How come the "tolerance and acceptance" gig only swings one way?
I have to "tolerate and accept" (and help fund) things I might not like or agree with, JUST because it's "art"?
**** that. My life isn't being enriched by some of this crap.
No one ever asks some freak artist to appreciate and "tolerate" the public not to be offended or annoyed and keep his piss-filled jars and poo-smeared canvases to himself.
You wanna paint? You wanna sculpt? Great! Paint and sculpt your ass off. But don't get your smock in a wad if I don't wanna help pay for it or view it.
You can get a goddamn job like the rest of us have to do and you can paint and sculpt in the evenings and weekends, like I have to do.
And if you're SO artistically bent that doing so is out of the question, then kill yourself already and be done with it.
I'd like to sit around in a loft all day and not wash my hair and contemplate the nature of man and the existence of God and then fling some oil on a canvas at 2 in the afternoon, but I have bills to pay.
I feel like I'm going on a limb with all the positive vibes in this thread, but what the heck.
Sure, Giuliani did all the right things in the wake of 9-11. But what exactly did he do that any other Mayor wouldn't have done in the same position?
I've thought the same about Bush. Sure, he's done a great job, but doing a great job in politics to me seems less impressive when all the choices you have to make are pretty much black and white.
In terms of approval ratings, anyone in their positions who isn't a complete moron or jerk should see a big increase in the wake of this kind of crisis.
I would have given the award to the passengers and crew of
Of course you realize, scates, that the only reason they do that stuff is to piss you off, right? It's a catch 22: the more you moan, the more there is.
I'm obviously all for creative license in pretty much any form. I have a really hard time trying to censor material, but it's my opinion that our post-Victorian conservatism feeds the more, uh, obnoxious expressions in a kind of endless cycle. That said, I feel like the quiet, new, perhaps unspoken and focused new mission of the NEA to be towards community-oriented art is a very responsible and intelligent approach to making it really matter to people -- it might make more of a difference to Americans. But remember how provactive Michelangelo was in the day!
Maybe so. Still doesn't mean I have to look at it or dig it.
I've got better things to do and bigger things to worry about than some artist trying to be controversial or provocative.
I'm not one of these people who goes out of their way to get offended, either. Let me make that clear. I don't show up in places where I might see or hear something I don't like then throw a fit and bitch and moan.
So I'm not about censorship either. Never have been. But I'm not nuts about the public, "anything goes" funding of every twisted, attention-starved crackpot with a paintbrush and a need to rock the boat.
Let them be controversial and provocative on their own dime.
Ya, Giuliani deserved it! I am glad that Time chose a positive role model for man of the year. But I do have one question, what exactly was the fantastic thing that Giuliani did? I mean sure he did hold the city and in some respects the nation together, but is that anything that any other mayor wouldn?t do? And to my knowledge I didn?t hear him give any great speeches, but I don't live in New York and it could be that I just didn?t hear them. I give him brownie points for staying with the people of New York (and America) while our President was hiding under a rock somewhere in the midwest. I just hope he doesn?t run for President in the future because this event has kinda immortalized him and I can foresee him crushing a future democratic opponent. So I say he should get to be man of the year and then like pscates said, he should be mayor of San Diego and NEVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT!
What if some KKK member wanted to make MLK out of shit? Or paint him nude in one of his rumored womanizing exploits? Would you pay for that? Come on it's "art"! How about "art" that glorifies the terrorist attacks. It's "art"! Who are you do judge! Fascist!
THAT'S when you'd clearly see how much of a bullshit, one-way street it really is.
Mock Jesus Christ, mock apple pie, mock anything remotely seen as old-fashioned or "square".
You're automatically "cutting edge" and controversial and "pushing the boudaries" and blah, blah, blah...
But do the same for certain OTHER icons or ideals?
Oh man...hang on to your nuts.
To many people (FAR too many people), "tolerance" and "free speech" only flow one way ("I'll 'tolerate' it as long as I agree with it...") and as soon as THEY hear or see something THEY aren't happy about, all notions of that stuff IMMEDIATELY go out the window and out come the picket signs, boycotts, name-calling and so forth.
Like I said, these "artistes" do stuff like this only to piss you off.
I hate it when people can't stand another point of view -- really invalidates their position if you can't tolerate contrary ones. These artists consider themselves liberals I guess but don't hold the first amendment up to everyone, do they? I'm not about to fall into the same trap. Go ahead and abuse that right a bit, it is your right. But the less attention they get for this stuff, the less they'll find reason to do it.
Art doesn't have to be pretty, but I'd like it to be more, uh, contemplative.
Honestly, the whole "Art" thread here should be it's own thread...But the only reason those specific art/artists were spotlighted was because of the media...the media.
There were many other artists at these certain exhibits with less "contriversial" work that were trampled over by the news media...idiots that they are...and that's where you saw the "shock art", on TV right?
Start a thread on this somewhere else...still think Rudi was the only mayor in this country that could have gotten NYC through this...who else?
