[Mozeman]

I vote "yes."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/16/museum.flap.ap/index.html

------------------
Mozeman
Moser Brothers Animation Forum

[Anthony]

Well, Facist is rather a harsh term, no? It's like calling Dan Rather a Communist. But in this case, it's not so much a matter of whether or not this art is good or bad-art for art's sake. No one can say what is or isn't art. However, this person is being funded by taxpayers, and therein lies the problem. The image is racist(can you image the outcry if I made a painting where all the Apostles were white, except Judas, and I made him black?!), anti-Catholic(the artist said so on that one), and borderline pornographic. Since the image is aimed at nothing more than attacking people and dividing people and offending a vast majority of people, I see no reason why the taxpayers should pick up the bill for it.

------------------
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem

[Mozeman]

Fascism is not a harsh term in reference to Giuliani's policies. Dan Rather is not in charge of policy and is not involved in government. And the artist is not funded by tax payers, the museum is.

The question for me is why Giuliani's personal opinion of the art matters at all. He is excercising his personal will to supercede the constitutional rights of a citizen. If not fascism, then what do you call it? What if that artist exhalted religion instead of criticized it? Would Giuliani be complaining about taxpayer dollars then? He hasn't so far.

"I see no reason why the taxpayers should pick up the bill for it."

I see no reason why taxpayer money should go to quite a few things it goes to. Does that mean it should or shouldn't? Not in the real world.

[Anthony]

Since the museum is funded by the city, the artist is essentially being supported by the city. The work is offensive to a large majority of citizens. It's not like defense spending, or social welfare spending, where there are large disagreements. Does a picture of Jesus attack people? No. So no reason to criticize. Where exactly would you draw the line? Can we have just ANYTHING and have it be supported by the Govt? I don't think so. There are rules of common sense, and that common sense is the collective feelings of citizens. If something is contrary to the opinions, or offends, a majority of the citizens, then it will go down. Like the segregation went down. Like women being banned from voting went down. Like partial birth abortion will go down.

------------------
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem

[Krazykate]

Unfortunately he is that lifeform just a little below a child molester--that's right folks--he's a politician.
His campain investors and the "Good" people who are offended by such threaten not to vote for him unless something is done.

I do not myself care for the idea of dung smeared over anything as a form of art, but if that is the statement you are trying to make,then okay..I can understand that. I just don't care for it if it smacks of "this is the Quick and Dirty way to get noticed".

[Mozeman]

"Since the museum is funded by the city, the artist is essentially being supported by the city. The work is offensive to a large majority of citizens."

There are absolutely no facts to support your opinion at all. Do you mind citing the source of your contention that a "large majority" find this offensive. Giuliani has only provided one, himself.

"Where exactly would you draw the line?"

Apparently YOU are drawing the line by defining for everyone else what they should or should not find offensive. Does a picture of Jesus attack people? It might in the same way that a picture of a female nude Jesus "attacks" people. I guess we have to get rid of all of it, eh. I find it interesting that conservatives complain ad nauseum about over "political correctness" sensitivity and freedom taken away by government and yet you are defending BOTH of those things.

"There are rules of common sense, and that common sense is the collective feelings of citizens."

No on both counts. There aren't "rules" of common sense and the collective feelings of citizens do not override the Constitution. Even your own examples of women's suffrage and desegregation don't support your argument since those movements were largely opposed by the majority of citizens.

That you are defending the censorship of art in an art's forum is perhaps the most disturbing.

[Anthony]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mozeman:

There are absolutely no facts to support your opinion at all. Do you mind citing the source of your contention that a "large majority" find this offensive. Giuliani has only provided one, himself.

---

I have talked to a quantity of people that I know, and when I describe the image, almost all of them have stated that it is offensive-even non-Christians. IT WAS CREATED TO BE OFFENSIVE, according to the artist. Need any more evidence?

quote:

---

"Where exactly would you draw the line?"

Apparently YOU are drawing the line by defining for everyone else what they should or should not find offensive.

---

Not at all - take a poll if you like. NORMAL people-that is average non-artist Americans-that I've talked to(ranging from a low of 16 years old to a high of 73 years old) find this offensive. I've only spoken to one person who didn't think it was offensive-and she's a nutcase.

quote:

---

Does a picture of Jesus attack people? It might in the same way that a picture of a female nude Jesus "attacks" people. I guess we have to get rid of all of it, eh.

