowning around with towels on their heads) Consistency
> demands we should respect the feelings of Christians when offensive
> material is displayed in one of our capital cities.
Sailors representing Australia overseas in an official diplomatic capacity
is *completely* different from an individual's artwork hanging in an
Australian gallery. You know that.
Anyway, I (along with my "followers") find Sidney Nolan's works offensive.
The portrayal of the human form in such an artificial manner is against our
religion. When is the National Gallery going to remove Nolan's paintings
for our sake?
Tim
The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks
madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) writes:
>In aus.politics Helen Darville <enhd...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>[..]
>: I'm glad that Serrano is able to exhibit his "Piss Christ". I'm also
>: glad that I have the choice to go to the art gallery, or to stay away.
>: And I don't mind my tax dollars going to fund exhibitions in art
>: galleries. The same batch of funding also gave us the wonderful
>: Rembrandt exhibition.
>[..]
>Whilst I believe in the absolute Right of people like Serrano to publish
>works like "Piss Christ" the fact that such "artists" exist at all is a
>result of taxpayer funding. Great artists and authors don't need public
>funding, the worthiness of their works is proven by the willingness of
>people to pay good money for them.
>And what are we to make of the 1994-95 Australia Council Book Publishing
>Subsidy of $17,028 paid to Allen And Unwin to publish 4 books, including
>your work "The Hand that Signed the Paper"? Why do you suppose that book
>required subsidising?
>If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
>why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
>is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
Yeah, what he said.
Phil Herring
In article <61rrff$sj$1...@preeda.internex.net.au> David S. Maddison, madd...@connexus.apana.org.au writes:
>If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
>why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
>is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
Therefore:
David Maddison is hypocritical if he visits any of this country's
public art galleries, because they are publicly funded.
David Maddison is hypocritical if he watches ABC TV, or listens
to ABC radio, because they are publicly funded.
David Maddison is hypocritical if he watches almost any Australian
movie, because most of them are subsidised by tax breaks.
Capitalism doesn't do some things well - in particular, it doesn't
consistently permit cultural production by everyone. Government subsidies
are just one way of correcting this deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1997 Phil Herring. This article may not be reproduced for profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
you.want
In article <343e2...@139.134.5.33>,
fra...@sleepwalker.apana.org.au (tk) wrote:
>S...@below.if you.want (Stephen) wrote, in the context of a debate on
>"piss christ"
>
>
>>intellectual waffle, it really is offensive to muslims. Whilst disagreeing
>>entirely with the concept of a Fatwah, Rushdie must have been a complete moron
>But the comments about Rushdie! I have read every one of Rushdie's
>works, and he is a fine novelist: to say that the "Satanic Verses" is
>a "tedious piece of intellectual waffle" is simply wrong and quite
>unworthy of even debating.
Shame really... thats the point of this medium. Debate.
I've read a bit of Rushdie as well, enjoyed some of it. Satanic Versus is deadly
dull IMHO.
Phil Herring
In article <61rv6e$65p$1...@preeda.internex.net.au> David S. Maddison, madd...@connexus.apana.org.au writes:
>I have little choice in the matter. I'd prefer to visit galleries which
>were privately funded. What's wrong with the notion of private
>philanthropy as is common in the US? Virtually all the great art
>galleries and museums there (eg. Smithsonians) are funded by philanthopic
>trusts and donations.
Good. Now make that happen here. (I won't even mention that contributions to
public institutions in the USA are often tax-deductable, making a mockery
of your claim of altruism on the part of the donors.) In the meantime, vote
against parties that spend your taxes in ways that you don't like.
>Well, why should they be? Australia can produce international-standard
>movies which make it in commercial markets. The existence of subsidies
>just makes producers lazy so they are less inclined to produce commercial
>successes. OK, so someone's going to say, "if you only make 'commercial'
>movies, then no 'cultural' type movies will be produced". Well, maybe they
>will, maybe they won't. If there is as much demand for these types of
>movies as is claimed, then they should be commercial successes. If not,
>then why should 99% of the population subsidise something which only 1% is
>going to watch?
Obviously I have to point out to you that the movie industry is incredibly
profit-driven. Government subsidies to it are just the same as subsidies to
any other industry, with the key difference that films cost a great deal of
money to make, and have only a small chance of returning a profit. No
government subsidy? No films. Just like the period from the 1930s to the
1960s.
Then there are the flow-on benefits of having a strong movie industry -
tourism, national pride, stuff like that. You know, taxes get paid, people
get jobs. Maybe there's more to this than you thought.
>As I have said, private ownership doesn't have to equate to commercial
>profit. I'd like to see more philanthopic trusts set up, and I'd like to
>seem more Australians take responsibility for what they view, read, hear
>etc., rather than sit back and expect government agencies, at the
>direction of special interest groups, tell them.
I've omitted most of your post, because the same theme appears throughout -
namely, that there are "special interest groups" and minorities determining
government policy. This contains two fallacies, and one major oversight:
1. Fallacy: the "special interest group" bogeyman implies its Other -
namely, some kind of "us" that has no special interests. This is clearly
bollocks. I have special interests, Dave Maddison has special interests,
the bastard that kept me up all night with his stereo turned up full blast
has special interests. There is no "other", there is no majority - we're
all our own minorities, we're all free to badger politicians for handouts.
As a professed libertarian, David should know this full well.
2. Fallacy: the government is being pushed around by "special interest
groups". This implies that the government can be pushed around by small
groups of people. They are neither that susceptible to pressure, nor that
amenable to spending money. The so-called "special interest groups" are
usually quite large, and represent a significant proportion of the
population - maybe not more than 50%, but enough for their interests to be
worth representing.
3. Oversight: subsidies to the arts are simply subsidies to an industry. It
happens to be an industry whose products have a value that is hard to
measure, but it's still an industry that employs people, pays taxes, and
has a product.
David S. Maddison
In aus.politics Helen Darville <enhd...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
[..]
: I'm glad that Serrano is able to exhibit his "Piss Christ". I'm also
: glad that I have the choice to go to the art gallery, or to stay away.
: And I don't mind my tax dollars going to fund exhibitions in art
: galleries. The same batch of funding also gave us the wonderful
: Rembrandt exhibition.
[..]
Whilst I believe in the absolute Right of people like Serrano to publish
works like "Piss Christ" the fact that such "artists" exist at all is a
result of taxpayer funding. Great artists and authors don't need public
funding, the worthiness of their works is proven by the willingness of
people to pay good money for them.
And what are we to make of the 1994-95 Australia Council Book Publishing
Subsidy of $17,028 paid to Allen And Unwin to publish 4 books, including
your work "The Hand that Signed the Paper"? Why do you suppose that book
required subsidising?
If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
David Maddison
David Wareing
In article <3440D5...@mailbox.uq.edu.au>, Helen Darville
<enhd...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
[snip]
> I'm glad that Serrano is able to exhibit his "Piss Christ". I'm also
> glad that I have the choice to go to the art gallery, or to stay away.
> And I don't mind my tax dollars going to fund exhibitions in art
> galleries. The same batch of funding also gave us the wonderful
> Rembrandt exhibition.
You're glad that you have the *choice* to vist an art gallery (or
to stay away) but you're also glad that other people's money is
spent on art exhibitions, regardless of whether or not these
people *choose* to support the arts. How do you reconcile this?
> Personally, I'd have Rembrandt over Serrano any day. That's my taste.
> And I can no more impose my taste on you - or anyone else - than fly to
> the moon by flapping my arms. Choice is the issue. Freedom of choice.
Again, why doesn't this same "Freedom of choice" apply to the
funding of art? If I don't want to see Serrano's work, or any
other artistic exhibition, why should I or anyone else have to
subsidise your tastes? If you prefer Rembrandt to Serrano, then
you should have the option to pay to see Rembrandt instead of Serrano
(assuming exhibitions aren't provided free via philanthropy or other
non-taxpayer funded means.)
> David Moss wrote:
>> During the Gulf War we made sailors apologise when it was
>> revealed they had performed actions offensive to Islam when
>> they were at sea. (Clowning around with towels on their heads).
>> Consistency demands we should respect the feelings of
>> Christians when offensive material is displayed in one of our
>> capital cities.
[excuse my interruption here as I respond to David Moss indirectly]
Let's pretend for a minute that I've created a new religious
order called, say, "The Church of the Holy Proboscis". One of the
tenets of my new church is that a woman's nose is a holy object
and one to be revered. So sacred is the nose of a woman that it
must be kept hidden at *all* times (even if the woman is alone)
lest the infidels catch a glimpse.
As a mark of respect for my "feelings" (as you put it), I *demand* that
all women cover their faces permanently. No pictorial representations
of the nose are allowed. No billboards with ads for toothpaste (unless
accompanied with the appropriate nose patch). No bare faces on
television, and most definitely no pornographic noses in seedy
art exhibitions. If you do not agree with my reasonable demands,
I will be forced to take legal action against you and will
attempt to persuade the courts to censor your nose. Perhaps a few
of my brethren will even take to your nose with a hammer.
So, David, are you going to respect the feeling" of the members
of my church? Perhaps you are you just going to write the church off
as an isolated and obviously deluded minority? But, surely "consistency"
in your approach would require that you accede to my demands, no?
Or does the amount of "respect" increase with the number of
people affected? In that case, do minority groups in our society
earn less respect?
Or, do you think that I, as a member of my church, should
grow up and accept that in a highly diverse and complex society,
I need to understand that people will have views and beliefs that
are wildly different from mine, and that I have no right to
enforce my religious views on anyone else, morally or legally?
> David has a good point here, although my instinct is to go in the
> opposite direction vis a vis freedom. The politically correct clown who
> pasted our sailors for playing "raghead" in the middle of a war zone is
> just as big an enemy of free speech as the people who try to get Serrano
> banned from public view. An integral part of freedom is the freedom to
> offend. Without exception.
An "integral part of freedom", it would appear to me, would be the
ability to choose if I want to pay to be offended or not.
--
David Wareing dwar...@adelaide.on.net
Macintosh Game Development <www.ambrosiasw.com/~dwareing>
Get Swoop from <www.ambrosiasw.com>
Get Bubble Trouble from <www.bubbletrouble.com>
you.want
In article <61pg5g$k99$3...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
>Stephen (S...@below.ifyou.want) wrote:
>
>: >>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>Nope. Not in the slightest. I'm more offended by the morons who
>think that this sort of juvenile masturbation is art.
>: >I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly implies disrespect
>: >to Christians. Serrano obviously went for a soft target. If it was as an
>: >image of a rabbi sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
>: >seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry defaming Allah then
>: >he'd have been issued with a fatwah and be in hiding.
>: Ever read the satanic verses ? ... apart from being a tedious piece of
>: intellectual waffle, it really is offensive to muslims. Whilst disagreeing
>: entirely with the concept of a Fatwah,
>: Rushdie must have been a complete moron
>Actually the Satanic Verses aren't that offensive to Muslims. Going
>on the descriptions I've heard of the offending bits.
My reading of it says otherwise.
<snip>
>: >What does offend me about this whole business however, is that:
>: >a. People consider the breaking of social taboos to be creative art
>: Well, what about Caravaggio, Da Vinci
>: and Michelangelo? considered shocking in
>: their time.
>Produce a shred of evidence that Da Vinco or Michelangelo were ever
>considered shocking.
Ever? how about this?
On its unveiling in Florence in 1501, onlookers stoned Michelangelo's
"David," breaking off an arm.
At Forest Lawn Memorial Park in California, the penis on a reproduction of
"David" was masked with a fig leaf from 1939-69; its removal caused complaints.
In 1969,a poster of "David" in a book shop in Australia was seized by the Sydney
vice squad.
Michelangelo's "Last Judgment" fresco in the Sistine Chapel proved
controversial even before its unveiling in 1541. Blaylo de Cesena, the
papal master of ceremonies, warned Pope Paul III, that its nudes were
"better suited to a bathroom or roadside wine shop than to a chapel of
the Pope." In 1558, veils, draperies and skirts were added. The work was
the basis of the publication "Dialogue on the Error of Painters" (1564)
by Andrea Gilio da Fabriano, which denigrated nudity in painting.
In 1933, a New York court declared a set of pictures of the fresco obscene.
Caravaggio might have been but not for his Art
>but for his life. People tend to object to Artists who beat people
>to death. This is modern mythology in the making. Modern Art has
>lost the ability to appeal to the eye and so relies on hype instead.
That kind of glib generalisation I would normally look for in the Sun-Herald. If
you believe that the only purpose of art is to be 'pleasing' to the eye you
should stick to glossy magazines.
>Which demands press attention. Which in turns demands that Art be
>shocking and "confrontational". Which Piss Christ was intended to
>be.
No-one 'demands' that Art be anything except conservative prudes like you.
>: >b. The work is being exhibited by a Government body, and therefore
>: The government has a duty to promote art,
>No it doesn't. It is a pleasant task that governments like to dabble
>in. So they can appear to be modern Renaissance Princes I assume.
>But there is no duty involved.
Once again we come back to your glossy magazine view of the world. I suppose
warm and comfortable is a value with which you identify ?
>: without putting fetters on it in the
>: name of decency.
>Pig's Arse. The government does exist to put the fetters on expression.
>Whether that is for commercial reasons, or racial or simple good taste.
>This is why Salo is still unshowable.
This contradictory rubbish basically sums up your stance.
>: >c. It's MY taxes which end up paying Serrano to build a career based upon
>: >expressing filth which is way below the standards of mainstream society.
>: In twenty years, people will look back and
>: wonder what all the fuss was about.
>So you say. Based on what I wonder?
History / experience see above.
>: That is unless you want to return to the Victorian days when table legs were
>: covered up less they offend public decency.
>I suggest you produce a shred of evidence that any table legs were ever
>covered up in Victorian times lest they offend public decency. And your
>moronic argument, aside from being stupid beyond belief, is also a total
>Strawman. For the last 2000 years (more or less) such images were
>illegal, but tablelegs were uncovered. The choice is not between any
>expression or none. There is a world of grey you ignore.
And a world of grey in which you wallow.
>: >As far as I'm concerned, the only displayable art which represents true
>: >talent is the odd nice painting. Anyone who wants to wrap a mannekin in
>: >barbwire, paint it green and cover it in hundreds and thousands can bloody
>: >well pay for it themselves.
>: So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then?
>In common with all other people with any sense of taste of style,
>no they are not.
Other people like The Tate museum, JP Getty, Gugenheim, The Queen. name me one
Gallery anywhere in the world that would reject work by any of the above?
They are rather sad really. At least Warhol had
>the sense to hold what he did in proper contempt. I wonder what
>he would have thought of Piss Christ.
He'd have loved it. Piss Christ is rubbish .. no two ways about it. Self
important wankers like yourself make it into something else.
>: Pity, a little bit
>: of work by one of them is worth more than you will earn in your lifetime.
>True but then the world is full of morons and idiots with government
>funding. Not one of them would survive a day without support from
>the governments and the big foundations.
This is gross hypocrisy coming from a goverment funded institution like Monash.
not to mention being blatant right wing political correctness.
>: Remember Blue poles? That was a great investment, not only artistically, but
>: financially as well.
>It was a total waste of money, assuming that common sense and good
>taste will eventually triumph. If it was a good financial investment
>I suggest we sell it now and realise whatever return we can get before
>people wise up about such things.
Once again you anoint yourself as the arbiter of taste and style.
David S. Maddison
In aus.censorship Phil Herring <rev...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
: In article <61rrff$sj$1...@preeda.internex.net.au> David S. Maddison, madd...@connexus.apana.org.au writes:
: >If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
: >why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
: >is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
: Therefore:
: David Maddison is hypocritical if he visits any of this country's
: public art galleries, because they are publicly funded.
I have little choice in the matter. I'd prefer to visit galleries which
were privately funded. What's wrong with the notion of private
philanthropy as is common in the US? Virtually all the great art
galleries and museums there (eg. Smithsonians) are funded by philanthopic
trusts and donations.
: David Maddison is hypocritical if he watches ABC TV, or listens
: to ABC radio, because they are publicly funded.
