Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 14:23:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1783 times
|
| |
|
|
Lindsay:
Thanks for some great insights on the topic, in the following quotes and
elsewhere:
> By the way, I believe there is at least one piece in the Met that depicts
> Mohammed being tormented in Hell (from 14th or 15th century France, I
> think). I'll ask what >piece that is, but I think it's part of a panel---but
> nobody complains about that.
>
> Had the fellow who created the "Virgin Mary" piece not been Christian, or not
> had any ties to the Catholic Church, then you could possibly make that
> analogy despite the above. But he's both (just as Kevin Smith, who wrote/etc
> "Dogma," is devoutly Catholic), so again, the rules change.
Just to dispel some of my own ignorance here, how "Christian" is the artist
in question? And what kind of ties to Catholicism does he have? I mean, my
family has ties to Roman Catholicisim and Russian Orthodoxy, but I'm not
"devout" by any means, and I wouldn't assert either faith as a defense if I
were perceived to have slandered them.
Additionally, I think Kevin Smith should be castigated not for his treatment
of Catholicism but for perpetuating Hollywood's misconception that Ben Afleck
and Matt Damon are quality performers. Is this the movie where Damon plays
the outsider who's surprisingly good at something? Or is that Rounders? Or
Good Will Hunting? I forget--he's so versatile!
>
> I'll go out on a limb here and say that these "shock art" exhibits *have*
> contributed positively--by forcing us to address them, whether to defend or
> assail. Art is supposed to find the edges of expression, and this has
> definitely done that. For my $1.50 that goes to the NEA and NEH each year,
> that's worthwhile, even if (as in this case) I personally find the exhibits
> in poor taste. (I live in NJ, and my girlfriend--an art historian--and I have
> absolutely no interest in going, except possibly for the Schadenfreude value.)
You're much better informed regarding the NEA/NEH than I am, so I value your
input. Beyond the artistic merits in question, the situation seems analogous
to a university exacting mandatory "Activity Fees" from students and applying
that money wherever the university sees fit, regardless of the individual
student's wishes. Thus a student might unwillingly support a university-
organized club whose values violently oppose the student's. Not an airtight
analogy, I know, but it feels like a similar lack of recourse at the
individual level.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Just to put my oar in here, I too oppose the NEA precisely because it is not the place of government to decide what sort of art to foster (which it, having limited funds, must inevitably do). It is sheer hubris for a government drone to think that (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) <crassness> Incidentally, I had some bird dung on a brick once (don't ask, I left it out overnight in the yard accidentally). Does that make it art? :) </crassness> I'll say the same thing about the "shock art" displays that I said about the (...) (25 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
