You Have the Right To Be offended

A

Agnosticus_Caesar

Fuck You Too
You have the right to be offended when someone depicts Jesus in ways you consider disrespectful. You have the right to be offended when someone says "Goddamn". You have the right to be offended when someone uses a racial slur. You have the right to be offended when someone uses a lifestyle slur. You have the right to be offended when someone casts aspersions upon you for your philosophical outlook.

Be an adult, and deal with it. Don't push for the legislation of your concepts of morality.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
You have the right to be offended when someone depicts Jesus in ways you consider disrespectful. You have the right to be offended when someone says "Goddamn". You have the right to be offended when someone uses a racial slur. You have the right to be offended when someone uses a lifestyle slur. You have the right to be offended when someone casts aspersions upon you for your philosophical outlook.

Be an adult, and deal with it. Don't push for the legislation of your concepts of morality.
Click to expand...
What brought this on? I am offended by your right to be offending!

:P
 
I read about "Piss Christ" in one of the posts. Plain and simple:

If government provides money for "The advancement of the arts", it should not set rules pertaining to "morality".

(Whether the government should provide such funds is another argument entirely.)
 
Ahh, the definition of art....
yet another topic. One mans art is another mans obscenity or garbage.
 
Damocles said:
And therefore government is fundamentally incapable of funding art. The government should never fund what it cannot define.
Click to expand...
No museums then, Much of the Smithsonian, much of our library contents, much of the library of congresss contents.
Are fiction novels Art ?
Is the washington monument art ?
The capital building ?
The art of politics ?
hmmm

Lets have a big ol book burning!
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
No museums then, Much of the Smithsonian, much of our library contents, much of the library of congresss contents.
Are fiction novels Art ?
Is the washington monument art ?
The capital building ?
The art of politics ?
hmmm

Lets have a big ol book burning!
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. There are many private museums. However one can define successful art very easily. However attempting to judge "art" itself and therefore fund its "advancement" is much more difficult from that level.

The library of Congress pretty much includes all books published, but it doesn't fund their publication. I think you might start seeing a theme here.

Fiction Novels are almost never funded by the government, unless it is one of these "advancement" things. I've personally never heard of that.

Methinks you make up objections just to be objectionable, not logical.
 
Yes government should divest itself from art funding. It would be abhorrent for government to define what is art and what is not however this is what they have been doing.

On the other hand it is also abhorrent to take a persons earnings through taxes and use them for something like pisschrist if they are morally opposed to such a thing.

The best solution is for no art funding at all.
 
However one can define successful art very easily.

// I wil have disagree heartially on this issue. That was the basis for my post, not just to be objectionable.
What you might consider Art many will disagree. Modern art for instance looks like trash to me. I consider the guy who cut his ear off to be a terrible artist, if even an artist, a photograph is art ? A melted watch on a limb is art ?, etc...
 
uscitizen said:
However one can define successful art very easily.

// I wil have disagree heartially on this issue. That was the basis for my post, not just to be objectionable.
What you might consider Art many will disagree. Modern art for instance looks like trash to me. I consider the guy who cut his ear off to be a terrible artist, if even an artist, a photograph is art ? A melted watch on a limb is art ?, etc...
Click to expand...
You could define what you were going to put in your museum by placing defined restrictions on already created art was my point.

One could easily say that this museum would only put in realism, another only cubism, etc. One could say, only art that sells for "this much". All of that without the subjective idea that we can fund "art" which is almost totally undefinable.

When the gov't is willing to fund piss christ, but not religious based art, then it is making subjective decisions on what "art" is. The government shouldn't be in such a position.

You asked about how a museum could exist if the government wasn't funding art. I have explained how it could be done rather easily.
 
So no new art would be developed/accepted and what it now art would still be the only art in 1,000 years ?
Is this artistic conservatism or stagnation ?
 
uscitizen said:
So no new art would be developed/accepted and what it now art would still be the only art in 1,000 years ?
Is this artistic conservatism or stagnation ?
Click to expand...
Once again I will elaborate. One could define "successful" art and use their definition to make decisions on what type of art would go into a museum. They could make a different choice as well and say that "modern" art will go there, or "folk" art, or "written" art, or "religious". And so on. Such objective choices can be defined and used for choosing the art to go in a museum, they do not however fund such pieces, those were created by the artist with either private funding or public funding. What I object to is funding the "art" as it is subjective and not so easily defined as to what should be funded and what should not.

At this point in time they won't fund "religious" art, yet will fund a piss christ, which I would consider religious art...

Let the artist find their own funding, let the curator decide on whether it should be displayed based on their more objective definitions.
 
And therefore government is fundamentally incapable of funding art. The government should never fund what it cannot define.

And so the quality and worth of art is to be defined by its consumer demand? Wouldn't that make the 'Dogs playing poker' one of the greatest pieces of art in history?
 
Yes government should divest itself from art funding. It would be abhorrent for government to define what is art and what is not however this is what they have been doing.

Yet it is right for the consumer to define what is art?

My 'Dogs playing poker' argument again.
 
Darn good point anyOld.
Does the Louve (sp?) have a photo of Paris Hilton or Brittany ?

Damo how about Natural history, should museums fund digs for and buy dino skeletons, or should Disney cover that ?

It would appear that some are very pro a good education, but it should not include art...
 
AnyOldIron said:
And therefore government is fundamentally incapable of funding art. The government should never fund what it cannot define.

And so the quality and worth of art is to be defined by its consumer demand? Wouldn't that make the 'Dogs playing poker' one of the greatest pieces of art in history?
Click to expand...
Right, so you mean the government should determine the quality of art? This is abjectly funny! Seriously. The government should not fund what it cannot define. It wouldn't "destroy" art. Artists would still create, some would have to do a McJob to pay the bills while they did it, but they still would create. Museums would display the art, just not pay for it to be created. It wouldn't be all based in "consumer demand" this is unnecessarily alarmist because it makes you feel better, not because I stated anything of the sort.

This is reductio ad absurdum, seriously you are better than that.
 
uscitizen said:
Darn good point anyOld.
Does the Louve (sp?) have a photo of Paris Hilton or Brittany ?

Damo how about Natural history, should museums fund digs for and buy dino skeletons, or should Disney cover that ?

It would appear that some are very pro a good education, but it should not include art...
Click to expand...
Universities. Anyway, that is science, we are speaking of "art".

Once again, a logical fallacy. You want desperately to keep the Federal Government actually paying failing artists that you are willing to attempt to associate anything at all together?

I said the government should not pay the artist to create, that artists can work while they create just like writers do. And education does not include paying the student to create the art. One can expand the horizon without subsidizing the artist.

Just like I think the government shouldn't simply give money to somebody to start a business, that doesn't mean that I think business classes should be removed from the schools.
 
Damo,
I am a bit confused, you support Museums and education having art, but you are against and public money being spent on purchasing it for display or educational purposes ?
My confusion is mainly how this scheme would work.

Of course we could keep the same old art the musems and such have purchased over the centuries.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top