I'd like to see the ABC and SBS privatised. As for SBS, its virtually
being run as a private station anyway and ABC-TV is getting close. I see
no problem with being able to produce "cultural", documentary or "arty"
type productions in a private organisation. And remember, when I say
"private" I don't meand "commercial" or for-profit. There are numerous
examples of private not-for-profit community organisations that exist.
: David Maddison is hypocritical if he watches almost any Australian
: movie, because most of them are subsidised by tax breaks.
Well, why should they be? Australia can produce international-standard
movies which make it in commercial markets. The existence of subsidies
just makes producers lazy so they are less inclined to produce commercial
successes. OK, so someone's going to say, "if you only make 'commercial'
movies, then no 'cultural' type movies will be produced". Well, maybe they
will, maybe they won't. If there is as much demand for these types of
movies as is claimed, then they should be commercial successes. If not,
then why should 99% of the population subsidise something which only 1% is
going to watch?
: Capitalism doesn't do some things well - in particular, it doesn't
: consistently permit cultural production by everyone. Government subsidies
: are just one way of correcting this deficiency.
As I have said, private ownership doesn't have to equate to commercial
profit. I'd like to see more philanthopic trusts set up, and I'd like to
seem more Australians take responsibility for what they view, read, hear
etc., rather than sit back and expect government agencies, at the
direction of special interest groups, tell them.
David Maddison
Matt McLeod
On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:20:04 +1000,
Helen Darville <enhd...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
:David S. Maddison wrote:
:
:> Whilst I believe in the absolute Right of people like Serrano to publish
:> works like "Piss Christ" the fact that such "artists" exist at all is a
:> result of taxpayer funding. Great artists and authors don't need public
:> funding, the worthiness of their works is proven by the willingness of
:> people to pay good money for them.
:I pretty much agree with you, David. The simple fact is that Australian
:governments over quite a few years have created an arts culture at least
:partly dependent on state support. You're right - there should be more
:private arts-based philanthropy (as there is in the US). However,
:encouraging Australian business to step in and support the arts when
:government has been doing just that for so long is a difficult task.
Even without Government arts funding, I find it highly unlikely that
business would provide much support for the arts - there is some support
already, but nothing on the scale of public funding as it stands.
If a business is to consider donating money to "the arts", it first has to
decide if that donation will be beneficial to the company - making an
anonymous donation for no gain would be rather irresponsible.
That benefit is likely to come in two forms:
* advertising - better value from sponsoring sports events
* tax writeoff - not applicable in Australia.
If we want to move the arts from public to private funding, then it would be
necessary to make donations tax deductable - in which case "the taxpayer"
pays anyway through reductions in the tax take.
--
Matt McLeod | "When you're in the jungle, watch it -
m...@attila.apana.org.au | It's a playground out there..."
David Moss
In aus.politics you write:
>> David Moss wrote:
>>> During the Gulf War we made sailors apologise when it was
>>> revealed they had performed actions offensive to Islam when
>>> they were at sea. (Clowning around with towels on their heads).
>>> Consistency demands we should respect the feelings of
>>> Christians when offensive material is displayed in one of our
>>> capital cities.
>[excuse my interruption here as I respond to David Moss indirectly]
>Let's pretend for a minute that I've created a new religious
>order called, say, "The Church of the Holy Proboscis". One of the
>tenets of my new church is that a woman's nose is a holy object
>and one to be revered. So sacred is the nose of a woman that it
>must be kept hidden at *all* times (even if the woman is alone)
>lest the infidels catch a glimpse.
There are many fanatical and fundementalist religions in the world.
My own answer is that the amount of public respect we should show
to each should be measured according to a number of factors:
1) Their number in proportion to the Australian population
2) acceptability of their customs to the majority of Australians
3) practicality of respecting their customs without infringing
the rights of other Australians
4) the international repercussions of being seen as disrespectful.
5) the effect failure to respect a custom has on the believers.
If the majority of the country hold particular beliefs there is a strong
argument for not deliberately upsetting those people.
If a small minority hold beliefs, however bizarre, we should still try
to show respect for those beliefs in a realistic way. Not showing a nose
when visiting the houses and temples of your example would be appropriate,
forcing 99% of the population to cover their noses in public is not.
It is not just religion which should be respected in this way, but customs
in general. Walking down the street stark naked for instance, may upset
a lot of people. Walking about naked on screened private property would
not. There are numerous examples of why we quite rightly modify our
behaviour out of respect for other people, and many laws which enforce
such "respect".
While it may be "hip" to hang s**t on Christians while sticking up for
minorities such as Aborigines, this doesn't make it right. It is fun
for those who insult, Christianity teaches tolerence so Christians are
an easy target. Again this doesn't make it right to insult them, especially
when we show such disproportionate respect for other beliefs.
[cut]
>So, David, are you going to respect the feeling" of the members
>of my church?
At the very least I would not deliberately go out of my way to insult
them. Publicly displaying a model of their goddess's nose immersed
in urine would probably be out of line. On the other hand, expecting
the majority of the population to modify their behaviour is also silly.
The answer is somewhere in between, and will always remain a matter
for politics to decide.
>An "integral part of freedom", it would appear to me, would be the
>ability to choose if I want to pay to be offended or not.
Since the exhibition was funded by tax, and held in a publicly funded
building, it seems Christians have to pay whether they ant the object
to be seen or not.
Hold the exhibition in private, without forcing Christians to pay for
the public desecration of their symbology and there's no problem.
I wonder how an image of the Rainbow Serpent pickled in urine would
have gone down with the trendy leftists who call for freedom of
expression in this case ?
David Moss,
personal opinion only.
http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics resources.
Joseph Askew
Stephen (S...@below.ifyou.want) wrote:
: >: >>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
: >Nope. Not in the slightest. I'm more offended by the morons who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just for the record. Poor Stevie seems to have forgotten to read it.
: >think that this sort of juvenile masturbation is art.
: >Actually the Satanic Verses aren't that offensive to Muslims. Going
: >on the descriptions I've heard of the offending bits.
: My reading of it says otherwise.
Well let's have a discussion about what Salman said. It should be
a slight improvement of your comments so far.
I also notice you have declined to comment on the important bit
which is that _SV_ would almost surely have come up against the
government censors in the Equal Opportunity field had it been
written by a White person. Maybe not, but it would be close. By
what standard do you support one banning and not the other?
: >Produce a shred of evidence that Da Vinco or Michelangelo were ever
: >considered shocking.
: Ever? how about this?
: On its unveiling in Florence in 1501, onlookers stoned Michelangelo's
: "David," breaking off an arm.
Actually I have a lot of trouble believing a word you say, but I
will make a temporary exception here. So what?
: At Forest Lawn Memorial Park in California, the penis on a reproduction of
: "David" was masked with a fig leaf from 1939-69;
: its removal caused complaints.
Which is not proof it was considered shocking. Indeed the tradition
of the nude is a long and well established one.
: In 1969,a poster of "David" in a book
: shop in Australia was seized by the Sydney
: vice squad.
Which again proves nothing except the Vice laws of the time were
poorly written, or at least consistently written.
The point being that it was on sale as a poster in a book shop.
: Michelangelo's "Last Judgment" fresco in the Sistine Chapel proved
: controversial even before its unveiling in 1541. Blaylo de Cesena, the
: papal master of ceremonies, warned Pope Paul III, that its nudes were
: "better suited to a bathroom or roadside wine shop than to a chapel of
: the Pope."
That is to say the frescos were judged inappropriate not shocking.\
So far nil for three. Well done.
: In 1558, veils, draperies and skirts were added. The work was
: the basis of the publication "Dialogue on the Error of Painters" (1564)
: by Andrea Gilio da Fabriano, which denigrated nudity in painting.
And your point is? So far you have failed to provide a single
adequately documented example of shock. Much less that anyone
saw the artists as such.
: In 1933, a New York court declared a set of pictures of the fresco obscene.
Again a sign of a consistently framed law. Not of shock value.
: Caravaggio might have been but not for his Art
: >but for his life. People tend to object to Artists who beat people
: >to death. This is modern mythology in the making. Modern Art has
: >lost the ability to appeal to the eye and so relies on hype instead.
: That kind of glib generalisation I would normally look for in the Sun-Herald.
Even the Tabloids get some things right some of the time and actually
I doubt that such a concept is within their limited intellectual grasp.
: If
: you believe that the only purpose of art is to be 'pleasing' to the eye you
: should stick to glossy magazines.
I don't think so at all and did not in fact say so. Nice little Straw
man there is not an actual attempt at a libellous falsehood. Can I
invent whole sentences for you to say too or is it a preserve of the
left?
: >Which demands press attention. Which in turns demands that Art be
: >shocking and "confrontational". Which Piss Christ was intended to
: >be.
: No-one 'demands' that Art be anything except conservative prudes like you.
Another, slightly more honest but still fraduent, attempt at a
misquotation. The "demand" there clearly referred to circumstance
and not any one person. Nor do I demand a thing. Nor do I have a
problem with displays of sex in public so I fail to see the point
of that "prude" smear. I guess you just have nothing to say that
might be honest, relevant and to the point.
: >No it doesn't. It is a pleasant task that governments like to dabble
: >in. So they can appear to be modern Renaissance Princes I assume.
: >But there is no duty involved.
: Once again we come back to your glossy magazine view of the world. I suppose
: warm and comfortable is a value with which you identify ?
Once again we come back to your basic intellectual dishonesty. If you
think the government has a duty to promote Art please show me where it
says so in the Constitution. Warm and confortable are two values I do
agree with. I'm a warm comfy sort of guy. But I don't demand it in my
Art.
: >Pig's Arse. The government does exist to put the fetters on expression.
: >Whether that is for commercial reasons, or racial or simple good taste.
: >This is why Salo is still unshowable.
: This contradictory rubbish basically sums up your stance.
This refusal to consider what is put before you sums up yours. The
government enforces copyright (ie fetters on expression), it also
enforces restrictions on incitement to racial hatred (ie fetters
on expression), libel (see above), slander (ditto), and it does
still censor films (a definite restriction on expression. Try andf
rent Salo). Nothing contradictory here. As usual you refuse to even
consider the question and just make something up. Nice one.
: >So you say. Based on what I wonder?
: History / experience see above.
Your sad lack of same suggests othwerwise to me.
: >I suggest you produce a shred of evidence that any table legs were ever
: >covered up in Victorian times lest they offend public decency. And your
: >moronic argument, aside from being stupid beyond belief, is also a total
: >Strawman. For the last 2000 years (more or less) such images were
: >illegal, but tablelegs were uncovered. The choice is not between any
: >expression or none. There is a world of grey you ignore.
: And a world of grey in which you wallow.
Indeed. I don't like to endulge in a simplistic world of black and
white moral judgements suitable to the Sun-Herald and your good
self. I prefer a more intelligent and sophisticated approach. I can
only hope your sense of good taste, common sense and humanity grow
into something I might consider valuable. But you too will have to
accept the world is full of shades of grey.
: >: So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then?
: >In common with all other people with any sense of taste of style,
: >no they are not.
: Other people like The Tate museum, JP Getty, Gugenheim, The Queen.
Indeed. In fact if I were to define a lack of good taste....
: name me one
: Gallery anywhere in the world that would reject work by any of the above?
So Galleries are mostly run by fools. But such galleries do exist.
The Turner for one. Private galleries willu usually hang anything
that will sell. Public ones whatever the "Arts Mafia" says they
should. Vicious circle.
: They are rather sad really. At least Warhol had
: >the sense to hold what he did in proper contempt. I wonder what
: >he would have thought of Piss Christ.
: He'd have loved it. Piss Christ is rubbish .. no two ways about it. Self
: important wankers like yourself make it into something else.
As a daily Church going Catholic I'm not so sure he would. I don'
make it into anything. What it is it is despite me not because.
: >True but then the world is full of morons and idiots with government
: >funding. Not one of them would survive a day without support from
: >the governments and the big foundations.
: This is gross hypocrisy coming from a
: goverment funded institution like Monash.
No it isn't. I can and do survive without a cent of Monash funding.
Serrano couldn't without government backing.
: not to mention being blatant right wing political correctness.
Oh the horrible nastiness right wing political correctness.
Are you this stupid or what?
: >It was a total waste of money, assuming that common sense and good
: >taste will eventually triumph. If it was a good financial investment
: >I suggest we sell it now and realise whatever return we can get before
: >people wise up about such things.
: Once again you anoint yourself as the arbiter of taste and style.
As do you only I have much more credibility and general taste.
Helen Darville
David S. Maddison wrote:
> Whilst I believe in the absolute Right of people like Serrano to publish
> works like "Piss Christ" the fact that such "artists" exist at all is a
> result of taxpayer funding. Great artists and authors don't need public
> funding, the worthiness of their works is proven by the willingness of
> people to pay good money for them.
I pretty much agree with you, David. The simple fact is that Australian
governments over quite a few years have created an arts culture at least
partly dependent on state support. You're right - there should be more
private arts-based philanthropy (as there is in the US). However,
encouraging Australian business to step in and support the arts when
government has been doing just that for so long is a difficult task.
> And what are we to make of the 1994-95 Australia Council Book Publishing
> Subsidy of $17,028 paid to Allen & Unwin to publish 4 books, including
> your work "The Hand that Signed the Paper"? Why do you suppose that book
> required subsidising?
A few quick facts on Australian publishing (and writing).
1) I received none of the $17,028 you mention. That is a publishing
subsidy applied for and organised by Allen & Unwin.
2) Philosophically, I disapprove of (state) book publishing subsidies.
However, as Allen & Unwin are a business concern, and as government
monies are made available to them *as a business concern*, then we can
hardly be critical of them for making use of what is there through
legislative fiat.
3) When Allen & Unwin applied for the Australia Council book publishing
subsidy in 1994-95, they had no idea that one of the books they planned
to publish was going to be a bestseller. Of course bestsellers don't
need the Australia Council subsidy. Allen & Unwin used an Aus. Council
subsidy to assist in the publication of Andrew McGahan's first novel,
"Praise". "Praise" went on to sell approximately 25,000 copies. If you
look inside the frint cover of McGahan's second novel, "1988", however,
you'll see no reference to publication support from the Council. McGahan
sells enough copies to make the subsidy unnecessary.
4) Most new books of Australian literary fiction sell between 1500 and
3000 copies. The winner of the Australian/Vogel Award usually does
slightly better (averaging between 8,000 and 10,000 copies). That's
reasonable, but the numbers are still not high. Without financial
support from somewhere (public or private), new Australian writing is
simply not economically viable. Low sales volume and concomitant high
printing costs effectively drive Australian writing out of the
marketplace.
> If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
> why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
> is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
Valid point, but the issue (as always) is working out just what does and
doesn't have marketplace support. Publishers would love to know in
advance - it'd be the end of all those expensive flops (like the Hawke
autobiography). I'm sure the same goes for art galleries, opera
companies and theatre groups.
One thing is for certain - Serrano's "Piss Christ" is going to pull the
crowds in. Perhaps, without the controversy, there *would* be no
popular/marketplace support for his work. The controversy has, as it
were, handed him a marketing niche on a platter.
BTW - you may know this David - is it true that a radical Christian
group attacked "Piss Christ" with hammers? I caught the tail end of a
news report this morning that said something to that effect but I didn't
hear the whole thing.
Cheers,
Helen Darville
-----------------------------------------------------
Visit me at http://www.uq.edu.au/~enhdemid
-----------------------------------------------------
you.want
In article <61kp3f$h...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,>S...@below.if you.want (Stephen) writes:
<snip..>
>>>Great. How much do you think I'd get for a blurred Polaroid my mate took
>>>of me vomiting in a rugby club toilet a few years ago? I'll call it
>>>"Pissed Cougar", start talking about intersubjectivity and the $ should
>>>come rolling in...
>>No idea how much you'd get. You could get lots of money. I'd probably get more
>>from the photos I have of you and that hamster :-)
>I'm sure someone out there would consider it to be a fascinating
>juxtaposition between sexual expression and man/beast interaction.
You see, you're getting the hang of it already...
>>>And will they enjoy having funded it? I look back on some of the "art"
>>>produced in 1977 and ask myself how the hell anyone, let alone a
>>>government, could fund such bollocks.
>>So you do want to return to the days of middle class Victorian prudery. You
>>being a "Bottom" fan and all.
