Is this a misuse of tax money?

Page 4 of 9 [ 130 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

01 Dec 2010, 1:19 pm

Philologos wrote:

marshall -

exact reference is not clear.

Not assuming you are responding to my winged words [I bet you think this Song is About You - Not], but for the record.

I am not part of the right, though today's left can be frightening.

I am not part of the left, though the right is often wrong.

Apolitical eclectic iconoclast me.

All I'm saying is we have MUCH MORE f*****g IMPORTANT things to worry about right now.

I'm so sick of the Christian Right's persecution complex. They think some high level commie-liberal government offecial personally selected to display the exhibit just to piss off Christians. :roll:

They had 8 years of the leaders of US government cheerleading for their particular religion and set of values.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Dec 2010, 1:41 pm

Sand wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

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.

Which makes me wonder what they teach in art school. :roll:

Fact is from a visual standpoint a lot of people would find this disgusting. You aren't the only one that knows something about art, I may not have gone the animation, web, gaming, etc. route for Computer Graphics Technology (I went into Product Lifecycle Management, and Manufacturing Graphics), but that doesn't mean I didn't have to take the courses relevant to visual perception. Additionally I had to take a psychology course.

You may find it to be "art," but for most people especially people of a particular religion would find it offensive. Quite frankly in my opinion this work was done specifically to offend people.

I've been refraining from pointing out that other things can be called "art" which are in fact extremely inflamatory and illegal for that matter.

@ marshall

If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. Fact is, if persecution is really occurring and people are deliberately trying to antagonize a group of people, it is no longer a psychological issue but the cause is external in origin and quite real.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Dec 2010, 2:04 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

You may find it to be "art," but for most people

Groupthink.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Dec 2010, 2:07 pm

Sand wrote:

The delight in seeing creative people work for no money while armaments manufacturers are abundantly rewarded for horrendously overcharging to produce goods whose ideal is mass destruction of people and property strikes me as about as perverse as a thought can get. Great art gets produced by being well financed and the more it is financed, the more will be produced. Why should businesses be stimulated by public support and not science and art. The latter are far more fertile for creating a dynamic economy. If you know anything about creative science (and I have strong doubts about your knowledge in that area) you know how much basic new and rewarding knowledge resulted from government support.

The difference between science and art is manifest. Science is objective, i.e. its validity is judged almost exclusively on the outcome of experiments. Art, on the other hand, is subjective. What constitutes good art and bad art is a matter of opinion. What constitutes good science and bad science is based on experimental results.

Science has a direct impact on the economic welfare of the nation and the competitive position of U.S. firms in the hurly burly of the market place. Art does not really matter in this context. We can live with it or live without it and we certainly do not need government sponsored art. Art happens in the private sector all by itself. You might not like the products of commercial art but what you and I like and dislike in art is purely a matter of taste and opinion.

ruveyn

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

01 Dec 2010, 2:09 pm

auntblabby wrote:

Jacoby wrote:

auntblabby wrote:

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

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

because, as one other poster is fond of repeating, TINFL. you get more of what you pay for. people, for the most part, are unwilling to work for free. artists, starving and otherwise, need moolah to keep a roof over their heads just like everybody else.

They could just, god forbid, get a real job like most artists. I wish everybody could get paid to do what they love but that's not possible. I always wanted to be a pro basketball player, why can't I get federal money?

I don't really care to get into the artistic merit of things since everything can be considered art. I just think it's a luxury we can't afford with a near 14 trillion dollar national debt. If local municipalities or whatever want to raise the money to support artists on their own, they should bring it up to vote.

Last edited by Jacoby on 01 Dec 2010, 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Dec 2010, 2:10 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

You may find it to be "art," but for most people

Groupthink.

Quoting things out of context to try to make someone look like an idiot isn't ethical.

Inuyasha wrote:

You may find it to be "art," but for most people especially people of a particular religion would find it offensive. Quite frankly in my opinion this work was done specifically to offend people.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Dec 2010, 2:12 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

You have no place in a discussion on art or its impact on society. Your understanding of it and its impact is minimal at best given your general demeanor and lack of ability to comprehend beyond the absolute literal.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Dec 2010, 2:14 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Inuyasha wrote:

You may find it to be "art," but for most people

Groupthink.

Quoting things out of context to try to make someone look like an idiot isn't ethical.

Inuyasha wrote:

You may find it to be "art," but for most people especially people of a particular religion would find it offensive. Quite frankly in my opinion this work was done specifically to offend people.

