Is this a misuse of tax money?

Post Reply New Topic

Likewise, tax dollars shouldn't be used by government to cheerlead for a particular religion. Why do Republicans support the usage of tax dollars to place the Ten Commandments on public display? By doing so they are clearly trying to antagonize non-believers.

Well, I've been to two different ones, one in the U.S., and one in Canada, so I can tell you what they teach. It's not just learning a craft. For anyone who wants to make a living as a fine artist, there's much more to it than that. Formal training in visual art is about learning to see the world around you with a critical eye, not always accepting things at face value. It's about learning the discipline to pace yourself in a work environment that isn't always rigidly constructed and planned out. It's about learning to be thick-skinned in the face of criticism, sometimes very harsh, sometimes directed at work into which you've poured your heart and soul. But what I would say it's about most of all is, gaining the strength and confidence to not kowtow to philistines like you who try to invoke their religious or political values to try to bully us into silence.



Again, you find it disgusting, and you are the only person for whom you can speak.



You want to try to condescend to actual artists who do it for a living? You go right ahead. The truth is, your educational credentials are only half the big picture. You aren't putting your livelihood on the line by dedicating your life to it. That makes a big difference.



Yes, your opinion. Opinions, unlike facts, are personal, originate from within, and are dictated by personal choice. Therefore, the degree of offensiveness is not an inherent absolute of the piece of artwork, but rather a relative quality unique to you, even though you may make the argument that, in all probability, there is some segment of the population at large which is in agreement with your opinion. In other words, it's only offensive to people who choose to see it as offensive.

By the way-- I always find it fascinating how one moment the conservative right is wailing and moaning about the liberals ruining things with their PC-ness and oversensitivity to people's fragile feelings, and the next they're up in arms and offended by some innocuous piece of artwork that dares to question some aspect of Christianity. I guess I could just say what you conservatives are always telling us: man up, grow a thicker skin, and get over it. Don't get so tweaked over such a little thing.



Oh, do tell. Without specific examples, I can't do anything but generalize, and say that legality is a whole separate issue.



Persecution's a two-way street, buddy. You don't think Christians ever persecute atheists, agnostics, and people of other faiths? You don't think what Pat Robertson does is persecution against secular humanists? Then I advise you to crack open a dictionary and look up "persecution". You know, right after you look up "hypocrisy".

@ Chevand

I fail to see how ticking off a major demographic portion of the population at the artist, is a goal for an artist.

As for speaking for a larger segment of the population, actually I can in this case. First it is known in psychology that ants or other insects crawling over what is the equivalent to a corpse causes revulsion in humans. It can cause people to feel ill and even vomit. The fact the corpse is 'Jesus' indicates that the piece was intended to be derogatory towards Christians in some way shape or form.

I'm sure a person that deals with forensics wouldn't find it at all disturbing, but most people don't like looking at corpses and tend to be disturbed by them especially when it looks like they are in a state of decomposition.

Would this same work have been made if it was derogatory towards Islam? Seriously, can the moral high ground arguement cause it isn't going to fly.

Lo lo looo. And hoots.

A. to say "most people X" is not automatically to do groupthink, it is to think sbout a group. If I say there is a set of supermarket shoppers who are okay with e.g. National Enquiroids headlining Obama / Oprah intimacy I am not part of that group, not am I consulting any group.

B. Tossing the Groupthink cowpat can cut both ways.

A) prove that many people give two farthings about this video.

B) The artists' goal might be to shock to convey the strong emotion that they themselves are feeling about the topic at hand. The desperate, pain-filled nature of the video at hand, for example, is the artist conveying how he feels both about how society views gay AIDS victims as well as the pain in actually dealing with the condition itself and how despairing it is. It's obvious to someone who isn't too busy getting in touch with their emotional side rather than their logic side to even start to think about what the artist is looking to convey. It's not your fault given that f***s news and the reptilian-conservative politicians were looking to make a grandstanding and made sure to engage your emotions first rather than any intellect.

You fail, because your whole argument is based on the presupposition that "ticking off a major demographic portion of the population" was the artist's whole point. I'm telling you it wasn't.



Then why are CSI and its spin-offs so popular?