>That's puerile entertainment and I doubt that for a even a second Messrs
>Mayall and Edmonson consider themselves artistic expressionists. That
>said, I invite you to deconstruct the "culture" episode and tell us what
>the underlying statement is when Eddie repeatedly closes Richie's head in
>the fridge door.
Sure... Eddie represents the physical form of repressed anxiety which manifests
itself through extreme emotions and violence. Richies head on the other hand
symbolises the State machine. By using the fridge door as the vehicle for his
violence, Eddie is demonstrating that the State machine can be overwhelmed by
its own cold infrastructure when the working class take control.
>>>>>As far as I'm concerned, the only displayable art which represents true
>>>>>talent is the odd nice painting. Anyone who wants to wrap a mannekin in
>>>>>barbwire, paint it green and cover it in hundreds and thousands can bloody
>>>>>well pay for it themselves.
>>>>So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then? Pity, a little
>>bit of work by one of them is worth more than you will earn in your lifetime.
>>>Nope. It's generally only cashed up poofs who seem to enjoy them.
>>Well being a cashed up poof seems a lot more lucrative than being a cash poor
>>student.
>Well that's street prostitution for you. Never picked you for a rent boy,
>Stephen.
Sorry to disillusion you Greased
>>BTW what have you got against
>>1. Money
>>2. Homosexuals
>>3. Rich Homosexuals
>Since when does observing the habits of certain socio-economic groups
>constitute "having something against"?
I was reading it in context.
I think that gays have something
>seriously wrong upstairs and should seek treatment as early as possible,
>but "having something against", that's a different kettle of fish.
You're joking aren't you?
Iain Jameson
David Moss wrote:
snip
> You miss the point Peter. The image is offensive to Christians,
> whether it is offensive to Christ, or God is between the artist and
> said deity. During the Gulf War we made sailors apologise when it was
> revealed they had performed actions offensive to Islam when they were
> at sea. (clowning around with towels on their heads) Consistency
> demands we should respect the feelings of Christians when offensive
> material is displayed in one of our capital cities.
>
Will Christians apologise for trying to damage the photo?
Will they apologise for trying to have the photo banned, thus depriving
non-christians, and christains not offended, the opportunity to see the
photo? Will they apologise for breaking the law?
Don't you just love sweeping generalisations?
I find it offensive that action was taken to ban the picture. Will you
apologise
to me David?
Or do you just care about christians?
Double standards David?
> As for blasphemers being struck down, the latest "Darwin Awards"
> release has a good story along those lines. It seems a party were out
> fishing when a thunderstorm threatened. Other boats began heading back
> to shore but the award nominee, instead of weighing anchor and heading
> in, stood up in the bows, arms outstretched and screamed "Here I am
> God, come and get me !" Seconds later he was burned to a crisp by a
> direct hit from a bolt of lightning. Two surviving members of the
> party joined the ministry shortly afterwards.
>
Don't you just love David's urban myths?
Reminds me of the congregation standing of the cliff face, praying
to the glory of god. Guess what happened? I wonder if the survivers
are now athiests?
> David Moss,
> personal opinion only.
> http://www.geocities.com/~dmoss for information on
> Living in Australia - without Deadly Deliverance
Iain
--
Remove the x from my email address
if you feel the need to email me.
PJ
> :> Whilst I believe in the absolute Right of people like Serrano to
publish
> :> works like "Piss Christ" the fact that such "artists" exist at all is
a
> :> result of taxpayer funding. Great artists and authors don't need
public
> :> funding, the worthiness of their works is proven by the willingness of
> :> people to pay good money for them.
> :
> :I pretty much agree with you, David. The simple fact is that Australian
> :governments over quite a few years have created an arts culture at least
> :partly dependent on state support. You're right - there should be more
> :private arts-based philanthropy (as there is in the US). However,
> :encouraging Australian business to step in and support the arts when
> :government has been doing just that for so long is a difficult task.
>
> Even without Government arts funding, I find it highly unlikely that
> business would provide much support for the arts - there is some support
> already, but nothing on the scale of public funding as it stands.
I personally believe the taxpayer should not subsidise or fund 'the arts'
as the collection of tax is an indiscriminant act, while what constitutes
art is a highly subjective question. If people wish to see 'the arts', let
them fund such things through attendance.
Promoters bring various shows and exhibitions to our shores, after they
have paid to bring these, they sell tickets to cover their expense and
*hopefully* make a profit.
The 'arts' community cringes at this, is that because U2, The Moscow Circus
or The Phantom of the Opera to name a few current attractions, will make
money for a promoter, while Cerrano would be a dead loss financially, if it
had to stand on it's own merits, rather than State/Federal funds?
Paul
David Moss
m...@attila.apana.org.au (Matt McLeod) writes:
>On 13 Oct 97 13:19:10 GMT,
> PJ <pa...@accessin.com.au> wrote:
><snip>
>:The 'arts' community cringes at this, is that because U2, The Moscow Circus
>:or The Phantom of the Opera to name a few current attractions, will make
>:money for a promoter, while Cerrano would be a dead loss financially, if it
>:had to stand on it's own merits, rather than State/Federal funds?
>It'd be a dead loss if it had to fund itself on the tastes of the masses.
>Should the only "art" be the popular stuff?
Definately not. Art is whatever the artist wants it to be. That does
not mean that an artist can expect to recieve money for his/her
efforts though, that is entirely another matter.
Art should be something you do in your spare time unless you can get
people to pay you to do it. There is nothing which says an artist cannot
earn a living as a plumber, prostitute or podiatrist. It is not essential
to have government funding to create art, nor does art have to be a full
time profession. If the artist is good enough it can be full time occupation,
but this is not necessary to the art itself.
It would, of course, mean a reality check for many artists. They would
have to face the cold hard facts that so few people gave a damn about
what they create that it is impossible to survive on the proceeds.
Once again the words "don't give up your day job" might have meaning.
If so few people care enough about an artist's efforts that he/she
is not happy with the earnings generated, why should the uninterested
public be forced to pay the difference ?
Let the bludgers get a job at an abbatoir to pay the bills, and create
their cerebral masterpieces at weekends.
David Moss,
personal opinion only.
Russell Dovey
The landscapes are beautiful, aren't they?
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> In article <61k7o0$c...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,
> alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Pl wrote:
>
> > >So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then? Pity, a little bit
> > >of work by one of them is worth more than you will earn in your lifetime.
> >
> > Nope. It's generally only cashed up poofs who seem to enjoy them.
>
> I'm not a cashed-up poof, and I enjoy Blue Poles. I prefer the landscapes
> and portraiture upstairs, but Blue Poles is a fascinating piece of work. I
> have a 1 000 piece jigsaw puzzle of it, which is an enjoyable way to spend
> a morning.
>
> ~ m
> u U Cheers!
> \|
> |> -Peter Mackay
> / \ pete...@netinfo.com.au
> _\ /_
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to triple J, and you will finally know the meaning of life.
It is to mosh, and mosh verily.
Tuvok:"I am curious, lieutenant. What does it mean, groovy?"
Dax:"I don't know, I guess it's just being in the same room
with so many naked men."
The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is the day
I become a penguin. A large, tentacled desert penguin.
- Russell Dovey, the perpetually curious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Yee
Helen Darville <enhd...@mailbox.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>The politically correct clown who
>pasted our sailors for playing "raghead" in the middle of a war zone is
>just as big an enemy of free speech as the people who try to get Serrano
>banned from public view. An integral part of freedom is the freedom to
>offend. Without exception.
There may be reasonable grounds for different rules for soldiers on
active service, or other employees acting in an official capacity.
There are many things which are legal but which would not be _appropriate_
behaviour for a diplomat stationed overseas, for example.
And while military censorship can get pretty idiotic (I recall the
opening chapters of _Catch 22_), it seems obvious that some constraints
on communication have a place in time of war.
Danny.
Gibson H R
David Moss (a...@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au) wrote:
:
: In aus.politics you write:
: While it may be "hip" to hang s**t on Christians while sticking up for
: minorities such as Aborigines, this doesn't make it right. It is fun
: for those who insult, Christianity teaches tolerence so Christians are
Just like those 'tolerant' teenagers who attacked Piss Christ with a
hammer huh?
:
:
: I wonder how an image of the Rainbow Serpent pickled in urine would
: have gone down with the trendy leftists who call for freedom of
: expression in this case ?
Not being a 'trendy left' supporter of free expression but cming at free
speech from the other end of the spectrum I'd say that if someone created
such an image I wouldn't stop them from displaying it.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Randyte (Heath Gibson) c941...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au
"The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society
outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
from the majority judgement in Reno_v_ACLU, striking down the CDA.
++++++++++http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddhrg/randyte.html+++++++++++++++++++
Phil Herring
In article <adm.876785629@ccadfa> David Moss, a...@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au writes:
>
>It would, of course, mean a reality check for many artists. They would
>have to face the cold hard facts that so few people gave a damn about
>what they create that it is impossible to survive on the proceeds.
>Once again the words "don't give up your day job" might have meaning.
>
>
>Let the bludgers get a job at an abbatoir to pay the bills, and create
>their cerebral masterpieces at weekends.
And so we continue with the characterisation of "artists" as bludgers. I
assume (perhaps wrongly) that people who take this line of reasoning don't
know many working artists. If they did, they'd know that very, very few get
any money from the government. Most effectively have two jobs - their art,
and whatever they do for a living - and would prefer to make a living from
their art work alone. And they pay taxes on their art-related income.
We might also try to get some sense of proportion into this discussion.
Subsidies to the arts are trivial compared to other government spending.
The ABS web site has a page devoted to this, although the figures are old -
from the 1993-1994 financial year. During that period, this is what was
paid out by state and federal governments by way of direct grants to
"bludger" artists:
literature and publishing $12.6M
visual arts $23.2M
film and video production $99.4M
art galleries $72.5M
Total: $207.7M
(Actually, most of this would have gone to commercial operations like
publishers, but I think that these figures are a reasonable upper limit on
this spending.)
This is nothing compared to the bulk of the "cultural funding" that year,
most of which was given to the ABC, SBS, national parks, libraries and
museums. The total "cultural funding" was $2,256.3M, so payments to
"bludger" artists amounted to less than 9% of that.
Also from the same year:
defense $9,237M
social welfare $44,440M
education $22,096M
health $23,572M
transport and communications $11,824M
Total spending for the year was $165,373M. In other words, direct arts
funding to "bludger" artists was less than 0.125% of total government
spending. I'd say that this is not really worth getting worked up about,
unless you have some kind of ideological objection to the notion of art
subsidies per se.
Or to put it another way, spending a total of $207.7M over twelve months
amounts to about $1 per month per person for a year. I don't mind paying
that, if it means that this country has a slightly less bland and
commercialised culture. And it seems ungenerous and small-minded to quibble
over such a trivial amount, which really won't buy you much by way of
lasting "commercial" cultural products, anyway (the first 44 pages of one
issue of _Who_ magazine, for example, or about 9 minutes of one
first-release, US-made movie.)
(The relevant web pages are linked from the following page:
http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3110124.NSF/0ab4188484b99ec04a25648b0014a817?OpenView
Look under "Culture and recreation" and "Government finance" for the figures
cited above.)
David Wareing
In article <61vb9f$2dc$1...@attila.apana.org.au>, m...@attila.apana.org.au
(Matt McLeod) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:48:01 +0930, David Wareing wrote:
> :As for the argument that a healthy society is one that supports
> :the arts, well how does that fit in with the notions of a democratic
> :society? How healthy is a society that only supports the arts
> :through government edict?
>
> Not particularly healthy at all. I'm not arguing that we have
> a healthy society - IMO it is sick as hell. It hasn't actually
> dropped off the twig yet, but it isn't all that far off.
I can't agree. Religious zealots in Afghanistan and the US Republican
Party notwithstanding, we live in the most enlightened age that the
world has ever seen. We live comfortable lives with an overall
quality of life unprecedented in our history. Even with the threat
of global annihilation through nuclear weapons, we have more reasons
for optimism in our future than our ancestors. Australians in
particular, live an extremely stable and peaceful life, and live
longer (unless you happen to have the wrong skin colour.)
> And if you think this is much of a democracy, then you're in
> for a bit of a shock...
Please educate me. Drop the Henny Penny act for a minute and
tell me exactly what version of democracy you'd prefer and how
it can be achieved. This version we live in is not perfect
by any means, and could stand a lot of improvement, but the
sky's not falling either.
> :Since the definition of "good" is always going to be subjective, how
> :about we just skip that step altogether and let consumers make their
> :own judgement? If it's "good", then surely the public will support
> :the artist and will pay to see his/her work? I fail to see why
> :I should pay for art which you regard as "good" but which I
> :regard indifferently or with contempt. Similarly, why should you
> :have to pay for art which I appreciate, but which you might dislike?
> :Let's call it even, and each pay for our own art. Agreed?
>
> Only if I don't have to pay tax to support sports. I couldn't
> give a shit about the Olympics, or the AIS. So how about we
> leave them up to market forces too?
Fine by me. I see no reason why the AIS needs my money. If people
want to engage in professional or otherwise full-time sports, they
can pay their own way and develop their sports through membership
and sponsorship. I'll support those sports that I like through
attendance, membership or donation and will ignore the rest.
If it comes down to buying gold medals in order to get a sense
of pride in our country, then I think I'll pass and keep my
money in my wallet.
David Wareing
In article <61rthb$ntb$1...@wyrm.its.uow.edu.au>, Phil Herring
<rev...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
> In article <61rrff$sj$1...@preeda.internex.net.au> David S. Maddison,
madd...@connexus.apana.org.au writes:
> >If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
> >why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
> >is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
>
> Therefore:
>
> David Maddison is hypocritical if he visits any of this country's
> public art galleries, because they are publicly funded.
How is it hypocritical for David to be using a facility for which
he has helped pay for?
Just because he wouldn't choose to subsidise a public facility
doesn't mean that he can't use that facility after the fact. Given
David's views, I'm sure he'd much prefer to see privately funded
galleries instead, but in the meantime, he's still paying for the
public ones.
Or are you insisting that David should avoid using the public
gallery on principle, even though he has helped to pay for it?
What sort of deal is that? I'd much rather *not* pay for a gallery
that I'm not going to visit. The problem here is that neither David
nor myself get the choice.
> David Maddison is hypocritical if he watches ABC TV, or listens
> to ABC radio, because they are publicly funded.
Again, David has already paid for these services, as have most of us
in this group. Given the *choice* however, I suspect that David would
vote for an independent, privately owned (but widely available) ABC.
The problem is the same as that described above: we don't have the
choice. It's not as though successive governments have provided us
with viable and wide-ranging opportunities for television viewing
in this country. I'd be the first to put my hand up for wholesale
broadcasting reform in this country if we had a government that
was even slightly interested in tackling the issue.
> David Maddison is hypocritical if he watches almost any Australian
> movie, because most of them are subsidised by tax breaks.
No, just a man with poor taste. [That's a joke, son, a joke I say!]
I'm quite happy to ditch all tax breaks for the Australian film
industry right now. I see no need to protect the cultural integrity
of a specificly Australian industry, especially if I don't want
to see Australian films. If some up-and-coming startup or even
Village-Roadshow wants to produce an Australian film, then they
can conduct their *business* with *their* money. If they produce
a product which interests me, then I will vote with my dollars
and support them. If they make "Crocodile Dundeed V -- The Cringe",
then they're out of business and my money remains in my pocket,
where it belongs.
> Capitalism doesn't do some things well - in particular, it doesn't
> consistently permit cultural production by everyone. Government subsidies
> are just one way of correcting this deficiency.
I wasn't aware that one of the keys to a healthy society is a
requirement that everyone is able to persistently undertake
"cultural production". Similarly, I wasn't aware that the
Pursuit of Happiness is fundamentally tied into the ability of
people to create art at the expense of other people.
I create art, and I have to sell it to make a living. Do I want
a subsidy? No. Am I deserving of some of your money, whether
you like my art or not? No. Should you have to give me money
simply because I'm an artist? No. Similarly, I don't expect
to have to give you one cent for your artistic endeavours if
I don't want to.