---

What?! A picture of Jesus is intended to offend no one. It is not racist, it is not anti-any other religiion. It is only positive in nature. Whereas this picture is 1)Racist, and 2)Anti-Christian. That argument, in sylogistic form, doesn't hold water.

quote:

---

I find it interesting that conservatives complain ad nauseum about over "political correctness" sensitivity and freedom taken away by government and yet you are defending BOTH of those things.

---

Sheesh, that's braindead. I'm not telling her not to make the picture. She can do what she likes. THAT IS what's protected under the Constitution. You might want to read it sometime. NO WHERE in the Constitution does it state that the US Govt. must support ALL art. It merely states that, under the freedom of expression clause, you have the freedom to create what kinds of art you want to. BUT the GOVT is NOT obligated to pay for it.

quote:

---

"There are rules of common sense, and that common sense is the collective feelings of citizens."

No on both counts. There aren't "rules" of common sense and the collective feelings of citizens do not override the Constitution. Even your own examples of women's suffrage and desegregation don't support your argument since those movements were largely opposed by the majority of citizens.

---

The Constitution, as I explained above, doesn't enter into this discussion at all. And no, those movements were not opposed to by the majority of citizens. They may have been at first, but by the time they becamse law, they were supported by a majority of citizens. We are in a representative Democract. As such, Guiliani was ELECTED to act as he saw fit by the citizens of New York. If he takes the image down, and people don't like it, then they can vote him out. That's how this system works.

quote:

---

That you are defending the censorship of art in an art's forum is perhaps the most disturbing.

---

It's not censorship at all. I'm not argueing that the art can't be made - I'm argueing that something CREATED to be offensive to 1)Christians, and 2)White people, should not be supported by the people of the United States. That has NOTHING to do with censorship.



------------------
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem

[Anthony]

Anyway, I feel that I've presented my views in an understandable manner. I won't be reading this thread any further.

------------------
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem

[-HoodZ-]

hehe funny not one new yorker responding....well when ever i hear something about this in the news its just another way to get noticed seeing how much reaction the painting of mary covered with dung got so much reaction that the artist figured hey why not.......and its working the media has been all over it....

[Duckman2]

This incident is different from the one afew years ago when they used elephant dung on a picture of the virgin mary elephant dung in the artist's culture meant something good, I forgot what it means exactly but it wasn't derogatory. This is just blatantly trying to offend people it's not art, it's just shallow crap. I'm not a religious person so this doesn't offend from a religious standpoint, just from an artistic standpoint. The fact that assholes can get shit like that in a museum really makes me pissed. I guess it's no less artistic than that exibit in the MoMA that had a robotic granmother mockup with a pierced plastic penis protruding from her forhead. But then again Mozeman is right if it depicted christianity in a positive light, he would never have complained.

[Duckman2]

well Anthony tore Mozeman a new one didn't he

[Mozeman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duckman2:
well Anthony tore Mozeman a new one didn't he

---

Not really. Anthony expressed his view that the majority rules, that any public funding must go to only that which is mass approved, and that something created that offends Christians or white people should not get public funds (but offending anyone else seems okay).

Not realistic, not logical. And since he also stated that he would not further his discussion beyond that final post then my direct response to him would serve no purpose.

[spooge demon]

Why is there public funding of the arts? Is this a good thing?

[Mozeman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by spooge demon:
Why is there public funding of the arts? Is this a good thing?

---

Why is there public funding of anything? And are citizens entitled to line item approval of all public funds?

If that were the case, none of my taxdollars would go to corporations of any kind. But since that is not the case, then why subject only art to such mass approval/disapproval system? Million dollar grants to Dupont offend me far more than a painting of a black Jesus.

[spooge demon]

I agree completely

[aquamire]

Most great art was offensive at one time or another, most notably in my opinion, the Sistine Chapel, however it wasnt created as such to be offensive. Keep in mind, not all offensive art is great art, heh.

------------------
-Aquamire
"Quotes are for mislead wussies." - Me.

[Muzman]

Heh, I like the one about plastering pictures of Jesus everywhere is only positive and incapable of offending folks (and what does Jesus look like again? Oh yeah, he's invariably a white guy.) please; the churches have been operating on public coffers for centuries. One photo set in one gallery doesn't even make a dent.

[This message has been edited by Muzman (edited February 19, 2001).]

[Sumaleth]

Isn't putting yourself in in a famous scene the "lens flare" of the traditional art-student scene?

That gimmick has been around for so long, and been done by so many people, that I'm genuinely surprised that someone has found a way to still get a strong reaction from it. We should get her behind a copy of photoshop and see what she can do with Eye Candy Bevelled Text!

