Tax dollars didn't fund the art, remember? Also, the show was not really about protesting anti-abortion groups as it was about protesting Helms's determination to arrest gallery owners, label Mapplethorpe as degenerate, and shut down the NEA and NEH. Helms also thought/thinks Michelangelo's David is obscene, as well. Some of those 15th-16th century Italians were way too liberal.
What did? Money is spongeable. If the staff and space were donated by the institution, it still cost them money which came from somewhere. I get your point: these artists didn't cash checks from the NEA.
Worth something- Just so you will know how ignorant I am- I don't know who Ms. Coulter is (I think I've heard the name). Nor do I care to discuss the article. But I think there is room for discussion on whether lewd and/or obscene 'art' exhibits/productions should be funded by the NEA. I wouldn't say that there are absolutely NO art exhibits/productions that are dangerous to the morals of a nation. Would you? I wouldn't say that there are absolutely no art exhibits that do not financially benefit from NEA grants. Would you? (Amazing how liquid in a funnel finds the hole at the bottom) Maybe it depends on which end of the funnel you have your eye glued to. If an artist would lose an exhibit if the NEA funding was not provided--- wa' la' You have found the end of the funnel. I am not going to list the exhibits/productions that have come in question during Congressional discussions and votes (they are too vile, lewd and disgusting) but you can google this battle and read all about them. I only wanted to chime in and say that not all people feel all 'art' is protected as free speech. The same way the laws governing the FCC, the internet p*rn and all the other obscenity laws on the books govern public interests. I don't think Federal Grants that fund obscenity is a good use of tax money. However long it takes to swirl through the funnel. Like I said if the exhibit would be there with or without the tax money- OK then it really isn't a part of this discussion. But....
No, the article by Coulter addresses: 12 instances of NEA funded facilities presenting controversial exhibits. 5 Smithsonian exhibits. 4 comments by people. 1 instance of Korans being distributed. 1 example of information contained in sex education classes. Three quarters of her examples were art or history exhibits which, though controversial, fall squarely in the realm of free speech. Two thirds of the rest were comments by individuals who recieve at least some of their income from government, again, free speech. The last I would argue is a much better way to reduce abortion and teen pregnancy rates than the "abstinance only" programs that have seen abortion rates rise significantly since Bush took office. In case you missed it, the USSC only put the kibosh on some displays of the Ten Commandments. They allowed the exhibit in Texas to remain, not exactly a "ban" on Ten Commandments displays overall. The outrageous part is the way she makes these controversial displays appear like they are the only kinds of things that get NEA funding. I can find a whole bunch of quotes from right-wingers that make the 4 quotes she highlights pale in comparison. And she claims that the USSC has "ban[ned]" (her word) displays of the Ten Commandments. Everything in this piece is either fabricated or outrageous in one way or another, as is virtually everything she writes or says.
That is a big part of why exhibits themselves are not funded directly by the NEA. If the NEA had to decide what was "obscene" or "worth" being funded, it would amount to government promotion of specific artistic expressions and not the "Arts" in general. If the exhibit is truly "obscene," (defined by the community where the art is exhibited) then it will be removed. But there is no real way to tell whenther this is the case or not. Coulter (and giddy by defending her article) has made the case that the NEA should not be funded at all because of a few examples of controversial exhibits that were not directly funded in the first place. I personally don't think that it is the government's place to decide what is and is not "good art." The way they have it set up seems appropriate to me. They fund "the Arts" and let the chips fall where they may.
BTW- I for one do not want to see free speech curtailed (I carry around that 'hate book' the Bible) fine line here I agree I am more responding to the idea that obscenity and public lewdness shouldn't be disguised as art- anywhere - and I know what defines that is all over the place. But I have 5 children and I am grateful for some of the laws that curb p*rn/lewdness.
Yes, I agree with your premises. Like I said I understand the old--- The government shouldn't decide anything blah blah blah when everything the government does decides something- it's always about which side of the issue you are on. The NEA fought a court case and lost the case concerning their own decency standards (It was too restrictive).- I hope they rewrote their standard to pass the court muster. Anyway- I know that some of these exhibits/productions that are unreasonably obscene depend on the NEA funding (by past investigation- funnel effect) the key word is depend- not receive, and that is worth debate. The NEA does alot of good, but I still don't want my tax money trickling down to any exhibit/production without standard- protected by the word 'art' (check them out- some that benefit indirectly/but directly from NEA funding are really sick). That's just my take on that slice of this -- Again I haven't much interest in the article- except to say the Ten Commandments deserve at least as much protection as p*rnography does by the Constitution- On all future Ten Commandment exhibits we could put a little curtain round them with the words- "What is behind this curtain is rated adult only; you cannot look behind this curtain unless you are 18 years or older"- That way more kids will want to read them- IMHO.