<strong>Ya, Giuliani deserved it! I am glad that Time chose a positive role model for man of the year. But I do have one question, what exactly was the fantastic thing that Giuliani did? I mean sure he did hold the city and in some respects the nation together, but is that anything that any other mayor wouldn?t do? And to my knowledge I didn?t hear him give any great speeches, but I don't live in New York and it could be that I just didn?t hear them. I give him brownie points for staying with the people of New York (and America) while our President was hiding under a rock somewhere in the midwest. I just hope he doesn?t run for President in the future because this event has kinda immortalized him and I can foresee him crushing a future democratic opponent. So I say he should get to be man of the year and then like pscates said, he should be mayor of San Diego and NEVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess you had to be there (here) to know how great Guiliani was. Yea, you can say other mayors would have done the same thing. who cares. he did it. he did it great. it's foolish to use the arguement that he did something other people would have done.
as for the art,
if we are not allowed to pray or teach religion in public school we should not have to publicly fund art that mocks our religion. simple as that.
BTW, how sad is it when a public school right near the WTC site refuses to say the pledge of allegience in the morning and has the support of most of the parents.
<strong>BTW, how sad is it when a public school right near the WTC site refuses to say the pledge of allegience in the morning and has the support of most of the parents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Giuliani did deserve person of the year, more so than than POS Bin Laden. As for mayor of the year, he gets it hands down. As for art, why do we still consider pictures of naked girls art. WTF??? some art is sh*t. Don't ask me why it is protected by the U.S. goverment. Oy.
<strong>To many people (FAR too many people), "tolerance" and "free speech" only flow one way ("I'll 'tolerate' it as long as I agree with it...") and as soon as THEY hear or see something THEY aren't happy about, all notions of that stuff IMMEDIATELY go out the window and out come the picket signs, boycotts, name-calling and so forth.
How DISGUSTING! What kind of depraved, sociopath does it take to paint something so tasteless and offensive?!?!
The world IS going to hell in a handbasket and it's because of tawdry landscapes and low-rent, trashy paintings of houses like the one above!!!
Why can't that guy just paint with camel shit and his own semen like any other respectable artist? But nooooo...he has to go and make a "statement" and be all gross and weird, painting a goddamn house...beside a CREEK!
<strong>Artman, I can't see it. The link is broken or something because it's just a red "X" in the box.
Try again or give a verbal description.
Let me guess: Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, Thomas Kinkade...
see it now? All his paintings suck. They're not art...crap. An offense to all artists trying to make a living.
Did you know that after the alter fresco in the Sistine Chapel was completed...a few years after Michaelangelo died (correct me on that if that's incorrect...also heard that is was while in exile) some of the religious higher ups ordered another artist to cover the genitals with cloths...which were later uncovered by the restoration. Good 'ol time religious censorship...
Comments
<strong>so you support public funding of art that makes a mockery of religion</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I do. And more of it. There is nothing sacred in artistic interpretation.
[quote]<strong>and people who break the law and cause gridlock and risk their safety and the safety of others?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I agree with that.
How come the "tolerance and acceptance" gig only swings one way?
I have to "tolerate and accept" (and help fund) things I might not like or agree with, JUST because it's "art"?
**** that. My life isn't being enriched by some of this crap.
No one ever asks some freak artist to appreciate and "tolerate" the public not to be offended or annoyed and keep his piss-filled jars and poo-smeared canvases to himself.
You wanna paint? You wanna sculpt? Great! Paint and sculpt your ass off. But don't get your smock in a wad if I don't wanna help pay for it or view it.
You can get a goddamn job like the rest of us have to do and you can paint and sculpt in the evenings and weekends, like I have to do.
And if you're SO artistically bent that doing so is out of the question, then kill yourself already and be done with it.
I'd like to sit around in a loft all day and not wash my hair and contemplate the nature of man and the existence of God and then fling some oil on a canvas at 2 in the afternoon, but I have bills to pay.
****ing artists...
Sure, Giuliani did all the right things in the wake of 9-11. But what exactly did he do that any other Mayor wouldn't have done in the same position?
I've thought the same about Bush. Sure, he's done a great job, but doing a great job in politics to me seems less impressive when all the choices you have to make are pretty much black and white.
In terms of approval ratings, anyone in their positions who isn't a complete moron or jerk should see a big increase in the wake of this kind of crisis.
I would have given the award to the passengers and crew of
Flight '93.
Jeff
[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]</p>
I'm obviously all for creative license in pretty much any form. I have a really hard time trying to censor material, but it's my opinion that our post-Victorian conservatism feeds the more, uh, obnoxious expressions in a kind of endless cycle. That said, I feel like the quiet, new, perhaps unspoken and focused new mission of the NEA to be towards community-oriented art is a very responsible and intelligent approach to making it really matter to people -- it might make more of a difference to Americans. But remember how provactive Michelangelo was in the day!
