Posted on 07/28/2005 9:48:51 AM PDT by lainie
Yeah, he's all upset about it after the radio talk shows started lampooning it. Better late than never to get on the old bandwagon.
"Art, it SPEAKS to me!!" -Said in bubbly voice with eyes Runaway Bride wide.
*I am SO gonna regret this..*
Talent and imagination. ( sarcasm implied)
Sorry, honey, they're still dildoes on hooks. Changing the name to "Starry Nights" or "Guernica" or "Mona Lisa" isn't going to help.
"I wanted the title to be a little more open-ended so that it didn't become so easily dismissed," she said.
Translation: "If I used the real description before I got the money, there's a good chance someone would have done a reality check and kept me from the funds."
That caught my attention, too. What is it used for?
Why is it that almost every form of local entrepenurial enterprise other than "artistic expression" gets by predominately without state and local taxpayer financing.
Is it because "artists" in general need that support?, or could not make a living without that support?
No. It is because the taxpayer subsidized artists could not make a living without either taxpayer support or changing what they do as an "artist". Taxpayer subsidies for "art" are specifically drawn to prop up art that neither the public in general nor commercial interests would otherwise support on their own.
The artistic community and their political sychophants make the false argument that "art" is good simply for the sake of art and that the failure of public taxpayers to subsidize artists represents a direct attempt to stifle freedom of expression and a failure to "support" "art".
Both of these arguments are lies. As individuals and as corporations we support "art" all the time, with our checkbooks and our personal choices of what "art" we like. We are not required to support your art just because you are an artist and want to produce the art that you chose to produce.
For instance, take Lincoln Center in New York City. A place that was constructed with and recieves financial assistance from the taxpayers - as needed to "promote" "art"; particularly opera, ballet and orchestral concerts. Yet, in spite of all the taxpayer support what perecentage of the local population in the city can afford a nite out at Linclon Center - the construction guys, married with three kids in Queens, the hotel service workers, the dishwashers and waiters, the taxicab drivers, the busdrivers, starting cops and firemen, starting teachers, nurses, daycare workers, and many thousands of others??? Not likely at $65 to $100 dollars a ticket. So who goes to Lincoln Center mostly? Mostly the upper class and upper middle class liberals that claimed that "preserving a place for" their favorite "art" was important to "society"; while most of their "society" cannot afford to "enjoy" what they claimed to have "preserved".
Public funding and financing of all "art" is a sham.
Yes, public buildings should have art as part of the environment and decor of public buildings, but that art should be chosen with no intent whatsoever to "promote" art or to promote or help any artist. It should be chosen by committees of non-artists who are tasked with improving the ascetic environment of public space - not advancing "art" or improving "art" or promoting "art" and certainly while also trying NOT to make any political statement with its artistic choices. The mission is simply to improve the look of public space - end, fini, total and no other objective. If you have even just one "artist" on the commitee or influencing the committee then you will have already conceeded to the artistic prejudices and politics of that artist.
That is not art.
Looking at her (I'm assuming this is a her) other "works", she seems to have a major case of penis envy. Or at least she feels if it ain't phallic, it ain't art.
She also seems to have a thing for cup hooks!
um....I'll take items you find in a bathroom for $200, Alex.
Take out the piss from "Piss Christ" and the Left would have whined about the seperation of church and state.
Substitute a Koran for a Bible that had cow sh*t smeared on it in the name of Art, and the Left would have screamed blashpemy.
That used to make me puke when I lived in New York. I moved to Gainesville, Florida, a few years ago, and it still makes me puke - those pseudo-intellectual types are everywhere, even in the tiniest burg in these United States.
Yes, that is true, unfortunately.
What makes it even more disgusting, they give out art grants for this stuff.
And it shows absolutely zero talent.
Meanwhile, people who DO have talent get rebuffed as not being 'controversial', 'forward thinking', 'modern', or 'progressive' enough.
(I'm beginning to hate the word 'progressive' with an extreme hatred...)
Some of those looked like porcelain faucet handles.
It will make you even more disgusted to know that "progressive" is worldwide code for dumb PC lefty. In Spain, they refer to them as "progres" (a noun). And in Europe as in America, they are of course the ones who get the grants and the government/foundation goodies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.