Matt McLeod
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:48:01 +0930, David Wareing wrote:
:m...@attila.apana.org.au (Matt McLeod) wrote:
:
:> On 14 Oct 1997 02:55:30 GMT,
:> David S. Maddison <madd...@connexus.apana.org.au> wrote:
:
:
:> :Why is art so special that it should be immune to market forces whereas
:> :other products have to be commercially viable in order to survive. There
:> :is a good reason that cars such as the "Edsel" or the East German "Traban"
:> :(sp?) didn't survive.
:
:[snip]
:
:> You seem to be labouring under several delusions:
:>
:> a) that the market is always right
:> b) that consumers always make informed choices (part of (a) really)
:> c) that "philanthropists" grow on trees
:>
:> One only has to look at what rates well on TV to see that the market is not
:> all that it is cracked up to be so far as picking the quality work from the
:> garbage - popularity does not automatically make something "good". The
:> punters do not always recognize quality when they see it.
:
:Watch out, your elitism is showing.
Nothing elitist about it. Different people have different skills
and tastes. Personally, I wouldn't know "good" art if it bit me.
:Anyhoo, television in Australia is a not a particularly good example of the
:efficiency of the free market. Why? Because it's *not* a free market.
:Television in this country is heavily regulated by government,
:restricted in its scope and controlled by an extremely small number
:of people (compared to the total audience). Effective competition
:within the industry is woeful and innovation is almost non-existent.
:(Unless you define innovation as the importation of advertising
:strategies from the US.) "Informed choice" is something that
:happens to other industries.
Innovation is non-existent in the TV industry because whenever
a network tries something new, they get bitten by bad ratings.
If the ratings aren't high enough, they can't maximize their
profits, and that's what they're there for in the end.
But I was using TV as an example of poor taste - Ray Martin
and Funniest Home VIdeos being top-rating shows/"personalities"
doesn't exactly instill confidence. Neither does the constant
re-election of the same people, over and over again, no matter
how often they shaft the populace.
:[snip]
:
:> :As I have said before, great artists and authors don't need public
:> :funding. People want their work and are prepared to pay for it. If they
:> :can't sell or display their work at a high enough price, then they
:> :should maintain a regular job or get a philanthropist. An alternative
:> :option is for them to produce popular "bread and butter" works, the
:> :profits of which can be used to subsidise their unpopular work.
:>
:> A great deal of the stuff we currently regard as being "classics" didn't
:> exactly make their creators rich. Many artists aren't really appreciated
:> until they're dead, at which time they aren't really in much of a position
:> to take advantage of the situation.
:
:This is a problem? Is the art created for art's sake, or money's sake?
:A privately funded artist has to create his/her work in the same
:manner that we fund our own endeavours through life. Why should we
:subsidise someone's choice of profession even if we don't like the
:results? (I certainly don't expect any struggling artist to pay
:for my choices in life.)
On the one hand it is suggested that artists should fund themselves
(or find someone willing to stump up the cash for them). On the
other we have the reality that most artists don't actually get any
financial return on their work until after their death.
:> The important bit, though, is the display of artworks, rather than the
:> creation of them. Painting might be "easier" if you can do it full-time,
:> but it is still quite possible to do while doing some other work. OTOH,
:> organising the public display of a completed work is likely to be bloody
:> expensive.
:
:Of what value is the art that nobody wants to see? Does the exhibition
:have some intrinsic value even if nobody will shell out money to
:see it? Or is it valuable to our society even if the public thinks
:it's crap or irrelevant and wouldn't pay to see it in a pink fit?
:
:As for the argument that a healthy society is one that supports
:the arts, well how does that fit in with the notions of a democratic
:society? How healthy is a society that only supports the arts
:through government edict?
Not particularly healthy at all. I'm not arguing that we have
a healthy society - IMO it is sick as hell. It hasn't actually
dropped off the twig yet, but it isn't all that far off.
And if you think this is much of a democracy, then you're in
for a bit of a shock...
:> I'm not arguing that we should hand out $30k/pa to anybody who says "I'm an
:> artist, gimme money". I am saying that there is a place for some public
:> funding for "proven" artists (those who have already produced some "good"
:> work, but are unable to obtain private funding) to work full-time for a
:> limited period of time. How we define "good" is the tricky bit.
:
:Since the definition of "good" is always going to be subjective, how
:about we just skip that step altogether and let consumers make their
:own judgement? If it's "good", then surely the public will support
:the artist and will pay to see his/her work? I fail to see why
:I should pay for art which you regard as "good" but which I
:regard indifferently or with contempt. Similarly, why should you
:have to pay for art which I appreciate, but which you might dislike?
:Let's call it even, and each pay for our own art. Agreed?
Only if I don't have to pay tax to support sports. I couldn't
give a shit about the Olympics, or the AIS. So how about we
leave them up to market forces too?
--
Matt McLeod
:[..]
:: Should we only spend money on those things which can truly claim to have the
:: support of 51% of the population? If that is so, we can close down the
:: ATO right now, along with Parliament.
:
:: Public arts spending is IMO important. It should be kept in perspective
:: though - it is not the most important function of Government, not even in
:: the top ten, but it is sufficiently important to deserve *some* funding.
:
:: :Let the bludgers get a job at an abbatoir to pay the bills, and create
:: :their cerebral masterpieces at weekends.
:: I'd be surprised if there were too many artists surviving primarily on
:: public funding. We're not exactly talking $100k/pa plus travel expenses,
:: are we?
:
:Why is art so special that it should be immune to market forces whereas
:other products have to be commercially viable in order to survive. There
:is a good reason that cars such as the "Edsel" or the East German "Traban"
:consumer commodities also and it is up to the artist to either produce
:works that people want to pay to see or buy or find a philanthropist to
:subsidise there as-yet-unrecognised work. Just becaue an artist creates
:something, doesn't automatically mean that it has merit. For example, one
:of Serrano's works was a cow's head on a sandstone block. I personally
:fail to see the merit in this, but other people might. I exercise my
:market perogative by not buying his work. I don't see why the taxpayer
:should supply a source of funds to support artistic endeavours that are
:created without regard to their desirability to others, or a private
:philanthropist to support the artist.
You seem to be labouring under several delusions:
a) that the market is always right
b) that consumers always make informed choices (part of (a) really)
c) that "philanthropists" grow on trees
One only has to look at what rates well on TV to see that the market is not
all that it is cracked up to be so far as picking the quality work from the
garbage - popularity does not automatically make something "good". The
punters do not always recognize quality when they see it.
In the Australian context, private arts sponsorship is not a big thing.
There is a little bit of it around, but if you, as a director, are to choose
the best way of spending the corporate advertising budget, you aren't going
to go for arts sponsorship - sink some cash into a football competition and
you'll do much better. Indeed, it would be grossly irresponsible for a
company to put much money into arts sponsorship.
:As I have said before, great artists and authors don't need public
:funding. People want their work and are prepared to pay for it. If they
:can't sell or display their work at a high enough price, then they
:should maintain a regular job or get a philanthropist. An alternative
:option is for them to produce popular "bread and butter" works, the
:profits of which can be used to subsidise their unpopular work.
A great deal of the stuff we currently regard as being "classics" didn't
exactly make their creators rich. Many artists aren't really appreciated
until they're dead, at which time they aren't really in much of a position
to take advantage of the situation.
The important bit, though, is the display of artworks, rather than the
creation of them. Painting might be "easier" if you can do it full-time,
but it is still quite possible to do while doing some other work. OTOH,
organising the public display of a completed work is likely to be bloody
expensive.
I'm not arguing that we should hand out $30k/pa to anybody who says "I'm an
artist, gimme money". I am saying that there is a place for some public
funding for "proven" artists (those who have already produced some "good"
work, but are unable to obtain private funding) to work full-time for a
limited period of time. How we define "good" is the tricky bit.
--
Scott Hillard
On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 05:12:30 GMT, tr...@cobweb.com.au (Troy Heywood)
wrote:
> I object to it on the grounds that it has about as much
>artistic merit as a shit in a bucket.
That's precisely what it was - a piece of shit in a bucket of piss.
;-)
----------
Wine is strong, a King is stronger, women are even stronger, but truth will conquer all.
Matt McLeod
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:38:00 +0930, David Wareing wrote:
:In article <61vb9f$2dc$1...@attila.apana.org.au>, m...@attila.apana.org.au
:(Matt McLeod) wrote:
:
:> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 16:48:01 +0930, David Wareing wrote:
:
:> :As for the argument that a healthy society is one that supports
:> :the arts, well how does that fit in with the notions of a democratic
:> :society? How healthy is a society that only supports the arts
:> :through government edict?
:>
:> Not particularly healthy at all. I'm not arguing that we have
:> a healthy society - IMO it is sick as hell. It hasn't actually
:> dropped off the twig yet, but it isn't all that far off.
:I can't agree. Religious zealots in Afghanistan and the US Republican
:Party notwithstanding, we live in the most enlightened age that the
:world has ever seen. We live comfortable lives with an overall
:quality of life unprecedented in our history. Even with the threat
:of global annihilation through nuclear weapons, we have more reasons
:for optimism in our future than our ancestors. Australians in
:particular, live an extremely stable and peaceful life, and live
:longer (unless you happen to have the wrong skin colour.)
"Better than it used to be" doesn't mean that it's as good as it could
be. Or even that it is particularly good.
:> And if you think this is much of a democracy, then you're in
:> for a bit of a shock...
:
:Please educate me. Drop the Henny Penny act for a minute and
:tell me exactly what version of democracy you'd prefer and how
:it can be achieved. This version we live in is not perfect
:by any means, and could stand a lot of improvement, but the
:sky's not falling either.
I didn't say it was. Only that what we presently have isn't
what I'd describe as "democracy".
One possible alternative to the present arrangements would be:
1) merge State and local Governments, resulting in a larger number
of smaller States, and State Parliaments elected by some form
of proportional representation. Ideally these new States should
be roughly equal in population, but that isn't always going
to be possible, unless we want Sydney divided into three or
four seperate States
2) Federal Parliament would also be elected via some form of
proportional representation. The trick is to make it sufficiently
fine-grained to provide reasonable representation for everyone,
but not so fine-grained that it becomes unwieldy.
3) Some form of Citizen Initiated Refernda at both levels of
Government.
4) Dilution of media ownership. Difficult to arrange, but IMHO
the results would be worth it.
Still not perfect, but it'd bring the State Governments closer to the
people they govern (right now, if you live outside a capital city,
you can be more or less certain that you aren't going to get much
attention). At the same time, we'd correct the biggest flaw in our
Parliaments - Parties gaining significant support not being able to
get even one seat in the Lower House, unless their support is quite
concentrated (e.g., the National Party).
The last two would (hopefully) get some geniune debate happening
in the community. Right now the primary means of mass communication
are controlled by a very small number of people, with their own
interests. If you're a major media proprietor, you'd have to be
stupid not to make use of the situation. And even if there is a
great deal of support for some proposal or other, unless it is
picked up by the Party controlling the Parliament, it is
irrelevant.
Not a solution to all our problems, but a potential starting
point for dealing with at least some of them.
[There. Now I've proved once and for all to the aus.politics
regulars that I'm a lunatic :-)]
:> :Since the definition of "good" is always going to be subjective, how
:> :about we just skip that step altogether and let consumers make their
:> :own judgement? If it's "good", then surely the public will support
:> :the artist and will pay to see his/her work? I fail to see why
:> :I should pay for art which you regard as "good" but which I
:> :regard indifferently or with contempt. Similarly, why should you
:> :have to pay for art which I appreciate, but which you might dislike?
:> :Let's call it even, and each pay for our own art. Agreed?
:>
:> Only if I don't have to pay tax to support sports. I couldn't
:> give a shit about the Olympics, or the AIS. So how about we
:> leave them up to market forces too?
:
:Fine by me. I see no reason why the AIS needs my money. If people
:want to engage in professional or otherwise full-time sports, they
:can pay their own way and develop their sports through membership
:and sponsorship. I'll support those sports that I like through
:attendance, membership or donation and will ignore the rest.
:If it comes down to buying gold medals in order to get a sense
:of pride in our country, then I think I'll pass and keep my
:money in my wallet.
Fine. I also object to paying for pointless Work-for-the-Dole
schemes, 3-unit Burger Flipping courses, the OFLC, youth curfews,
major road-building projects, and many, many other publically
funded things. Is it OK by you if I withdraw my contribution
to society until such time as only things I approve of are
purchased with my tax payments?
To get back to the general direction of the thread, though,
I don't regard current public arts funding as being excessive.
Some of the corporate welfare which is disguised as arts
funding should probably be either halted or diverted to
actual artists, but apart from that...
Scott Hillard
>> Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>I am offended by it..
Offense freely given to those stupid enough to take it.
> Several reasons really, some personal and some politically based.
Oh Christ.
>It is offensive to me personally because I am a Christian
Lies, you're a Paulian. Your religion has nothing to do with the
teachings of the man now known as Jesus Christ.
> and I find it
>offensive that someone could make an image such as that and get away
>with it calling it "art".
Tough.
>Politically, I am offended as it seems to be that it is popular to be "anti christian".
Perhaps because those who claim to be "Christians" would have Christ
spinning in his grave (or tomb, depending on which theory you
subscribe to)?
>It is not trendy to be anti other religions,
Rubbish, nothing un-trendy about sinking the boot into Allah-boys.
David Wareing
In article <slrn6460l...@attila.apana.org.au>,
m...@attila.apana.org.au (Matt McLeod) wrote:
> On 14 Oct 1997 02:55:30 GMT,
> David S. Maddison <madd...@connexus.apana.org.au> wrote:
> :Why is art so special that it should be immune to market forces whereas
> :other products have to be commercially viable in order to survive. There
> :is a good reason that cars such as the "Edsel" or the East German "Traban"
> :(sp?) didn't survive.
[snip]
> You seem to be labouring under several delusions:
>
> a) that the market is always right
> b) that consumers always make informed choices (part of (a) really)
> c) that "philanthropists" grow on trees
>
> One only has to look at what rates well on TV to see that the market is not
> all that it is cracked up to be so far as picking the quality work from the
> garbage - popularity does not automatically make something "good". The
> punters do not always recognize quality when they see it.
Watch out, your elitism is showing.
Anyhoo, television in Australia is a not a particularly good example of the
efficiency of the free market. Why? Because it's *not* a free market.
Television in this country is heavily regulated by government,
restricted in its scope and controlled by an extremely small number
of people (compared to the total audience). Effective competition
within the industry is woeful and innovation is almost non-existent.
(Unless you define innovation as the importation of advertising
strategies from the US.) "Informed choice" is something that
happens to other industries.
[snip]
> :As I have said before, great artists and authors don't need public
> :funding. People want their work and are prepared to pay for it. If they
> :can't sell or display their work at a high enough price, then they
> :should maintain a regular job or get a philanthropist. An alternative
> :option is for them to produce popular "bread and butter" works, the
> :profits of which can be used to subsidise their unpopular work.
>
> A great deal of the stuff we currently regard as being "classics" didn't
> exactly make their creators rich. Many artists aren't really appreciated
> until they're dead, at which time they aren't really in much of a position
> to take advantage of the situation.
This is a problem? Is the art created for art's sake, or money's sake?
A privately funded artist has to create his/her work in the same
manner that we fund our own endeavours through life. Why should we
subsidise someone's choice of profession even if we don't like the
results? (I certainly don't expect any struggling artist to pay
for my choices in life.)
> The important bit, though, is the display of artworks, rather than the
> creation of them. Painting might be "easier" if you can do it full-time,
> but it is still quite possible to do while doing some other work. OTOH,
> organising the public display of a completed work is likely to be bloody
> expensive.
Of what value is the art that nobody wants to see? Does the exhibition
have some intrinsic value even if nobody will shell out money to
see it? Or is it valuable to our society even if the public thinks
it's crap or irrelevant and wouldn't pay to see it in a pink fit?
As for the argument that a healthy society is one that supports
the arts, well how does that fit in with the notions of a democratic
society? How healthy is a society that only supports the arts
through government edict?
> I'm not arguing that we should hand out $30k/pa to anybody who says "I'm an
> artist, gimme money". I am saying that there is a place for some public
> funding for "proven" artists (those who have already produced some "good"
> work, but are unable to obtain private funding) to work full-time for a
> limited period of time. How we define "good" is the tricky bit.