I don't want the government funding ANY art. Make art that has commercial appeal and you won't need a grant. Find a patron and you won't need government funding. People will make art regardless (there were no government grants for cave paintings), there is no need to spend taxpayers' money on it. We also should not be spending tax revenue on copies of the Quran. It is fine to let the detainees have their own copies, or give them donated copies, but the US government should not be in the business of distributing religious paraphernalia. We also should not be spending government money on Ten Commandments displays. If people want to put up their own (or a statue of Vishnu, or whatever else) then I don't care, but the government should be footing the bill.
All of the best art from Greek and Roman times, through the renaissance has been wholly, if not in part, funded by the govt. Art is often a part if not what most societies are judged on. Making art commercial isn't what the goal of art should be. That shouldn't be a requirement of art. It is best if the government funds the art and has no say in what the art is. The art should be left up to the artists. It benefits our civilization to have quality art, and is a worthy govt. investment. Talking about funding of religious displays is a seperate issue. It isn't art vs. religion, and the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Artist's don't directly gain anything financially from an exhibition at an institution that could receive NEA grant money. Recognition which could lead to greater financial success, maybe, but nothing directly. Please give examples.
We have different priorities on what the government should be spending money on. That is fine. I'll just agree to disagree. Both are talked about in this thread, so I don't see a problem posting about both. I was not trying to connect them in any way.
Agreeing to disagree is agreeable to me. You are correct that in this thread they were both mentioned, and there was even an attempt to draw a connection as an either/or type argument by Coulter. I quoted your post, but the real beef is the association orginally made by Coulter. I wasn't trying to say both shouldn't be talked about, just not in any comparitive way.
I think Ms Coulter is conveniently forgetting something called the 14th Ammendment that means that Congress should and can prohibit the states from establishing religion.
Wow, I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. Government should fund art and have no say in what it is? Maybe on planet Jupiter.
I go camping for a few days and miss all the good stuff. I personally find SM's point the most compelling and the most logical. To the extent that government funds arts or arts institutions it is government picking and choosing whose art gets support. I understand that its not government directly funding the art but to apply for a grant the NEA is aware of what artists have been funded by the institution and thus likely have a sense of what artists will be funded. I think its somewhat disingenous to completely say that the NEA is in ignorance and so not responsible in any way for the art created. At the sametime though FB has a good point and its difficult to have a vibrant society without some sort of government sanctioned support of the arts. To my knowledge there has never existed a successful society that didn't do that. I guess for me this is one issue I'm still trying to figure out. As a side note I'm not sure whether anyone has argued Ten Commandments displays as public art. It seems to me what gets Ten Commandments monuments in trouble is that the people who put them up like Judge Moore or the Kentucky legislature is that they say specifically it is to remind people of Christianity thus practically stating it is government support of religion. I wonder if someone put up a Ten Commandments display and called it public art with the commentary solely the artists opinion and not the states whether that would fly.
Not exactly. The Founding Fathers weren't Atheists but they weren't necessarily very good Christians. Many subscribed to Dieism and would be better be considered as Agnostics. The "Creator" referenced in the Declaration of Independence seems more of a generic creator and not necessarily the Biblical God. Also if the Declaration of Independence or Constitution was specifically Christian why wouldn't they reference Jesus or the Holy Trinity? The Treaty of Tripoli written during George Washington's Second term even says that the US is not in any way founded on Christianity. Also while the Corinthians passage certainly seems to be uphold democracy and freedom remember also the Bible says that "Slaves should submit to their masters."
Disagreenment is fine, but this isn't just on jupiter. I have mentioned some of the greatest civilizations in the world's history created some of the greatest art in the world's history by funding it, and letting the artist take over. Sometimes govt. wasn't happy with the results, but history has shown that art is the benificiary of such govt. funding. Govt. should fund art and they should have little to no say in what the art is.
I'll look for it tomorrow and give a link if I find the examples. I have read about them and no way I would post them here- so I will look and link.
Sishir Chang- Very debatable- For the Christian side to this please check out this website- www.wallbuilders.com Please look over the documentation and use your usual fair mindedness to consider that MANY key founders were very strong Christians and had significant influence on the documents that 'founded' the nation. In fact everyone should read the other side of this- go to the website.
Rhester; I can match you website for website and quote for quote. Just do a Google search "Founding Fathers Christianity" and you'll get a sense of the vast quantity of info regarding how Christian the Founders were. While certainly some of the Founders were very devout Christians many of them weren't particularly Jefferson who was very skeptical. My main point is that to say that this country is primarily a Christian nation or founded on Christain principles is highly suspect. The structure of our government and society as envisioned probably owes much more to the ideals of Pagan Rome and Greece than to the Bible. The Founders were Christians to the extent that they were white European men in the 18th C. and those type of people were all Christians by culture but they weren't anything like what we would consider fundamentalists or devout.
