Is this a misuse of tax money?

Post Reply New Topic

Art is influenced by the society and the media that surrounds the artist. If you have a problem with how he's portraying the cross and that fictional character, maybe you should ask him why he might be prompted to create such a piece instead of coming up with your own reasons. The article mentioned that it had something to do with AIDS and given the vast christian stance on homosexuality and AIDS and what not, it's easy to see how he might come to such a conclusion as to make a piece like that. I don't even really know what his explanation was but it's easy to start to build up on what in society might influence his creative process.

"When Pollock began doing drip paintings in the 50s, the average viewer was confused and outraged that his paintings would even be suggested to be art, because the average viewer felt his or her 5-year-old kid could do it."

Remember the baby elephant? You had to love it. Fund THAT.

You completely miss the point and try to turn it into another bash Christians thread. This is why people can't stand Atheists, because you get right up in people's faces and start spewing derogatory comments.

Reminds me of the library banning the American flag just after 9/11 but having no problems hanging brightly colored penises all through the place (the library was in Colorado) and calling it art. Btw, I found out about this via Sean Hannity and guess what he was telling the truth.

Seriously, at what point is something just trash and not art, or I guess it's okay to spew hate towards Christians. If this stunt was pulled towards Jewish people the artist would be called an anti-semite. If this stunt was pulled towards muslims there would be a call for the artist's head quite literally. Seriously, someone isn't a second class citizen because they are Christian, as much as new age atheists would like for people to be considered that.

There is no use of tax money, only misuse.

You're seriously damaged to miss what I wrote and only see what you wanted and just rant from there.

without funding of the arts, there will be less of them. a country with less art is a lesser place.

I actually didn't want to waste my time picking apart your argument and point out where you were being derogatory but if you insist.




1. I quite frankly don't care about the piece being created, except for the fact it involves taxpayer funds in violation of the 1st Amendment.

2. The idea as to whether Jesus was real or not is open to debate as you well know. You may believe he never existed that doesn't mean he didn't exist. Just as there are people that don't believe the holocaust happened, when it in fact did happen and there is still plenty of evidence in existence to prove that the holocaust happened. That comment you made was deliberately done just to provoke people, as this artwork was deliberately created to infuriate Christians.



Let me get this through your head, I don't particularly care what the supposed explanation is because quite frankly it seems like a stretch. Here is the thing, if you don't have sex it is rather hard to get AIDS (not impossible but it becomes extremely unlikely). We're not talking about a kid like Ryan White whom got AIDS from a blood transfusion, we're talking about people not behaving responsibly. Ever here of getting tested to see if you have AIDS and your partner get tested as well? That would cut down a lot on HIV infection, now wouldn't it.

Furthermore you contradicted yourself.



Yet you later say:



So in short, I didn't miss what you wrote.

Were you addressing me directly, or quoting me to address Inuyasha? Because none of the work discussed here-- Serrano, Ofili, or this new work-- poses a problem for me. I'm in agreement with you about this.



I'm sorry. What?

Why is that? Why can't the arts support themselves?

I fail to see how it is art?

Sarcasm: Oh I'm sorry propaganda posters of the "annointed one" are art and should receive Federal Funding too.

In general the study and the practice of the arts results in tremendous paybacks to the economy in ways that penetrate every industry from architecture through literature to films and drama etc. Billions upon billions of dollars flow through the use of the arts and understanding and appreciation of their value. No one objects to the public education of children since uneducated children are a burden and a liability to society and generate very little in tax returns. But education does not cease at the school door. The availability of history and culture to adults throughout their lives is a vital factor in stimulating understanding and creativity and producing real and important value. The disdain for the arts by business oriented idiots points to their basic stupidity. Without the arts they would have very little to sell.

Sand, I would argue that this piece isn't even art, it is garbage plain and simple.

Judging by your posts your understanding of what is and isn't art is severely limited. I have trained all my life as an artist and worked many years in the field.

More expounding on the idea. Society needs it because society itself breeds it.

In a more perfect world, I agree, they could, based on their own merit. However, the US isn't exactly the friendliest society to fine art. Sure, there isn't any severe government censorship like in a fundamentalist theocracy or dictatorship. But what we do have is a widespread institutional attitude (as evidenced by the source of this whole discussion) that the arts are an inessential aspect of life, or that art appreciation should be solely the realm of rich patrons. If there's one major misconception among the public with which I've had to deal throughout the course of my studies (and which I resent more than any other), it's the idea that being an artist is somehow not really "work", or that it's not as valid a career as being a doctor or a lawyer or a banker. Even in our public schools, when funding cuts have to be made, art is among the first things to go because people view it as a luxury, something that isn't as fundamentally important to education as math or science or history. I disagree strongly. Art is one of the few threads of our existence that has run from the very beginning of our sapience, all the way up to the present day. Art is just as old, if not older, than even religion. Art is the canary in the coal mine that warns when a society is in danger of falling into a socially repressive state. Art has a direct correllation with a society's health and well-being, and with the personal rights we as humans have deemed worthy of protection. A society's artists are its first line of defense against oppression, because, when they do their job properly, they speak truths that no one else dares. Unfortunately, the phrase "starving artist" isn't too much of an exaggeration-- in our modern capitalist society, where more people would rather watch TV than read a book or visit a museum, what we do isn't all that highly valued as a commodity, except for specific cases who've struggled for years and have been fortunate enough to build a reputation (like Picasso or Dali, for example, or even Damien Hirst). A recognizable name gives you access most artists don't have, because people higher up on the social ladder see it as a symbol of status. The downside is, many artists only achieve that status posthumously. For the rest of us, who don't have recognizable names and who are still alive, the career is pretty much on a "take whatever you can get" basis. Some artists don't have a problem living like that. Others have visions which they believe should not be compromised.



That is your failing, not the artist's. I can't convince you of what is art and what isn't. If the artist puts forth something as art and you question its validity, that is your opinion, and yours alone. What you personally believe doesn't diminish the artist's intention (i.e., that it is indeed "art") one iota.

Last edited by Chevand on 01 Dec 2010, 1:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

And you're arguing from a position of not even having seen the piece or heard or read what the artist had to say about his piece. So in other words, you're arguing without even knowing what the video is. Do you realize how stupid that makes you look?