Link:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/24/arts/24NEA.html"; target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/24/arts/24NEA.html</a>;
I've got better things to do and bigger things to worry about than some artist trying to be controversial or provocative.
I'm not one of these people who goes out of their way to get offended, either. Let me make that clear. I don't show up in places where I might see or hear something I don't like then throw a fit and bitch and moan.
So I'm not about censorship either. Never have been. But I'm not nuts about the public, "anything goes" funding of every twisted, attention-starved crackpot with a paintbrush and a need to rock the boat.
Let them be controversial and provocative on their own dime.
What if some KKK member wanted to make MLK out of shit? Or paint him nude in one of his rumored womanizing exploits? Would you pay for that? Come on it's "art"! How about "art" that glorifies the terrorist attacks. It's "art"! Who are you do judge! Fascist!
THAT'S when you'd clearly see how much of a bullshit, one-way street it really is.
Mock Jesus Christ, mock apple pie, mock anything remotely seen as old-fashioned or "square".
You're automatically "cutting edge" and controversial and "pushing the boudaries" and blah, blah, blah...
But do the same for certain OTHER icons or ideals?
Oh man...hang on to your nuts.
To many people (FAR too many people), "tolerance" and "free speech" only flow one way ("I'll 'tolerate' it as long as I agree with it...") and as soon as THEY hear or see something THEY aren't happy about, all notions of that stuff IMMEDIATELY go out the window and out come the picket signs, boycotts, name-calling and so forth.
See it everyday.
[ 12-25-2001: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
I hate it when people can't stand another point of view -- really invalidates their position if you can't tolerate contrary ones. These artists consider themselves liberals I guess but don't hold the first amendment up to everyone, do they? I'm not about to fall into the same trap. Go ahead and abuse that right a bit, it is your right. But the less attention they get for this stuff, the less they'll find reason to do it.
Art doesn't have to be pretty, but I'd like it to be more, uh, contemplative.
There were many other artists at these certain exhibits with less "contriversial" work that were trampled over by the news media...idiots that they are...and that's where you saw the "shock art", on TV right?
Start a thread on this somewhere else...still think Rudi was the only mayor in this country that could have gotten NYC through this...who else?
Jesse Ventura?
<strong>Ya, Giuliani deserved it! I am glad that Time chose a positive role model for man of the year. But I do have one question, what exactly was the fantastic thing that Giuliani did? I mean sure he did hold the city and in some respects the nation together, but is that anything that any other mayor wouldn?t do? And to my knowledge I didn?t hear him give any great speeches, but I don't live in New York and it could be that I just didn?t hear them. I give him brownie points for staying with the people of New York (and America) while our President was hiding under a rock somewhere in the midwest. I just hope he doesn?t run for President in the future because this event has kinda immortalized him and I can foresee him crushing a future democratic opponent. So I say he should get to be man of the year and then like pscates said, he should be mayor of San Diego and NEVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess you had to be there (here) to know how great Guiliani was. Yea, you can say other mayors would have done the same thing. who cares. he did it. he did it great. it's foolish to use the arguement that he did something other people would have done.
as for the art,
if we are not allowed to pray or teach religion in public school we should not have to publicly fund art that mocks our religion. simple as that.
BTW, how sad is it when a public school right near the WTC site refuses to say the pledge of allegience in the morning and has the support of most of the parents.
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
<strong>BTW, how sad is it when a public school right near the WTC site refuses to say the pledge of allegience in the morning and has the support of most of the parents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds about right
<strong>To many people (FAR too many people), "tolerance" and "free speech" only flow one way ("I'll 'tolerate' it as long as I agree with it...") and as soon as THEY hear or see something THEY aren't happy about, all notions of that stuff IMMEDIATELY go out the window and out come the picket signs, boycotts, name-calling and so forth.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh what the hell. I'll jump in.
<a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/generated/hubs/20011222/theartsArt.html"; target="_blank">Semen and flickering lights - yes, it's art</a>
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
Though not publicly funded it's still to me the most offensive artwork on Earth...
[ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: Artman @_@ ]</p>
Try again or give a verbal description.
Let me guess: Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling?
OHMIGOD!!!
How DISGUSTING! What kind of depraved, sociopath does it take to paint something so tasteless and offensive?!?!
The world IS going to hell in a handbasket and it's because of tawdry landscapes and low-rent, trashy paintings of houses like the one above!!!
Why can't that guy just paint with camel shit and his own semen like any other respectable artist? But nooooo...he has to go and make a "statement" and be all gross and weird, painting a goddamn house...beside a CREEK!
Where will it end?
<strong>Artman, I can't see it. The link is broken or something because it's just a red "X" in the box.
Try again or give a verbal description.
Let me guess: Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, Thomas Kinkade...
see it now?
Did you know that after the alter fresco in the Sistine Chapel was completed...a few years after Michaelangelo died (correct me on that if that's incorrect...also heard that is was while in exile) some of the religious higher ups ordered another artist to cover the genitals with cloths...which were later uncovered by the restoration. Good 'ol time religious censorship...