You are speaking on the part of most people without their consent. It's a cheap technique you unconsciously stole from all the trash conservative talk shows you imbibe. It gives the illusion that there are more people supporting a certain opinion without actually being held to your word on it.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Dec 2010, 2:14 pm

skafather84 wrote:

Outside of some applications of Industrial Design and Entertainment tell me what practical impact art has on our society? And yes, I am literal. It is a genetic condition with me. Tell me how important Art is to our Culture. I am waiting to hear from you.

NB: I am speaking primarily of the visual arts (painting, sculpture and to some extent architecture). I can we where written art -- literature might have a role in placing memes in the the population and that could be influential.

ruveyn

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Dec 2010, 2:24 pm

skafather84 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

Are you saying that he's not a person or somehow inferior to you?

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Dec 2010, 2:34 pm

ruveyn wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Art is a non-linguistic means of communication. It allows cultures to pierce language borders and political borders in some cases. It can also preclude and inspire creation like how science-fiction has encouraged scientists today to look to replicate what they've read and seen.

Which I don't expect you to get it because it's not really your thing...which is why I said you really don't have any place in this discussion...not to necessarily be mean but just that you don't get it.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Dec 2010, 2:46 pm

skafather84 wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Art can also be used for propaganda, to deliberately provoke or offend someone, etc. This would be more of something you would see out of the SAW horror movies.

skafather84 wrote:

Which I don't expect you to get it because it's not really your thing...which is why I said you really don't have any place in this discussion...not to necessarily be mean but just that you don't get it.

Since you are an Atheist and not a Christian, you really have no business saying to Christians like myself that we shouldn't feel offended by that piece of trash. This is why Christians have such a large dislike of Atheists, because Atheists go out of their way to provoke, offend, etc. Christians just cause they find it amusing. Difference is people aren't going to just let you get away with bullying anymore.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

01 Dec 2010, 2:48 pm

Jacoby wrote:

I don't really care to get into the artistic merit of things since everything can be considered art. I just think it's a luxury we can't afford with a near 14 trillion dollar national debt. If local municipalities or whatever want to raise the money to support artists on their own, they should bring it up to vote.

This is an argument I can at least respect. I don't agree with it, but at least there's consistency here.

What I can't respect is the decision to remove of a specific piece because a group of people find it offensive (which is completely out of the artist's context, btw). That's absolute censorship, and I'm quite pissed off by the museum's decision. Why should one religion be allowed to dictate what is and what is not acceptable art?

The film was about AIDS and suffering. The exhibit has been in place since late October. The part with Jesus and the ants was 11 seconds long. The film was made during a time when many "Christians" claimed that AIDS was God's way of ridding the Earth from "fags." The offense was against homosexuals, not Jesus.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

01 Dec 2010, 2:59 pm

number5 wrote:

What I can't respect is the decision to remove of a specific piece because a group of people find it offensive (which is completely out of the artist's context, btw). That's absolute censorship, and I'm quite pissed off by the museum's decision. Why should one religion be allowed to dictate what is and what is not acceptable art?

What the artist claimed the context was. That doesn't mean that was actually the context, otherwise pedophiles could claim child porn to be art and going after it to be suppression of free speech.

number5 wrote:

The film was about AIDS and suffering. The exhibit has been in place since late October. The part with Jesus and the ants was 11 seconds long. The film was made during a time when many "Christians" claimed that AIDS was God's way of ridding the Earth from "fags." The offense was against homosexuals, not Jesus.

Something that you would see in the SAW movies directed towards a major religious group and you're telling me they shouldn't take offense? That said, I have repeatedly pointed out that the issue is tax money being used to fund works like this. Federal Money wouldn't be used to build a church, so it shouldn't be used to bash a religion either. If Michael Moore wants to fund trash like that fine, let him, but don't use tax payer money to fund it.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

01 Dec 2010, 3:09 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

If you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. Fact is, if persecution is really occurring and people are deliberately trying to antagonize a group of people, it is no longer a psychological issue but the cause is external in origin and quite real.

The same can be said to you. The exhibit was not attacking or mocking the Christian religion. It was attacking societal bigotry against people who contract aids. If the point was merely to be blasphemous they could just show an episode of South Park. That wasn't the point.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Dec 2010, 3:18 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Going by your rationale, any christian related art shouldn't be there either and I'm not about to argue with an exhibition of the David or the Pieta. It's art.

Page 4 of 9 [ 130 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

Is this a misuse of tax money? Post Reply New Topic

Is this a misuse of tax money?