Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 19:13:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1721 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> I think the biggest thing in regards to this was that the art in
> question (Madonna, elephant dung, etc.), in which Guliani was referring
> to, was paid for with taxpayers money. As an advocate of eliminating the
> NEA (National Endowment for the Arts), this is another example of
> government waste. We can go on and on in terms of what art is and isn't,
> in which I agree with both of you, but I don't think public funding for
> any projects like this are needed. If you want to make it, fine, but
> don't expect me to pay for the tab.
Scott:
Wow! We're agreeing (mostly)! How did that happen?
Wasn't part of Guiliani's problem that the state-funded museum was also
charging admission? I seem to remember that, but I could easily be wrong.
I don't think the NEA should be abolished, but I think its aim has become
blurred. There's no way to support one artist while denying another without
establishing an artist-of-the-state, but the NEA could be beneficially applied
to libraries and similar forums (fora?) without endorsing a single artistic
agenda. However, as you correctly point out, Scott, it's wrong to require the
taxpayer to support an artist--especially a sensationalistic and, frankly,
uninteresting one--whose work is patently offensive to that taxpayer. Or, at
the very least, the taxpayer should be able to choose where those taxes go, so
that a devout Catholic taxpayer, for example, doesn't have to worry about
funding a seemingly deliberate affront to Catholicism.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) It happens, really! :) (...) Hmmm...I think so. I will have to check on that. (...) That's for sure, but I would rather have the states have any money targeted to arts come their way instead, even to local areas, if possible. (...) Correct. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Dave Schuler wrote: Dave & All, (...) I think the biggest thing in regards to this was that the art in question (Madonna, elephant dung, etc.), in which Guliani was referring to, was paid for with taxpayers money. As an advocate of eliminating the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