Since the definition of "good" is always going to be subjective, how
about we just skip that step altogether and let consumers make their
own judgement? If it's "good", then surely the public will support
the artist and will pay to see his/her work? I fail to see why
I should pay for art which you regard as "good" but which I
regard indifferently or with contempt. Similarly, why should you
have to pay for art which I appreciate, but which you might dislike?
Let's call it even, and each pay for our own art. Agreed?
--
you.want
In article <61sp1o$jl2$1...@towncrier.cc.monash.edu.au>,
jas...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joseph Askew) wrote:
>Stephen (S...@below.ifyou.want) wrote:
>
>: >: >>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>
>: >Nope. Not in the slightest. I'm more offended by the morons who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Just for the record. Poor Stevie seems to have forgotten to read it.
MMMMM... don't think so, but I may have misinterpreted your intent. The thread
was about censorship, you cut in at an inopportune moment and I took that as a
defence of the censorship of Piss Christ. If this is not your intent then you
should be more clear. However, I apologise for taking you out of context..
>: >think that this sort of juvenile masturbation is art.
>: >Actually the Satanic Verses aren't that offensive to Muslims. Going
>: >on the descriptions I've heard of the offending bits.
>: My reading of it says otherwise.
>Well let's have a discussion about what Salman said. <snip... ad Hom>
Given that you haven't read it? is there any point?
>I also notice you have declined to comment on the important bit
>which is that _SV_ would almost surely have come up against the
>government censors in the Equal Opportunity field had it been
>written by a White person. Maybe not, but it would be close. By
>what standard do you support one banning and not the other?
I don't. I am against censorship. I would be against the banning of the book in
any instance. Your 'strawman' (like that word don't you?) argument holds no
water as I have never advocated banning of anything. It is the domain of
thoughtless idiots.
>: >Produce a shred of evidence that Da Vinco or Michelangelo were ever
>: >considered shocking.
>: Ever? how about this?
>: On its unveiling in Florence in 1501, onlookers stoned Michelangelo's
>: "David," breaking off an arm.
>Actually I have a lot of trouble believing a word you say, but I
>will make a temporary exception here. So what?
Great comeback Joseph. If you have trouble believing anything I say why bother
responding at all?.. or is it that you are selective in your responses based on
the paucity of your argument?
>: At Forest Lawn Memorial Park in California, the penis on a reproduction of
>: "David" was masked with a fig leaf from 1939-69;
>: its removal caused complaints.
>Which is not proof it was considered shocking. Indeed the tradition
>of the nude is a long and well established one.
Selective interpretation. Or are you playing a semantic game?. Complaints =
action = censorship. Censorship is based on selective and highly arbitrary
criteria.
>: In 1969,a poster of "David" in a book
>: shop in Australia was seized by the Sydney
>: vice squad.
>Which again proves nothing except the Vice laws of the time were
>poorly written, or at least consistently written.
Or that once again arbitrary censorship ideas are being replicated in
specific instances.
>The point being that it was on sale as a poster in a book shop.
Which was seized by the Vice squad.. ie subject to censorship. What part of that
can't you understand?
>: Michelangelo's "Last Judgment" fresco in the Sistine Chapel proved
>: controversial even before its unveiling in 1541. Blaylo de Cesena, the
>: papal master of ceremonies, warned Pope Paul III, that its nudes were
>: "better suited to a bathroom or roadside wine shop than to a chapel of
>: the Pope."
>That is to say the frescos were judged inappropriate not shocking.\
>So far nil for three. Well done.
You really are on a losing streak here Joseph. A senior catholic official
attempted to have the frescos censored. How is that in any way different from
any ridiculous attempt to censor based on equally ridiculous standards.
>: In 1558, veils, draperies and skirts were added. The work was
>: the basis of the publication "Dialogue on the Error of Painters" (1564)
>: by Andrea Gilio da Fabriano, which denigrated nudity in painting.
>And your point is? So far you have failed to provide a single
>adequately documented example of shock. Much less that anyone
>saw the artists as such.
So you don't see this as an attempt to censor art?. How naive can you be?
>: In 1933, a New York court declared a set of pictures of the fresco obscene.
>Again a sign of a consistently framed law. Not of shock value.
Now you're clutching at straws
>: Caravaggio might have been but not for his Art
>: >but for his life. People tend to object to Artists who beat people
>: >to death. This is modern mythology in the making. Modern Art has
>: >lost the ability to appeal to the eye and so relies on hype instead.
>: That kind of glib generalisation I would normally look for in the Sun-Herald.
>
>Even the Tabloids get some things right some of the time and actually
>I doubt that such a concept is within their limited intellectual grasp.
"Modern Art has lost the ability to appeal to the eye and so relies on hype
instead.". Straight from the pages of the tabloids.
>: If you believe that the only purpose of art is to be 'pleasing' to the eye
you should stick to glossy magazines.
>I don't think so at all and did not in fact say so. Nice little Straw
>man there is not an actual attempt at a libellous falsehood. Can I
>invent whole sentences for you to say too or is it a preserve of the
>left?
(BTW... libellous falsehood?... what planet are you living on?)
"Modern Art has lost the ability to appeal to the eye and so relies on hype
instead.". What other meaning can I possibly interpret from this. You have in
one sentence dismissed huge tracts of Art not just from the Modern, but from
just about every era since men started painting on rocks.
Your argument... Modern Art has no aesthetic value ie not pleasing to
the eye (presumably your are arguing from an Appollonian stance here) therefore
the only intrinsic value is to shock. Apart from being completely irrational it
puts art firmly in the glossy magazine.
>: >Which demands press attention. Which in turns demands that Art be
>: >shocking and "confrontational". Which Piss Christ was intended to
>: >be.
>: No-one 'demands' that Art be anything except conservative prudes like you.
>Another, slightly more honest but still fraduent, attempt at a
>misquotation. The "demand" there clearly referred to circumstance
>and not any one person. Nor do I demand a thing.
Just what do you want?. Do you agree with the removal of Serranos work?
If so on what grounds?
>: >No it doesn't. It is a pleasant task that governments like to dabble
>: >in. So they can appear to be modern Renaissance Princes I assume.
>: >But there is no duty involved.
>: Once again we come back to your glossy magazine view of the world. I suppose
>: warm and comfortable is a value with which you identify ?
>Once again we come back to your basic intellectual dishonesty. If you
>think the government has a duty to promote Art please show me where it
>says so in the Constitution.
Irrelevant. Where does the constitution say anything about the duty to provide
anything. (S 51 gives the parliament the power to make laws but is not a
Mandamus).
Warm and confortable are two values I do
>agree with. I'm a warm comfy sort of guy. But I don't demand it in my
>Art.
How can you then justify your unreasonable (and totally erroneous) critique of
Modern Art on the grounds that it is not pleasing to the eye?
>: >Pig's Arse. The government does exist to put the fetters on expression.
>: >Whether that is for commercial reasons, or racial or simple good taste.
>: >This is why Salo is still unshowable.
>: This contradictory rubbish basically sums up your stance.
>This refusal to consider what is put before you sums up yours. The
>government enforces copyright (ie fetters on expression),
No the courts enforce copyright and if you think that plagiarism = creativity
then we should stop this argument now
it also enforces restrictions on incitement to racial hatred (ie fetters
>on expression)
Irrelevant
, libel (see above), slander (ditto),
Irrelevant
and it does
>still censor films (a definite restriction on expression. Try and
>rent Salo).
Have seen it. Nasty piece of work based on the literature of Sade a lot of which
I respect. Don't agree with its banning though. Do you? on what grounds?
<snip..> There is a world of grey you ignore.
>: And a world of grey in which you wallow.
>Indeed. I don't like to endulge in a simplistic world of black and
>white moral judgements suitable to the Sun-Herald and your good
>self. I prefer a more intelligent and sophisticated approach.
Intelligence implies reason, something you have yet to demonstrate.
I can
>only hope your sense of good taste, common sense and humanity grow
>into something I might consider valuable. But you too will have to
>accept the world is full of shades of grey.
IOW you want to force your own set of values on others because you could
never convince them otherwise. Are you then advocating censorship?
>: >: So, Epstein, Warhol, Koening, Pollock arent your style then?
>: >In common with all other people with any sense of taste of style,
>: >no they are not.
>: Other people like The Tate museum, JP Getty, Gugenheim, The Queen.
>Indeed. In fact if I were to define a lack of good taste....
So you define taste not on what you like but on what you reject?. A very narrow
view of the world indeed?
>: name me one
>: Gallery anywhere in the world that would reject work by any of the above?
>So Galleries are mostly run by fools. But such galleries do exist.
>The Turner for one.
Would you then only be happy if every gallery was devoted to a single artist or
style?. What about a Serrano galery, would you still be unhappy?
Private galleries will usually hang anything
>that will sell. Public ones whatever the "Arts Mafia" says they
>should. Vicious circle.
Arts Mafia?... is that really how you view the Victorian or national galleries?.
you should get out more.
>: They are rather sad really. At least Warhol had
>: >the sense to hold what he did in proper contempt. I wonder what
>: >he would have thought of Piss Christ.
>: He'd have loved it. Piss Christ is rubbish .. no two ways about it. Self
>: important wankers like yourself make it into something else.
>As a daily Church going Catholic I'm not so sure he would.
Ever seen Flesh or Blood?. In order to understand life etc...
> I don' make it into anything. What it is it is despite me not because.
True, but you don't have the right to silence it because 'it' does not fit into
your world view.
>
>: This is gross hypocrisy coming from a
>: goverment funded institution like Monash.
>No it isn't. I can and do survive without a cent of Monash funding.
I apologise then.
>Serrano couldn't without government backing.
Well he couldn't until people like your good self made a fuss. BTW, serrano's
work has toured around the world so he's probably made a good deal of money.
>: >It was a total waste of money, assuming that common sense and good
>: >taste will eventually triumph. If it was a good financial investment
>: >I suggest we sell it now and realise whatever return we can get before
>: >people wise up about such things.
>: Once again you anoint yourself as the arbiter of taste and style.
>As do you only I have much more credibility and general taste.
I don't and you don't.
Scott Hillard
On Thu, 09 Oct 97 22:59:21 GMT, S...@below.if you.want (Stephen) wrote:
>Ever read the satanic verses ? ... apart from being a tedious piece of
>intellectual waffle, it really is offensive to muslims.
Good - they deserve to be offended.
> Whilst disagreeing entirely with the concept of a Fatwah, Rushdie must have been a complete moron
>if he honestly thought that the Muslims would not react angrily.
He probably figured it was worth it. Muslims aren't likely to be
successful in any attempt on his life, so long as he avoids contact
with Israeli schoolkids, and the money & fame he acquired as a result
is far beyond anything such a mediocre author could have hoped for.
Unless he took the other rocket to fame available to the average
author - fake a name & background for yourself....
Danny Yee
In article <adm.876729488@ccadfa>, David Moss <a...@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote:
>There are many fanatical and fundementalist religions in the world.
>My own answer is that the amount of public respect we should show
>to each should be measured according to a number of factors:
>
>1) Their number in proportion to the Australian population
>
>2) acceptability of their customs to the majority of Australians
>
>3) practicality of respecting their customs without infringing
> the rights of other Australians
In so far as our laws are created by democratically elected governments,
they do tend to follow these principles to some extent. And historically
there has, of course, been a significant Judaeo-Christian influence on
the legal system.
But a court has alread ruled that the display of Piss Christ is
not illegal. And I don't believe that your principles should apply
outside the legal system. Otherwise we will have rampant "tyranny of
the majority" and mob justice.
>If the majority of the country hold particular beliefs there is a strong
>argument for not deliberately upsetting those people.
The offense is to individuals -- it is individual Christians or Muslims
who find Piss Christ hurtful. But their hurt is no greater because
there are lots of other people who feel the same... individual Jews or
Buddhists should have the same rights as individual Christians.
If 90% of the population find Fred Nile's attacks on homosexuals
upsetting, should he be barred from making them? I find him
objectionable, but I would never argue that.
>While it may be "hip" to hang s**t on Christians while sticking up for
>minorities such as Aborigines, this doesn't make it right. It is fun
>for those who insult, Christianity teaches tolerence so Christians are
>an easy target. Again this doesn't make it right to insult them, especially
>when we show such disproportionate respect for other beliefs.
Well, Christians are also common... All other things being equal, surely
one would expect around 80% of the religious invective going around to
be aimed at Christianity? Maybe we should have quotas :-).
Danny. http://www.anatomy.su.oz.au/danny/
David S. Maddison
In aus.censorship Matt McLeod <m...@attila.apana.org.au> wrote:
[..]
: Should we only spend money on those things which can truly claim to have the
: support of 51% of the population? If that is so, we can close down the
: ATO right now, along with Parliament.
: Public arts spending is IMO important. It should be kept in perspective
: though - it is not the most important function of Government, not even in
: the top ten, but it is sufficiently important to deserve *some* funding.
: :Let the bludgers get a job at an abbatoir to pay the bills, and create
: :their cerebral masterpieces at weekends.
: I'd be surprised if there were too many artists surviving primarily on
: public funding. We're not exactly talking $100k/pa plus travel expenses,
: are we?
Why is art so special that it should be immune to market forces whereas
other products have to be commercially viable in order to survive. There
is a good reason that cars such as the "Edsel" or the East German "Traban"
(sp?) didn't survive. Few people wanted them. Art and literature are
consumer commodities also and it is up to the artist to either produce
works that people want to pay to see or buy or find a philanthropist to
subsidise there as-yet-unrecognised work. Just becaue an artist creates
something, doesn't automatically mean that it has merit. For example, one
of Serrano's works was a cow's head on a sandstone block. I personally
fail to see the merit in this, but other people might. I exercise my
market perogative by not buying his work. I don't see why the taxpayer
should supply a source of funds to support artistic endeavours that are
created without regard to their desirability to others, or a private
philanthropist to support the artist.
As I have said before, great artists and authors don't need public
funding. People want their work and are prepared to pay for it. If they
can't sell or display their work at a high enough price, then they
should maintain a regular job or get a philanthropist. An alternative
option is for them to produce popular "bread and butter" works, the
profits of which can be used to subsidise their unpopular work.
Rembrandt and others didn't seem to have a problem with producing art on a
commercial basis, neither should modern artists.
David Maddison
Alan Luchetti
d-m...@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes -
>pete...@netinfo.com.aus (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>>alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (Bollocks) wrote:
>>> I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly
>>> implies disrespect to Christians. Serrano obviously went
>>> for a soft target. If it was as an image of a rabbi
>>> sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
>>> seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry
>>> defaming Allah then he'd have been issued with a fatwah
>>> and be in hiding.
The only Christians who are a 'soft target' are the mixed up
ones who bark like an Ayatollah but bite like Jesus. If they
bit like an Ayatollah or (preferably) barked like Jesus, they
wouldn't have a problem. As the Nat said in the Senate,
'that is duck's water off my back'.
>>I'm all in favour of ridiculing religions. If their gods
>>were worth a pinch of parrot poop, they'd have struck down
>>the offending image, or at least swayed the judge's
>>deliberations.
A God worth many pinches of pp would have sent Serrano to
take the piss out of the more misguided members of his flock.
>You miss the point Peter. The image is offensive to
>Christians, whether it is offensive to Christ, or God is
>between the artist and said deity. During the Gulf War we
>made sailors apologise when it was revealed they had
>performed actions offensive to Islam when they were
>at sea. (clowning around with towels on their heads)
>Consistency demands we should respect the feelings of
>Christians when offensive material is displayed in one of
>our capital cities.
Some self-professed Christians took offence. The enlightened
ones didn't. Is a diminished, twisted version of
Christianity deserving of respect? Isn't Christianity
supposed to eschew idolatry? Didn't Christ say 'turn the
other cheek' -- a practical (as well as spititual) policy
which would have kept the offending image off the front pages
and prevented mediocre art from becoming celebrity art. And
the towels-on-heads in the Persian Gulf were frowned upon by
US command because it didn't want anything to reinforce the
not-exclusively-Islamic suspicion that the saviours were only
there to save their oil supply. Respect had nothing to do
with it. But if you really believe that 'consistency demands
we should respect' religious feelings, David, I'd welcome
your critique of federal government attitudes and policies
which blaspheme the Dreaming.
