Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Jan 2000 21:16:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3540 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> 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?
It happens, really! :)
> Wasn't part of Guiliani's problem that the state-funded museum was also
> charging admission?
Hmmm...I think so. I will have to check on that.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Correct. See Dave, I am not that bad! :)
Scott S.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Now, if the NEA is funding the Virgin-Mary-statue thieves in Texas (if they're ever caught!), then I'll have a real problem. ;) But as far as a fund that doesn't cover artistic endeavours, but rather local libraries and other fora, what are (...) (27 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) 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 (...) (27 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
|
|
|
|