Row.

[Muzman]

hehehe
nothing shows up a lack of progress like a lack of progress.
At least that Serano-PissChrist thing had crazy fundamentalist vandals with hammers.
Much more fun

[travis travis]

the whole system is screwy, so where do I start?

[Visigoth]

...I still fail to see why an "anti-christian" image should be considered offensive... Consider the fact that christian churches throughout history have given every other religion the label of "baby-sacrificing blood-drinking orgy-participating heathen" -- I think it's only fair that christianity be given the chance to be labeled as a violent, fascist, narrow-minded, exclusive and generally non-sensical religion.

------------------
Your car is a fiberglass penis extension.

[sirstudlymodugal]

I'm a New Yorker, and I'm an artist.

I agree with Guilianni regarding the museums offensive art. It needs to go.

First off, I've had well over 12 years of fine art education (BA, BFA, MA and MFA). My personal opinion is the art is pathetic, preachy, crapola. I'm open minded and have seen it all including pieces that where just some guy masturbating in front of a video camera. The photos are little more then the intent to offend, which makes them boring to me, and just offensive to others. Bad art.

Okay, forget that they just suck. Go do your thing, express yourself tell you drop. Whack off, stick crap on whatever and call it what you want....BUT if you want to express yourself and I am gonna foot the bill via my tax dollar....I don't think so. You use my tax dollar you answer to me, morally, ethically....period. Nobody is tellin these artist they can't express themselves, like I said, have at it. BUT you think I'm gonna let you spend my buck for crap on a stick, sorry. Find your own place to show these works.

You can't have it both ways, see. No manger scenes on public property, then no defacing of anyones believes either.

For instance, if you do support the museums right to show these images then the museum should be allowed to pay Jerry Farwell to come and speak on the tendaments on Christ, using your tax dollar. What do you say about that?

sirstudlymodugal

[Mozeman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sirstudlymodugal:
For instance, if you do support the museums right to show these images then the museum should be allowed to pay Jerry Farwell to come and speak on the tendaments on Christ, using your tax dollar. What do you say about that?

---

If the museum wanted to fund a sermon by Jerry Falwell (why a museum would do this, I don't know), it's unlikely that Giuliani would use his executive power to cut funding and more than likely that many citizens' groups would protest the sermon. The system would work the way it should.

And what do you say now that our tax dollars are supporting faith-based organizations? Do I now have veto power over the content of those groups? I don't seem to recall anyone asking me about how my money should be spent, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be going to a church.

If your church gets tax money, then I can now say what can and cannot be taught or preached in your church. Does that sum up your position?

[TremorX]

First off, I'll say that I am an active Christian. Flame all you want.

However, I have to partially agree with Mozeman. I don't see where it's fair to everyone to force religion through policy. We're a free-thinking society, believe as you choose. I also find it apalling that any church or relgious organization recieves government funding; they should be ran like any other business (and lets face it, it's all 'business'). I'm totally against government-funding of anything that isn't government-ran.

Just because you're the mayor doesn't make you an art critic. Guiliani had no real reason to make that statement, other than trying to win votes. He should have stayed out of it, and if people disliked it, they could protest, just like your Jerry Falwell illustration.

To be honest, I find most contemporary Christians embarassing. Don't judge ALL of us because a few loudmouth half-wits get pissed off at the drop of a hat. They REALLY need to loosen up.

------------------
A plan is just a list of things that don't happen.

[Waldo]

I feel the same way about sports arenas. I'm a sports fan, but most of the folks I know aren't. Why should everyone have to pay to keep "The Team" in town?

Bleh, weak point and I swore I'd never enter into one of these threads, oh well...

[sirstudlymodugal]

First off gov't monies are given to all kinds of private programs already, including museums. The gov't subsidising of religious based programs are humanitarian in nature and will not be allowed to be driven by religious theology. At least the specifics thereof. For instance, if a gov't subsidised boys club meets in a church, all icons and religious connotations would have to be removed.

We know what the the basic moral and ethical standard of most museums (The Holocaust museum in New York is a pretty obvious one) are. They are liberal or left in nature, or we could say free thinking or open minded. But the gov't supports them anyway. We also know what the basic and moral standard of most religions are as well. And now the gov't is wanting to subsidise there proven and best programs. I see little difference. (If we really think there is a seperation of church and state in the US of A I think we are deluded, USSR had a real seperation of church and state, it gave them a nearly 60 percent achoholic rate. Here our presidents are voted to power via media shots of them going to church every Sunday. Nor is it likely we will see a divorced President very soon.).

