But if you deny that there is such a thing as good and bad (non-) art, you can deny there are good and bad acts.
And on a related point, liberalism teaches not to be judgemental about anything. Liberalism teaches that the artist was making an artistic statement, no matter how patently offensive it is to show a crucifix in urine.
So rather than being outraged that someone would put a crucifix in urine, we’re supposed to search for the “larger meaning” and all that, of the artistic statement made by putting a crucifix in urine.
Liberals have the goal of communism, pure and simple.
Communist goals for America,
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
It used to be that in the sciences, we easily dealt with the UFO-ers, perpetual motion machine perps, rogue planet believers, etc.
However, it appears that even here, the libtards have metastasized.
The global warming types - knowing that their only source of income is govt grants - have done a great job of bringing down some of my cherished science to the level of a democrat.
Their “science” is now on the level of their “art”.
A jar of piss is not art. It is not an achievement of the human soul or a demonstration of man’s expressive capability. It takes no talent. I don’t understand how the man who pissed in a jar received tax dollars for the effort.
1) It elevates you and makes you long for something sweeter than this world. Mozart achieves this, as do many other artists.
2) It celebrates the animal nature of this world and encourages you to wallow in this world. Michael Jackson, and so many others, have made this kind of Art.
3) It promotes chaos and meaningless such that neither this world nor the next world have any meaning or relevance. Serrano achieves this goal. Much of Modern Art achieves this. It's not elevating, and it's not engaging or amusing. It's just crap that people call "Art".
Liberalisms “respect” for “the other point of view” has morphed from its Liberal (in the 17th - 18th century sense) tradition, from respect for the fact that one has a right to a different point of view, to absolute respect and acceptance of that different point of view, as if you should believe it is as “legitimate” as yours, and socially as acceptable as yours.
They have gone from Voltaire’s “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
To: “I will defend to the death your right to your opinion, and I will no longer disapprove of it.”
But, such a respect, acceptance and false legitimacy is nothing other than self-denial of the respect, and the social legitimacy your own well founded view deserves, in your own humble opinion. Liberals no longer believe that should be a true value seeking contest, that we should withdraw from the contest altogether.
Liberalism is on a suicidal mission in western societies, at the same time that all other societies are pushing the world to promote and advance their cultural and moral values. This is being led within the “Liberal” communities by Marxists, who must, everywhere they rise, destroy the foundations of any society they seek to rise over.
I find beauty in the destruction of this piece - whoever did it is truly an artist. How dare you critisize or prosecute an artist simply because you find his art offensive!
Nominalism vs. Realism rides again!
The only reason anything should be funded out of the public treasury is that some demonstrable public good arises from it. In one breath, liberals tell us that the Mapplethorpe/Serano school of trash demonstrates a public benefit by forcing us to re-examine our views of so-called sacred institutions. But by their own admission, all that “re-examination” does is make people angry and hostile — hardly a benefit.
So in the next breath they claim that art is solely in the eye of the beholder, that there is no normative definition for “art.” Then they insist that anyone who fails to recognize the genius behind “Piss Christ” is a philistine rube. In other words, they proceed to define art.
Nowhere is the hypocrisy of the Left more apparent than on this issue.