>As for blasphemers being struck down, the latest "Darwin
>Awards" release has a good story along those lines. It seems
>a party were out fishing when a thunderstorm threatened.
>Other boats began heading back to shore but the award
>nominee, instead of weighing anchor and heading in, stood up
>in the bows, arms outstretched and screamed "Here I am
>God, come and get me !" Seconds later he was burned to a
>crisp by a direct hit from a bolt of lightning. Two
>surviving members of the party joined the ministry shortly
afterwards.
Not so much blasphemy as russian roulette with 5 chambers
loaded. The two new ministers could have used a remedial
physics course more than a (rudimentary, it seems) divinity
course.
- -
alan
L
\-/
Daniel Jarolim
madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) writes:
: In aus.censorship Phil Herring <rev...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
: : In article <61rrff$sj$1...@preeda.internex.net.au> David S. Maddison, madd...@connexus.apana.org.au writes:
: : >If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
: : >why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
: : >is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
: : Therefore:
: : David Maddison is hypocritical if he visits any of this country's
: : public art galleries, because they are publicly funded.
: I have little choice in the matter. I'd prefer to visit galleries which
: were privately funded. What's wrong with the notion of private
: philanthropy as is common in the US? Virtually all the great art
: galleries and museums there (eg. Smithsonians) are funded by philanthopic
: trusts and donations.
You do have choice in the matter. Give money to charities organisations
that you want to support and deduct it off your tax.
+---= Daniel Jarolim =------= BEng(Comp) Stud. at Uni of Wollongong, OZ =---+
| ObStupidity: "MEAN PEOPLE SUCK" ... "NICE PEOPLE SWALLOW" |
+---= dan at suburbia.com.au =--------= http://www.suburbia.com.au/~dan =---+
This message was brought to you by the letters Q, E, Z, and the number 7
David S. Maddison
In article <61vb9f$2dc$1...@attila.apana.org.au> 14 Oct 1997 08:42:23 GMT
m...@attila.apana.org.au (Matt McLeod) wrote:
[..]
I don't have time to respond to the rest - David Wareing and others
have done an excellent job of this already...
>Only if I don't have to pay tax to support sports. I couldn't
>give a shit about the Olympics, or the AIS. So how about we
>leave them up to market forces too?
Why should sport be funded by the taxpayer either? Athletes are
professionals in the same way as others such as actors, accountants,
photographers and any other group you care to name. Why should
athletes be singled out for special subsidies? Anyway, golf, football,
basketball, racing car drivers (I believe they identify as athletes)
and cricketers to name a few can survive without subsidies.
Once again, its a case of somebody wanting to pursue their "hobby" on
the public purse. If they want to do it - fine - find a sponsor or
sponsor it yourself. And for the Olympics - why not follow the model
of the 1984 LA Olympics which was completely privately run - and made
so much profit they had a serious problem getting rid of the surplus
cash. (See the book by Peter Uberoth whose title escapes me at the
moment.)
David Maddison
Sludge
shil...@ozemail.com.au (Scott Hillard) wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 12:33:40 -0700, Kerro <ke...@darkstar.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
>
>Nope. I'm waiting for the sequel - spew Christ.
>
>
All christians know, deep down, that their religion is plain bullshit.
But don't they go beserk when someone like Sarrano threatens the
flimsy thread of faith that supports their lifelong self-delusion.
Russell Dovey
I haven't heard of triple R, no. What is it?
The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks wrote:
>
> Russell Dovey <st...@dynamite.com.au> writes:
>
> >The main problem with privatising the ABC is that there would have to be
> >ads. 'Nuff said. Also, Triple J would probably be axed. And anything
> >which tries to stop Triple J is something that should just fuck off.
>
> Ever heard of RRR or PBS? Now THAT'S what JJJ should be like. Hopefully
> that would flush out fat slags like Razer and Lucy. Might also give
> listeners a few freebies.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to triple J, and you will finally know the meaning of life.
It is to mosh, and mosh verily.
Dax:"I don't know, I guess it's just being in the same room
with so many naked men."
The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is the day
I become a penguin. A large, tentacled desert penguin.
50% of statistics are invalid.
Daniel Jarolim
madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) writes:
: If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
: why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
: is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
To increase/sustain diversity.
+---= Daniel Jarolim =------= BEng(Comp) Stud. at Uni of Wollongong, OZ =---+
| ObStupidity: Diplomacy: Saying "go to hell" such that they look forward |
| to the trip. |
+---= dan at suburbia.com.au =--------= http://www.suburbia.com.au/~dan =---+
This message was brought to you by the letters Q, A, Y, and the number 16
Scott Hillard
On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 00:45:17 -0700, Boris Nazarov
<bnaz...@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>I am a christian
Bzzzzt. Lie.
You're a Paulian.
> and I am extremely offended by that piece of trash Serrano calls art.
Good - you chose to be offended, you deal with it.
> Of course, no one is forced to view it in the gallery,
That's right.
> but it has recieved wide media coverage,
GASP!
> on the television and the newspapers, you cannot say
>people choose not to watch or look at it because the person does not have choice over
>the matter.
Oh yes they do.
How about some consideration
> Imagine the outcry if the image was of an aboriginal who was
>being pissed on,
I wouldn't piss on an Aboriginie.
> it would not have even been shown in the gallery.
Wanna bet?
> He is the one who should be censored and vilified.
Fucking psycho-Paulians.
The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks
Russell Dovey <st...@dynamite.com.au> writes:
>I haven't heard of triple R, no. What is it?
Community radio, funded by voluntary subscriptions. Every year for about
a fortnight they have a huge subscription drive and local businesses often
give subscribers discounts. There's probably a webpage somewhere, look
for "RRR FM".
David S. Maddison
In article <34438291...@dynamite.com.au> Wed, 15 Oct 1997
00:32:49 +1000 Russell Dovey <st...@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
>The main problem with privatising the ABC is that there would have to be
>ads. 'Nuff said. Also, Triple J would probably be axed. And anything
>which tries to stop Triple J is something that should just fuck off.
You mean the ABC (TV) doesn't have ads? Have you ever watched it?
David Maddison
David S. Maddison
In article <slrn645bg...@attila.apana.org.au> 13 Oct 1997
23:26:14 GMT m...@attila.apana.org.au (Matt McLeod) wrote:
[..]
>It'd be a dead loss if it had to fund itself on the tastes of the masses.
>
>Should the only "art" be the popular stuff?
Why not? Everthing else is produced for the taste of the masses.
Rembrandt produced for the tastes of the masses, or at least those
masses that could afford his productions.
David Maddison
David Wareing
> The main problem with privatising the ABC is that there would have to be
> ads.
Not necessarily. The ABC supposedly costs each person (or is that
taxpayer?) 8 cents per day. Well, it did a few years ago anyway.
A subscription-based ABC that provided a base service at negligible
cost, with user-pays for other programming could possibly pull in
that sort of money, without recourse to advertising. If nothing
else, the pay TV debacle in this country has shown that people
are not prepared to fork over their money to watch crap (as
opposed to being prepared to watch it for free). Perhaps people
will pay for independent, quality programming. (Hell, at least
we know the denizens of aus.media-watch will probably pay. :)
As for the perils of advertising, well they're pretty obvious but
at least some of them can be avoided. One of the main dangers is
that advertising influences the independence of the service through
effective control of programming content, timing and format.
Advertising may be possible if a strong chinese wall was erected
between programming and marketing, and consumers could feel
that 3rd party commercial decisions are not influencing the content
of their service. The ethos of the service should remain "If we
can't broadcast this program without commercial influence, then
it doesn't get broadcasted."
(And no, I'm not saying it's an easy issue -- it isn't. But it's
worth consideration.)
>'Nuff said. Also, Triple J would probably be axed. And anything
> which tries to stop Triple J is something that should just fuck off.
I like JJJ too, but it's not above scrutiny or accountability,
especially since we're paying for it. The network has its share
of problems, most notably with its blatant biases. (See the
handling of Green issues. How much right of reply gets given
to pro-nuclear and pro-mining types, for example?) Also, it
is broadcasted around the country but it's not a national network.
Despite its roving reporters, talent searches and its support
of musical events, JJJ is a Sydney/Melbourne-centric network.
It does try a hell of a lot harder than most others to deliver
a balanced picture of the entire country (except when it comes
to Green issues, in which case the Right side of the country
is curiously missed) but it could be improved in a big way.
David Wareing
In article <dj05.876892770@wumpus>, dj...@uow.edu.au (Daniel Jarolim) wrote:
> madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) writes:
>
> : If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
> : why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
> : is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
>
> To increase/sustain diversity.
So now government is responsible for cultural diversity. Is
there anything that we, the people, are supposed to do for ourselves
these days? Or do we just pay the government money to do everything
for us, and hope for the best?
Government mandated diversity from a government that is practically
indistinguishable from its opposition. The same government that
restricts diversity through censorship and limitations on media
ownership. The same government that bans people from entering
the country who have opposing political views. The same government
that is restricting immigration under the flimsy cover of concern
for Aussie jobs.
Yeah, it sounds like a real successful formula.
Russell Dovey
The main problem with privatising the ABC is that there would have to be
which tries to stop Triple J is something that should just fuck off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to triple J, and you will finally know the meaning of life.
It is to mosh, and mosh verily.
Tuvok:"I am curious, lieutenant. What does it mean, groovy?"
Dax:"I don't know, I guess it's just being in the same room
with so many naked men."
The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is the day
I become a penguin. A large, tentacled desert penguin.
- Russell Dovey, the perpetually curious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Archer
David S. Maddison <madd...@connexus.apana.org.au> wrote
> Russell Dovey <st...@dynamite.com.au> wrote:
> >The main problem with privatising the ABC is that there would have to be
> >ads. 'Nuff said. Also, Triple J would probably be axed. And anything
> >which tries to stop Triple J is something that should just fuck off.
> You mean the ABC (TV) doesn't have ads? Have you ever watched it?
You obviously haven't. SBS has ads, but only between programs. The ABC
doesn't have any ads. They promote their own programs, but they don't make
any money out of that.
Tim
David Gerard
On 15 Oct 1997 18:06:14 +1000,
The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks
:>I haven't heard of triple R, no. What is it?
:Community radio, funded by voluntary subscriptions. Every year for about
:a fortnight they have a huge subscription drive and local businesses often
:give subscribers discounts. There's probably a webpage somewhere, look
:for "RRR FM".
(they're a non-profit, so are allowed to join APANA)
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/scn/ http://www.suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
I hereby encourage all earthlink.net users to leave for a provider whose
email and Usenet messages are not boycotted by the rest of the net, and
for ISPs to continue to block earthlink.net email and Usenet messages from
Earthlink, until earthlink.net *stop* the flow of junk email and spam.
Russell Dovey
I watch it all the time. And it doesn't have any ads during a program,
or for commercial products.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to triple J, and you will finally know the meaning of life.
It is to mosh, and mosh verily.
Dax:"I don't know, I guess it's just being in the same room
with so many naked men."
The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is the day
I become a penguin. A large, tentacled desert penguin.
50% of statistics are invalid.
Russell Dovey
I'd say "Interesting motif" and then put it on my garden. Free
fertiliser! :)
af...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Sludge wrote:
>
> >alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Planet
> >Big Bollocks) wrote:
>
> >>Kerro <ke...@darkstar.com.au> writes:
> >>
> >>>Just out of interest; is anyone here offended by Piss Christ?
> >>
> >>>I personally think it's a great looking image but some people might have
> >>>objections to it. *Does* anyone in a.p. object to it, for whatever
> >>>reason? (No it doesn't mean you're a lamer if you do - I'm just curious).
> >>
> >>I'm not particularly offended but the image blatantly implies disrespect
> >>to Christians. Serrano obviously went for a soft target. If it was as an
> >>image of a rabbi sodomising a pig then Mossad would probably have had him
> >>seen to by now. If he had written a bit of poetry defaming Allah then
> >>he'd have been issued with a fatwah and be in hiding.
> >>
> >>What does offend me about this whole business however, is that:
> >>a. People consider the breaking of social taboos to be creative art
> >>b. The work is being exhibited by a Government body, and therefore
> >>c. It's MY taxes which end up paying Serrano to build a career based upon
> >>expressing filth which is way below the standards of mainstream society.
> >>
> >>As far as I'm concerned, the only displayable art which represents true
> >>talent is the odd nice painting. Anyone who wants to wrap a mannekin in
> >>barbwire, paint it green and cover it in hundreds and thousands can bloody
> >>well pay for it themselves.
>
> >Propping up a cross in piss is brilliant art. Otherwise it would not
> >have caused the fuss it did. Art is all about presenting alternatives,
> >creating new concepts, knocking down cultural towers of bullshit and
> >hitting hypocrisy hard where it hurts.
> So if I drop a truck load of horseshit on your driveway and called it
> art you'd come rushing out to congratulate me for "creating new
> concepts, presenting alternatives" etc etc and call me brilliant?
> Very easy to praise Serrano's work when when you're not the one being
> offended.
Russell Dovey
It told me I don't have permission to access the index page.
--
David Wareing
In article <344080...@mail.usyd.edu.au>, Boris Nazarov
<bnaz...@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> > 2) I can see how some people, particularly Christians, could be offended
> > by it. However, no-one is forcing them to go to the art gallery and view
> > it. Their offence should not be allowed to impinge on the freedom of
> > those who choose to view it.
> I am a christian and I am extremely offended by that piece
> of trash Serrano calls art.
Fine, be offended. I'm offended by sections of the Bible, and
especially by many of the practices associated with it. That
doesn't give me the right to demand the abolition of Christian
practices or art.
Among the many possibilities open to you are: (1) get over it and
accept that what is supremely important to you may be completely
inconsequential and ridiculous to others, or (2) live in a box
like many people do, complete with a library consisting of one
book and the TV tuned permanently to 'Hour of Power'. That way
you won't be offended or challenged by the other 6 billion people
on this planet who may not share your views.
> Of course, no one is forced to view it in the gallery, but
> it has recieved wide media coverage, on the television and
> the newspapers, you cannot say people choose not to watch or
> look at it because the person does not hav choice over
> the matter.
Actually, you do. Certain aspects of the Australian media (so
far as it can be described in such general terms) do warrant
much criticism, but viewing-through-force is not one of them.
As for the image itself being broadcast, you must really want
to be offended. Can you honestly tell me that the image itself
is offensive to you? Honestly? Or is it the *idea* associated
with it that offends you? If so, you're going to be offended
by the mere discussion of the issues, even without seeing the
imagery on the nightly news. In that case, I suggest you
cancel your newspaper subscription and stop listening to the
radio. (Although commercial radio such as MMM is good to listen
to if you don't want to be bombarded by alternative viewpoints
or anything which may challenge you intellectually.)
> The image was created to offend people, and does not have
> anything to do with art at all.
Define art.
> He got his 15 minutes of fame. How about some consideration
> for others.
How about some consideration for the artist? Or some consideration
for the rights of people in our society to choose what they
want to see and hear, without having their choices diluted or
limited by people like you?
Right now in South Australia, we've got the ridiculous situation
of having a theatrical play ("Shopping and Fucking") rated <R>.
What's so "considerate" about such censorship as that, or the
attacks on "Piss Christ"?
> Imagine the outcry if the image was of an aboriginal who was
> being pissed on, it would not have even been shown in the gallery.
> He is the one who should be censored and vilified.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Obviously we're not quite out of the Dark Ages just yet. Perhaps
the artist should be tarred and feathered too. We could even
burn the heretic at the stake. And why not? It's all really about
shutting up dissenting opinion isn't it?
Russell Dovey
Off topic don't mean nothing in this group.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to triple J, and you will finally know the meaning of life.
It is to mosh, and mosh verily.
The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is the day
I become a penguin. A large, red, tentacled desert penguin.
Daniel Jarolim
dwar...@adelaide.on.net[anti-spam-remove] (David Wareing) writes:
: In article <dj05.876892770@wumpus>, dj...@uow.edu.au (Daniel Jarolim) wrote:
: > madd...@connexus.apana.org.au (David S. Maddison) writes:
: >
: > : If someone has something to say, then let them say it, but I see no reason
: > : why my tax dollars should be forced to pay for something for which there
: > : is no popular (ie marketplace) support.
: >
: > To increase/sustain diversity.