As far as Guilianni's advantage of having the ability to veto an offensive use of gov't monies, the best you can wish for is voting for the gov't official who would best represent you. Guilliani's popularity has not dropped because of his actions, he was representing the majority of people (in this particular case). Believe it or not most people do not like the pretentious "I'm gonna tell you how it really is" attitude of many fine artist. (For good reason, they are often condescending and arrogant) The flagrant disregard of believe structures should not be subsudised by the tax dollars of the people who believe in those very structures, they have the right to say NO, via one angry Guilianni. Ultimately you do have the power... vote. But I believe Guilianni has acted accordingly. As the people who put him into office would want him to.

One other point, subsudising art was a depression era program meant to spread culture and help keep artist with no other marketable skills from starving to death, it is an outdated program. As an artist I have never been given gov't money, Mapplethorpe however became rich and famous via gov't funding, was a drug addict and died of aids, all thanks to taking photos of Christ in a bucket of piss. Personally I was offended by how obvious and boring the commentary was and the fact that such obvious commentary attracted the attention of an elite museum administration (not our friends, believe me, if you don't agree go to a museum social and try to strike up a conversation, but perhaps you could do an image of christ being butchered like a pig in a slaughter house......yawn, then they might like you).

[Mozeman]

"And now the gov't is wanting to subsidise there proven and best programs. I see little difference."

I don't either. That's the whole point. Should the mayor/president have the power to cut funding to an organization simply because he does not like the content of a single program before any consensus is taken and should that power extend to ALL areas of government spending? I doubt that the conservatives who applaud Rudy's actions in this case would be quite so thrilled if he suddenly withdrew funding from anti-abortion organizations because their view does not represent the majority of the citizens.

"As far as Guilianni's advantage of having the ability to veto an offensive use of gov't monies, the best you can wish for is voting for the gov't official who would best represent you."

I'm sorry but I don't buy this excuse. Does getting voted into office give an elected official carte blanche? Does it elevate a politician above reproach? Clinton's popularity didn't drop during the Lewinsky scandal either, does that make it right? Do we simply respond, "If you don't like it, then don't vote for him"? I also have yet to find any figures showing, as you state above, that Rudy's action represented "the majority of the people" at any time, let alone BEFORE he took action.

My argument is not about religion. It's simply this, that we either control our money or we don't. One cannot argue that the mayor should have such control over an art institution but NOT over any other government funded entities, like corporations who take the money and then fight against such regulation.

[Awetopsy]

From the title I figured this thread would be a long one.

Im gonna say what I said before in that other thread.
Take a statue of Buddha or a picture of Sun yung Moon or some other religious symbol, aside from Christ, put dog poo on it or deface it in some way and see how the public reacts. Budhist would sue. Legal actions would flare. people would be in serious trouble and somebody might even end up in jail.

Take a picture of Jesus and do the same, and Its art.
Interesting thought.

Where is the freedom of religion for the christians then? when a world is telling them not to be active. When a world tells them they cant react to their religious symbols being destroyed.

But thats not the best part. These Christians are the same people who go out and work and pay taxes. So they are paying to be told to sit down and shut up when they see something they dont like because its all in the name of art. (bad art, and in bad taste at that)

Our society isnt getting more tolerant. we put up a vasade of lenience on everybody and put down the people that have held a standard of desency in our country (countries)

the definition of the word Fascism, according to the American Heritage dictionary, is such:
Often Fascism
1. a) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b)A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

sounds to me like Rudy Giuliani isnt the facist here, but rather the people who want to shut up the religious protesters.

[Ragnarok]

I think the question here is:
Can an artist make something he considers art but knowing some people will protest because it goes against its believes?

You blame people who make this kind of things with jesus etc, but have they or not freedom of thought and speech? If so, have they or not freedom of art?

I would like to know your points on these issues.

PS: I would never do something like those thingies because I don't consider them art, and I like to respect the rest of the people, but it is just me.

[sirstudlymodugal]

No... the question is, should the people whose believes are being defamed have to pay for it with there hard earned taxes?

The answer simply is no.

No one is saying the artist can't make whatever art they want, the question is why is the goverment paying for it, subsidising museums. Art should be financed privately, no public money. There are too many conflicts of interest. Why do artist need to be subsidised by goverment anyway? ( I an an artist, and I ask this question.)

If you cannot put a religios icon (manger scene for example) on public property, then you should not be able to defame religious icons via tax payers money. It is the ying to the yang of seperation of church and state.

studly