Seriously, that's your argument? That rotting corpses are revolting, so showing Jesus's corpse in the same state of decay through which all other people go eventually must be meant as a slight?



Have you ever heard of Theo van Gogh (the filmmaker, not Vincent van Gogh's brother and art dealer) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali? If you haven't, I suggest you look them up.

I'll add, how can you even be sure that the artist wasn't a Christian himself?

Shush on that. You might give him the idea that it's okay to kill artists.

Censorship in America, eh? Not so perfect with your constitution thing after all.

Nothing is perfect if religion is involved.

Just cause someone is saying something doesn't mean they are telling the truth. If we are supposed to take everything at face value as to what he says, why don't we also take what people that produce kiddie porn's word that it is just art.

There is a line where something is no longer art. I'm not sure if this piece crossed the line, but it certainly falls into the realm where tax payer funds should not be used to fund its creation, nor its display. If someone like Soros wants to fund 'art' like this, let him fund it, don't use tax payer money.



It falls into the morbid fascination with death, additionally CSI, Law & Order, etc. do not show the more gruesome images and often keep the "gore" off camera.



Before I look them up, were they the ones that Muslims were trying to kill (quite literally)? Seriously, if that is true then here is the reason why if you want to see intolerance you're going after the wrong religion. I haven't called for any violence to occur to the person that produced the work.



You're like the pot calling the kettle black.

Seriously, I have no issues with Atheists as long as they don't try to force their views onto me, or be a jerk because I happen to be Christian.

From a legal standpoint, the line falls where it falls for other First Amendment rights-- where it encroaches on others' personal rights. Child pornography crosses that line (and is therefore illegal) because it involves the sexual exploitation of minors who don't have the resources to defend themselves. This piece has not encroached on your ability to be a practicing Christian. You may not like the piece of artwork, but it hasn't hindered your freedom of religious practice in the slightest. It hasn't even encroached on your right to visit the Smithsonian, if you so choose.

Free speech is protected in the US, even the free speech of people with whom most people disagree. That's a fundamental principle of American life. I disagree with you, but you've got every right to say what you want, so long as you aren't endangering anyone else's rights.



Not "trying". An Islamic fundamentalist actually succeeded in murdering van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam, in broad daylight. Hirsi Ali is still alive, but had to go into hiding because of the potential threat.

None of that is the point, though. This isn't about which religion to "go after". The point is, we have free speech, and that includes the freedom to be critical of any religion. If you don't like it, find yourself a nice Christian theocracy where you don't have to deal with bleeding hearts like myself.

Whatever you may know about art it seems you missed the core point about the discipline. Art is not about kissing people's asses. It is about discovering basics of perceiving the world we live in. If it explores those realities that are shocking that means there is very important stuff you have kept from yourself and should be aware of. Truth, unfortunately, is not always beauty. Everybody excretes and it stinks and that should not be hidden or denied. Society and nature do terrible things and it is extremely important we should be conscious of that. Art is not only about nicely placed lines and forms. It is about reality and good art rubs your nose in it.and there is no doubt that is a distressing thing but that is what makes it good art.

@ Chevand

I was making the point that there is a line when something is no longer art.


Additionally, if you do live in Canada you do not have a freedom of speech and in fact can be prosecuted for "hate speech" if you say comments about a particular religion (specifically Islam).

In the United States, laws like that won't stand.

Again though, the issue is tax payer money being used in a manner that could violate Federal Law, you're not supposed to promote or shun a particular religion on the taxpayer's dime.

Like a good many conservatives (the cleaned up name for reactionaries) the concept of spending money on something that might offend but forcibly educate the public about terrible things is more horrifying than anything else. Conservative people are basically money worshipers and public money spent for the public good horrifies them.

Seriously, you can claim all you want that it isn't something and the artist can rationalize all he wants. The fact is he did it to infuriate Christians and denigrate a religion. Christians aren't 2nd class citizens as much as you would like them to be. I have the right to complain about trash like that, and furthermore from a legal standpoint I would have the stronger case if it ended up in a lawsuit simply because tax money is involved. I could argue his piece violates free speech because of the tax money.