: So now government is responsible for cultural diversity. Is
: there anything that we, the people, are supposed to do for ourselves
: these days? Or do we just pay the government money to do everything
: for us, and hope for the best?
In a democratic society the government sould be representative of its
constituents so I don't see why people shouldn't use the govenrment to
support diversity or whatever else they wish. The government is meant to
be the people doing something for themselves.
: Government mandated diversity from a government that is practically
: indistinguishable from its opposition. The same government that
: restricts diversity through censorship and limitations on media
: ownership. The same government that bans people from entering
: the country who have opposing political views. The same government
: that is restricting immigration under the flimsy cover of concern
: for Aussie jobs.
If you don't like the goverment or the opposition then vote for one of the
minority parties or independents. 90% of the people in Australia
voting for one of the two major parties just shows you that diversity needs
to be supported or you will end up with a purely labour / liberal
goverment, MacDonalds, and Murdoch & Packer the only media owners in this
country. Not a successful formula either.
+---= Daniel Jarolim =------= BEng(Comp) Stud. at Uni of Wollongong, OZ =---+
| ObStupidity: ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a |
| fair price or your neighbors try to kill you and take the cows. |
+---= dan at suburbia.com.au =--------= http://www.suburbia.com.au/~dan =---+
This message was brought to you by the letters O, T, H, and the number 19
Scott Steel
On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:56:33 +0930,
dwar...@adelaide.on.net[anti-spam-remove] (David Wareing) wrote:
<snip>
>
>Obviously we're not quite out of the Dark Ages just yet. Perhaps
>the artist should be tarred and feathered too. We could even
>burn the heretic at the stake. And why not? It's all really about
>shutting up dissenting opinion isn't it?
>
Bravo!!
Marvellous post
Cheers!!
Scott Steel
reply to pulse23[at]hotmail.com
JG Estiot
Russell Dovey wrote
>The day Pauline Hanson gets one of her "policies" into law is the day
>I become a penguin. A large, tentacled desert penguin.
Some of her policies have already been made law by the Howard government if
my memory serves me right.
I know, I'm off topic, don't flame me!
JG Estiot
Editor
Media-Watch Interactive
main: http://www.mediawatch.org.au/
alternate: http://www.quantum.net.au/telnem/
David S. Maddison
In article <slrn645juu...@zipper.zip.com.au> 14 Oct 1997
01:41:44 GMT ze...@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote:
[..]
>As Vincent van Gogh discovered.
>
>No one wanted his work t hen, now it is worth millions
>to people who have a copy.
Even so, Van Gogh survived without Guvmint subsidies. And by what
criteria should artworks be judged to determine if they'll be valuable
in the future?
And what about the antique market? It is based upon trade in objects
that usually had little value in their time but a valuable now. That's
life.
Also, the practice of subsidising artists is just creating the
production of large amounts of art with little intrinsic value. It
creates an expensive storage and disposal problem for future
generations - meaning they'll be less able to devote resources to
procuring worthy art.
As for me, I'm happy to devote my art collecting to the works of
commercial artists, like the odd Rembrandt or two :-) ....
[..]
David Maddison
Gibson H R
aus.media-watch and aus.censorship removed from NG
Russell Dovey (st...@dynamite.com.au) wrote:
: Off topic don't mean nothing in this group.
: --
Maybe not to aus.politics but this was cross-posted to aus.censorship and
aus.media-watch.
The discussion has now drifted away from censorship and probably isn't
relevant to aus.censorship any more.
The charter for aus.media-watch on the other hand strongly discourages
cross-posts to aus.politics unless there is a genuine overlap. IMHO that
overlap has ceased to be.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Randyte (Heath Gibson) c941...@alinga.newcastle.edu.au
"The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society
outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
from the majority judgement in Reno_v_ACLU, striking down the CDA.
++++++++++http://www2.hunterlink.net.au/~ddhrg/randyte.html+++++++++++++++++++
Graham
>
> >The main problem with privatising the ABC is that there would have
> >to be ads. 'Nuff said. Also, Triple J would probably be axed. And
> >anything which tries to stop Triple J is something that should just
> >fuck off.
>
> You mean the ABC (TV) doesn't have ads? Have you ever watched it?
Yes, I'm sure I've heard advertising for the ALP on ABC radio.
Peter Kelly
On 16 Oct 97 00:41:56 GMT that most illustrious and gifted writer of our
times Daniel Jarolim <dj...@uow.edu.au> did eloquently compose:
There is one problem with voting for a minority party. With preferenal
voting you must vote one way or another for both major party canidates,
even if it is 12 + 13. In a blue ribbon electorate a vote for a minor
party is a counts for nothing. In a swinging electorate your vote for a
minor party may actually help one of the majors if counting goes to
preferenaces. I like the idea of Optional Preferencal Voting where you
may vote for any number of canidates from 1 to n on a ballot paper where
n is the nimber of canidates. You would be able to purposely not vote for
a specific party or canidate.
--
____________________________________________________
"Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature;
sex is a weak second."
- Phil Kerby
____________________________________________________
Peter ? reply to pkelly at wantree#com#au
[ ]
/ \ http://www.wantree.com.au/~pkelly
____________________________________________________
Fingerprint for PGP Key at key server or go to
http://www.wantree.com.au/~pkelly/key.htm
71 BA 7C 45 B5 4A 5F EA 72 DB EC 7F 7F A8 70 99
____________________________________________________
Janet Whitaker
[all about the military avoiding embarrassment rather than protecting
classified information]
Heck, you could say all that about the public service in Victoria.
Aren't public servants restricted from commenting to the media on
government policy? Seems I heard that recently repeated.
--
Jan Whitaker
Danny Yee
David Wareing <dwar...@adelaide.on.net[anti-spam-remove]> wrote:
>Unfortunately, the Australian military is a heavy and habitual user
>of censorship during peacetime as well.
Yes, I read a Herald article about how Howard wants to bring back
D-notices -- in peacetime! -- this time backed with million dollar fines.
[ good analysis of the armed forces' culture of secrecy deleted ]
Joseph Askew
David S. Maddison (madd...@connexus.apana.org.au) wrote:
: >As Vincent van Gogh discovered.
: >No one wanted his work t hen, now it is worth millions
: >to people who have a copy.
Well first of all van Gogh did have problem selling his work, but
these were mostly related to his mental problems. I wouldn't say
he would have got rich off them or anything as it is only mostly
in retrospect that they are so good (ie Serrano makes anything
look brilliant). Van Gogh would have had a very competitive market
to sell in. The worst thing is that Van Gogh has helped create the
legend of the struggling unappreciated artist. Which is so false
it isn't funny. Aside from Van Gogh there are virtually no artists
who are famous today who weren't appreciated and valued in their
life times. There are a lot more that were rewarded but have since
been forgotten (guess to which Serrano is likely to belong?). The
most typical artist was someone like Rubens who, when he returned
from training in Italy, immediately put his former teacher and most
of his other pupils out of work. Michelangelo was so famous in his
own life that the Pope forced Florence to return him to Rome.
: Even so, Van Gogh survived without Guvmint subsidies. And by what
: criteria should artworks be judged to determine if they'll be valuable
: in the future?
The Netherlands decided the easiest way around this problem was to
buy every single art work produced by any Dutch artist. They now
have several large and very full warehouses containing nothing but
complete crap. It cost them a fortune as well. I say no artist who
is going to be famous is likely to die unappreciated. The few odd
cases (like Van Gogh) are minor and less likely than the modern
equivalent of not being the right colour, or holding the right nice
opinions, or being gay enough, or sleeping withthe right people or
whatever else you have to do to get a government grant. I say fuck
them. It is after all what modern artists say to their public.
: And what about the antique market? It is based upon trade in objects
: that usually had little value in their time but a valuable now. That's
: life.
Well that isn't so obvious really. An antique has value because of its
age and rarity. Any art work by a famous artist is rare, but the age
doesn't count. The name does however. So that paintings formerly
thought done by, say, Rembrandt are onl worth a fraction of what they
used to be.
: Also, the practice of subsidising artists is just creating the
: production of large amounts of art with little intrinsic value. It
: creates an expensive storage and disposal problem for future
: generations - meaning they'll be less able to devote resources to
: procuring worthy art.
The problem is that it creates a large production of art works with
little or no intrinsic value. The storage space problem isn't a
problem. If it were you could just sell a few. But no one would
buy most modern artworks. Sensible people anyway. Just as most
sensible people wouldn't cross the street to look at one. The big
problem is that handing art funding over to bureaucrats means, in
the end, handing funding over to art critics. Which means that silly
intellectual trends, fashions and politics takes over from public
appeal or common sense or even, sometimes, public hygene.
: As for me, I'm happy to devote my art collecting to the works of
: commercial artists, like the odd Rembrandt or two :-) ....
You mean you have a Rembrandt or two? Fuck me.
Joseph
--
Here's to Sam and Shari Askew on the birth of Ethan John & Isaac David
I think Spam should NOT be sent to root@localhost, postmaster@localhost,
abuse@localhost, root@bizserve, webm...@cyberpromo.com, cust...@usps.gov
and most of all not to pres...@whitehouse.gov, first...@whitehouse.gov
Daniel Jarolim
pke...@wantree.com.xx (Peter Kelly) writes:
: > If you don't like the goverment or the opposition then vote for one of the
: > voting for one of the two major parties just shows you that diversity needs
: > to be supported or you will end up with a purely labour / liberal
: > goverment, MacDonalds, and Murdoch & Packer the only media owners in this
: > country. Not a successful formula either.
: There is one problem with voting for a minority party. With preferenal
: voting you must vote one way or another for both major party canidates,
: even if it is 12 + 13. In a blue ribbon electorate a vote for a minor
: party is a counts for nothing. In a swinging electorate your vote for a
: minor party may actually help one of the majors if counting goes to
: preferenaces. I like the idea of Optional Preferencal Voting where you
: may vote for any number of canidates from 1 to n on a ballot paper where
: n is the nimber of canidates. You would be able to purposely not vote for
: a specific party or canidate.
What about the ability to just put the same number for all the candidates
you do not wish to vote for. That way preferences cannot be given to those
candidates. Remember the case a couple of years back?
+---= Daniel Jarolim =------= BEng(Comp) Stud. at Uni of Wollongong, OZ =---+
| ObStupidity: Team effort: a lot of people doing what *I* say! |
+---= dan at suburbia.com.au =--------= http://www.suburbia.com.au/~dan =---+
This message was brought to you by the letters Z, X, F, and the number 11
David S. Maddison
In article <61ru30$62h$1...@nonsense.anatomy.usyd.edu.au> 13 Oct 1997
11:38:40 +1000 da...@nonsense.anatomy.usyd.edu.au (Danny Yee) wrote:
[..]
>There may be reasonable grounds for different rules for soldiers on
>active service, or other employees acting in an official capacity.
>There are many things which are legal but which would not be _appropriate_
>behaviour for a diplomat stationed overseas, for example.
>
>And while military censorship can get pretty idiotic (I recall the
>opening chapters of _Catch 22_), it seems obvious that some constraints
>on communication have a place in time of war.
[..]
The problem with all this is that, at least in Australia, particularly
in the absence of any workable freedom of information laws, much of
what shouldn't be secret is, and the few things that should genuinely
be kept secret because they relate to sensitive aspects of Australia's
military capability, are thrown around with abandon. The things that
are kept secret are frequently to do with covering up government
incompetence, waste and corruption, rather than having any real need
for secrecy.
David Maddison
David Wareing
In article <slrn642vd...@zipper.zip.com.au>,
ze...@zipper.zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) wrote:
> Also, can art galleries exist *at all* without such funding?
On the other hand: *should* art galleries exist without
such funding? Of what use is an artistic work, or the gallery
that houses it, if nobody would choose to support it voluntarily?
> What about sport? I'd imagine the smaller olympic sports (not
> to mention the AIS) would die without such funding.
Because they'd have to pay their own way? This happens
anyway. Take one example: swimming. The bulk of the sport's
membership is not funded by taxpayers. Each area has its
own swimming club (centered of course around the available
facilities). Membership of the club is paid for by the swimmer.
The training costs (which are relatively high, and usually
conducted at the same facilities of the swimming club) are
also paid by the swimmer. As the swimmer progresses in ability,
s/he has the opportunity to take part in competitions with
other local clubs. These activities are paid for through the
swimmer and the club (via membership fees). The swimmer may
then progress to state and national competitions, and is
expected to pay his/her own way, along with contributions from
the club (especially WRT to support of teams).
Now, why should we fund swimming at the elite (national and
olympic) level? The bulk of all swimming activities are
conducted at the club level, with costs paid by the swimmer.
99% of swimmers out there are paying their own way, and the
costs (apart from getting up at 5am six days a week) for
training and competition are substantial.
Danny Yee
>olympic) level? The bulk of all swimming activities are
>conducted at the club level, with costs paid by the swimmer.
I agree. If we are going to fund sport, we should use the money to
encourage participation by ordinary people, not to give hundreds of
thousands to those who already make millions from sponsorship deals.
Similarly with art and literature... things like the Australia Council
giving The Australian (ie Murdoch!) a grant to start the Australian
Review of Books really suck.
Danny, who can think of at least one far more deserving book reviewer :-)
Peter Kelly
On 18 Oct 97 08:53:57 GMT that most illustrious and gifted writer of our
> : > If you don't like the goverment or the opposition then vote for one of the
> : > minority parties or independents. 90% of the people in Australia
> : > voting for one of the two major parties just shows you that diversity needs
> : > to be supported or you will end up with a purely labour / liberal
> : > goverment, MacDonalds, and Murdoch & Packer the only media owners in this
> : > country. Not a successful formula either.
>
> : There is one problem with voting for a minority party. With preferenal
> : voting you must vote one way or another for both major party canidates,
> : even if it is 12 + 13. In a blue ribbon electorate a vote for a minor
> : party is a counts for nothing. In a swinging electorate your vote for a
> : minor party may actually help one of the majors if counting goes to
> : preferenaces. I like the idea of Optional Preferencal Voting where you
> : may vote for any number of canidates from 1 to n on a ballot paper where
> : n is the nimber of canidates. You would be able to purposely not vote for
> : a specific party or canidate.
>
> What about the ability to just put the same number for all the candidates
> you do not wish to vote for. That way preferences cannot be given to those
> candidates. Remember the case a couple of years back?
>
I like that idea but Shhhh the last person who said that got into a bit
of trouble that Amnesty sections in other countries took a bit of
interest.
Tim Archer
Geoff <lo...@my.sig> wrote
> "Tim Archer" <tar...@black.ug.cs.su.oz.au> wrote:
> >David S. Maddison <madd...@connexus.apana.org.au> wrote
> >> You mean the ABC (TV) doesn't have ads? Have you ever watched it?
> >
> >You obviously haven't.
>
> Sorry, but he's watched a lot more of it than you have.
Hehe. And that's something I'm glad of. :-)
> > SBS has ads, but only between programs. The ABC
> >doesn't have any ads.
>
> Not even for the ABC Shop?
>
> > They promote their own programs, but they don't make
> >any money out of that.
>
> And they promote the ABC Shop and a range of other products including
> custom tapes and videos.
And they don't make any money out of that either.
> Since when was the ABC Shop a charity?
You've just shot yourself in the foot. The ABC shop creates revenue for
the government from the viewers of the ABC. It's a kind of users pays
system - those who watch the ABC buy things from the ABC shop and
ultimately fund what they watch (in a small part).
I thought you liked the idea of user pays?
The ads for the ABC shop are no different to the promotions for ABC
programs. Sorry, no commercial ads on the ABC. Yep, there are some on
SBS, but not ABC.
Tim
David Wareing
In article <3448849c...@news.ozemail.com.au>, shil...@ozemail.com.au
(Scott Hillard) wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:38:00 +0930,
> dwar...@adelaide.on.net[anti-spam-remove] (David Wareing) wrote:
>
> >> Not particularly healthy at all. I'm not arguing that we have
> >> a healthy society - IMO it is sick as hell. It hasn't actually
> >> dropped off the twig yet, but it isn't all that far off.
>
> >I can't agree. Religious zealots in Afghanistan and the US Republican
> >Party notwithstanding, we live in the most enlightened age that the
> >world has ever seen.
>
> Europe, North America, Australia etc do. Things have gone
> considerably backwards in other parts of the world.
Backwards compared to what? Obviously, some people are better
off than others on whatever scale you care to mention, and
we're still going to have Rwandas and North Koreas for the
forseeable future, but I think it's clear that the overall
trend is pointing in the right direction. To say that we're
about to fall off the twig shows a lack of historical
perspective.
>> Even with the threat of global annihilation through nuclear weapons,
>
> There is no such threat, there never was in the first place.
Do tell. You mean we never had to worry about an all-out nuclear
war at any stage since the end of WWII? The arms race was just
building firecrackers?
> >David Wareing dwar...@adelaide.on.net
> >Macintosh Game Development <www.ambrosiasw.com/~dwareing>
>
> That keeps you busy enough to warrant being in your sig? ;-)
No, I just like putting it in my .sig for kicks. I mean, it's not
like there's any money in software development. (Ask a strange
question...)
Tim
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:28:39 +1000, Boris Nazarov
<bnaz...@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>David Wareing wrote:
>>
>> In article <344080...@mail.usyd.edu.au>, Boris Nazarov
>> <bnaz...@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> > > 2) I can see how some people, particularly Christians, could be offended
>> > > by it. However, no-one is forcing them to go to the art gallery and view
>> > > it. Their offence should not be allowed to impinge on the freedom of
>> > > those who choose to view it.
>>
>> > I am a christian and I am extremely offended by that piece
>> > of trash Serrano calls art.
>>
>> Fine, be offended. I'm offended by sections of the Bible, and
>> especially by many of the practices associated with it. That
>> doesn't give me the right to demand the abolition of Christian
>> practices or art.
>>
>
>No one forces you to be christian, or make you read the bible
Not quite true. many schools "force" their students to attend
Religious Studies classes or attend chapel services, sing hymns in
assembly etc etc, yet the child has little or no say in whether they
want to be involved in these sorts of "instruction"... or rather
indoctrination.
Also, the church has until fairly recently tried to enforce their
beliefs on the rest of the population by insisting that, for example,
pubs not be allowed to serve alchohol on Good Friday or Christmas Day.
If christians don't want to go to these places on those days fine, but
why try to spoil it for the rest of those who are non-christians?
>> Among the many possibilities open to you are: (1) get over it and
>> accept that what is supremely important to you may be completely
>> inconsequential and ridiculous to others, or (2) live in a box
>> like many people do, complete with a library consisting of one
>> book and the TV tuned permanently to 'Hour of Power'. That way
>> you won't be offended or challenged by the other 6 billion people
>> on this planet who may not share your views.
>>
>>
>Thank you for your input. But firstly, I do accept that others
>have different belief system, and secondly, I have never seen 'hour
>of power'. Maybe you know that there are 1 billion christians on this
>planet, having more followers than any other religion.
I would have thought that Budhism being the main form of religion
followed in the most populous regions of the world has more followers
(I may be wrong, but how can you be so sure of the above figure you
quote).
>> Of course, no one is forced to view it in the gallery, but
>> > it has recieved wide media coverage, on the television and
>> > the newspapers, you cannot say people choose not to watch or
>> > look at it because the person does not hav choice over
>> > the matter.
>>
>> Actually, you do. Certain aspects of the Australian media (so
>> far as it can be described in such general terms) do warrant
>> much criticism, but viewing-through-force is not one of them.
>>
>
>I did not mean that they forced me to watch the tv, buy the news
>paper, but since almost every media covered it, with the offending
>image, I could not help but see it.
It only got the media coverage that it did because of all of these
fundamentalist christian groups kicking up such a song and dance about
it.
At least these galleries don't go knocking door to door trying to
display their wares such as a number of "christian" groups do.
>> As for the image itself being broadcast, you must really want
>> to be offended. Can you honestly tell me that the image itself
>> is offensive to you? Honestly? Or is it the *idea* associated
>> with it that offends you? If so, you're going to be offended
>> by the mere discussion of the issues, even without seeing the
>> imagery on the nightly news. In that case, I suggest you
>> cancel your newspaper subscription and stop listening to the
>> radio. (Although commercial radio such as MMM is good to listen
>> to if you don't want to be bombarded by alternative viewpoints
>> or anything which may challenge you intellectually.)
>
>
>The title itself which explained what the image was first offended.
>Then I could only see the image in that particular way.
>Since I read the title first, and saw the image second, it was
>offensive to me.
Once you read the tirle and were prepared to be offended, perhaps you
should have averted your eyes.
>
>I listen to various radio stations, including MMM. Because it has
>great ROCK. I do not expect it to challenge me intellectually,
>I simply like good music.
The, I am afraid that the real intention of art is lost on you. the
bulk of what is played on Triple M could hardly be called art anyway -
it is just mediocrity for the masses.
>
>
>>
>> > The image was created to offend people, and does not have
>> > anything to do with art at all.
>>
>Art is extremely hard to define, but one of the major functions
>of art is to bring up issues. Since Serrano's intention was to
>offend people, plus with the blasphemous title, it is not art.
That is true if you are a christian. Art can offend, shock, make
people think etc etc. Who are we to say what is and what isn't art?
You say it is not art, purely because it is offensive to you and you
wish to be able to dismiss it easily. Unfortunately, thanks to a few
of your fundamentalists, the issue was perhaps raised to a level
beyond art - that is, the right to freedom of expression. these
people are no better than the iconoclasts of past centuries.
>
>
>>
>> Obviously we're not quite out of the Dark Ages just yet. Perhaps
>> the artist should be tarred and feathered too. We could even
>> burn the heretic at the stake. And why not? It's all really about
>> shutting up dissenting opinion isn't it?
>>
>What dark ages, I simply do not want taxpayers money wasted on such
>crap.
What is crap in your eyes is not necessarily crap in everyone else's
eyes. Who are you to determine what my taxes are spent on?
regards, Tim...
David Wareing
In article <344705...@mail.usyd.edu.au>, Boris Nazarov
<bnaz...@mail.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> David Wareing wrote:
> > > I am a christian and I am extremely offended by that piece
> > > of trash Serrano calls art.
> >
> > Fine, be offended. I'm offended by sections of the Bible, and
> > especially by many of the practices associated with it. That
> > doesn't give me the right to demand the abolition of Christian
> > practices or art.
> No one forces you to be christian, or make you read the bible
Perhaps you should tell that to the Fred Niles' of this world
when they attempt to impose their (supposedly) Christian
"morals" and philosophies upon myself and every other Australian.
Since you obviously share my views on freedom from religious
tyranny, perhaps you'd also agree that you (or anyone else) do not
have the right to impose your artistic and religious tastes upon
me by trying to get a work of art banned.
> > Among the many possibilities open to you are: (1) get over it and
> > accept that what is supremely important to you may be completely
> > inconsequential and ridiculous to others, or (2) live in a box
> > like many people do, complete with a library consisting of one
> > book and the TV tuned permanently to 'Hour of Power'. That way
> > you won't be offended or challenged by the other 6 billion people
> > on this planet who may not share your views.
> Thank you for your input. But firstly, I do accept that others
> have different belief system, and secondly, I have never seen 'hour
> of power'. Maybe you know that there are 1 billion christians on this
> planet, having more followers than any other religion.
If correct, that leaves another 5 billion who do not necessarily
share your views. Your point, again?
> > Actually, you do. Certain aspects of the Australian media (so
> > far as it can be described in such general terms) do warrant
> > much criticism, but viewing-through-force is not one of them.
> I did not mean that they forced me to watch the tv, buy the news
> paper, but since almost every media covered it, with the offending
> image, I could not help but see it.
That's life. The role of the news is to (supposedly) inform and
educate (as opposed to entertain and titillate in the manner of
'Today Tonight' and 'A Current Affair'). If you don't believe
you can watch or read the news without being confronted with
unpleasant images, then switch off. How happy would you be
if the news services practised even more censorship than they
do now, and decided to pre-filter every news story so that it
didn't offend anyone in this country? How much news do you think
you'd receive each day, and how reliable and worthwhile would
it be?
> > As for the image itself being broadcast, you must really want
> > to be offended. Can you honestly tell me that the image itself
> > is offensive to you? Honestly? Or is it the *idea* associated
> > with it that offends you? If so, you're going to be offended
> > by the mere discussion of the issues, even without seeing the
> > imagery on the nightly news. In that case, I suggest you
> > cancel your newspaper subscription and stop listening to the
> > radio. (Although commercial radio such as MMM is good to listen
> > to if you don't want to be bombarded by alternative viewpoints
> > or anything which may challenge you intellectually.)
> The title itself which explained what the image was first offended.
> Then I could only see the image in that particular way.
> Since I read the title first, and saw the image second, it was
> offensive to me.
In that case, you're going to have a problem with any discussion
of the matter or with any subject that you regard as blasphemous.
That's your problem, and you'll need to deal with it. If it
really offended you, then contact the television stations and
complain. Freedom of choice, remember?
> Art is extremely hard to define, but one of the major functions
> of art is to bring up issues. Since Serrano's intention was to
> offend people, plus with the blasphemous title, it is not art.
Read your first sentence again. You wouldn't agree that Serrano's
work is now an issue?
> > Right now in South Australia, we've got the ridiculous situation
> > of having a theatrical play ("Shopping and Fucking") rated <R>.
> > What's so "considerate" about such censorship as that, or the
> > attacks on "Piss Christ"?
> I live in NSW, never heard of that play. But people still
> have the choice of going to see it, and is not news anywhere
> else.
The reason it's not news anywhere else is because everywhere else,
nobody decided to do a bit of moralising and imposition of
their values on to other people. Only in South Australia has
the play been deemed worthy of a rating by some wowser who obviously
decided to be offended and outraged.
BTW, a rating of <R> means that people *don't* always have
the choice of going to see it. <R> for Restricted.
> > Imagine the outcry if the image was of an aboriginal who was
> > > being pissed on, it would not have even been shown in the gallery.
> > > He is the one who should be censored and vilified.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Obviously we're not quite out of the Dark Ages just yet. Perhaps
> > the artist should be tarred and feathered too. We could even
> > burn the heretic at the stake. And why not? It's all really about
> > shutting up dissenting opinion isn't it?
> What dark ages, I simply do not want taxpayers money wasted on such
> crap.
But only because it offends your sensibilities. Or are you similarly
against all taxpayer funded art, including that which supoorts your
religious beliefs?
> It is not about dissenting opinion. I have various friends who are not
> christian, but discuss religion with me. I do not want them censored,
> providing they are just not saying that to offend me.
Well, what if your friends *do* want to offend you? Do you want to
censor them? If I or anyone else offends you in this newsgroup,
will you attempt to censor us?
On the other hand, let's say that I'm a Christian fundamentalist and
I really do expect people to take the commandment against graven
images seriously. I want to censor all depictions of Christ, from
Serrano to the Vatican to this month's copy of the Watchtower.
Are you prepared to accept this censorship?
> What is wrong with having a bit of morality?
Here's what's wrong: your morals do not necessarily bear any
similarity to mine. Morals are not a fixed, absolute tank of choices
that we can siphon from whenever we need to make a decision. Morals,
or even the concept of morals, differ from person to person.
Regardless of your professed religious leanings, if you were
raised in Malaysia or Indonesia, you would almost certainly *not*
be a Christian and you would probably be beating out a different
rhythm on your "morals" drum.
The danger here is that people like you want to impose your
morals on other people (e.g. censor your friends if they offend
you or ban a work of art or stop its funding if it doesn't pay
enough respect to your religious sensibilities).
Even more dangerous is that you believe people with
alternative points of views do not have a "morality". Strangely
enough, this is exactly the same line used by fundamentalist,
pro-censorship, pro-restriction and (supposedly) god-fearing
groups such as 'Call to Australia', 'Festival of Light' and
squillions of other god-botherers who can't accept anyone who
doesn't fit with their brand of "morality."
Jason Stokes
In article <62f76l$6...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, Tyson Richard DOWD
<t...@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
>>It is supposed to be a vehicle for promoting the interests (political,
>>cultural, etc) of people in the age group 18 - 30, who are generally
>>under-represented in the other mainstream media.
>
>It's interesting that this discussion has moved from Piss Christ to JJJ,
>as I have often noticed that while JJJ will take strong stands on, say,
>green issues, it has little or no interest in civil liberties.
[snip great stuff]
Agreed. As I've often pointed out, civil liberties are not an officially
sanction Youth Value(tm), therefore no politically minded journalist is
interested in them. Distressing but true: _most_ major youth political
commentators, from the NUS to youth journalists, have been carefully
indoctrinated in conservative liberal values a la the Democrats and the
Greens. The only way to fix this is to attack their mealy-mouthedness on
such issues.
>I've heard enough incidents of this kind to give me the impression
>that although the station _as a whole_ tries to give an impression of
>being enlightened, green, and progressive, when there isn't an easy
>answer, or a party line than can be easily recited, the presenters buckle
>and reveal that they are just as bigoted and easily scared into
>conservatism as those they criticise. This is a terrible example to set
>for young people.
Agreed. In fact, I've often been mightily pissed of by the "Aren't we soooo
responsible" line of the Triple-J Youth "Alliance." The evening presenter
Michael Tunn is a vacillating idiot who is all "aren't we naughty" boundary
pushing one minute and "hang on -- that's irresponsible" preaching the next,
Helen Razor is a liberal arts dropout whose mind-numbing political
correctness (in one of her book she accuses Helen Garner's "The First Stone"
as having all the feminist sensibility of "Deep Throat" -- exposing her
ignorance on two counts), there's that forgettable morning show presenter
who gives _everyone_ a free ride, there's the Triple-J arts mob who pretty
much accept censorship is a Necessary Part of Government(tm), which leaves
only the morning show people (Tunn, Sandman, Paul McDermott) who seem to be
pretty much on the right beam but are less interested in serious political
satire than fart gags.
--
Jason Stokes: j.stokes (at) bohm.anu.edu.au
I use a spam block. Replace (at) with @ to discover my email address.
Ralph Jones
In article <34457C82...@dynamite.com.au>, st...@dynamite.com.au says...
> It told me I don't have permission to access the index page.
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> >
> > On 15 Oct 1997 18:06:14 +1000,
> > The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks
> > <alta...@silas.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> > :Russell Dovey <st...@dynamite.com.au> writes:
> >
> > :>I haven't heard of triple R, no. What is it?
> >
they have such public radio stations in other Australian cities?
[snip]
> > http://rrr.apana.org.au/
> >
> > (they're a non-profit, so are allowed to join APANA)
[snip]
Ralph Jones
Gibson H R
Boris Nazarov (bnaz...@mail.usyd.edu.au) wrote:
: David Wareing wrote:
: The title itself which explained what the image was first offended.
: Then I could only see the image in that particular way.
: Since I read the title first, and saw the image second, it was
: offensive to me.
: I listen to various radio stations, including MMM. Because it has
: I simply like good music.
:
: >
: > > The image was created to offend people, and does not have
: > > anything to do with art at all.
: Art is extremely hard to define, but one of the major functions
: of art is to bring up issues. Since Serrano's intention was to
: offend people, plus with the blasphemous title, it is not art.
Excuse me but aren't you contradicting yourself here? You say that art is
hard to define and its role is to bring up issues. Serrano's piece has
certainly raised a number of issues... free speech for starters, closely
followed by the fanatcism and hypocricy of those who attacked his piece.
How can you say that art's role is to raise issues then simply declrare
Serrano's piece is not art simply because one issue it takes up is the
sacredness of the image of christ.
: I live in NSW, never heard of that play. But people still have the
: choice
: of going to see it, and is not news anywhere else.
:
And now people can't see any of the Serrano works due to the violent acts
of a number of people who were offended by the image.
: It is not about dissenting opinion. I have various friends who are not
: christian, but discuss religion with me. I do not want them censored,
: providing they are just not saying that to offend me. What is wrong with
: having a bit of morality?
So what do you do when someone takes a contrary opinion to you just to
provoke you in to justifying yourself? What if they need to be offensive
to get your attention or to get you to seriously start thinking? Isn't
Serrano's 'Piss Christ' doing just that. Being controversial, contrary to
your beliefs so as to provoke you to argument, to justify why that
particualr image shoudl be considered sacred?