[Die Zaubertuba]

For once, a story about one instance where the NEA peer review system actually worked (and I have to admit it hasn't always--the Maplethorpe controversy proved that). Nice to see that an NEA panel has the guts to actually reject a "work" (I wince to call it that) of dubious quality.

"A state-supported artist is an incompetent whore."

Actually, historically speaking, some of the greatest acheivements in the arts were created by artists on the State and/or Church dole (sometimes it was one and the same).

Personally, I wish the Church would re-capture its role as leader in support of the arts. I think it would have a profound effect on our culture.

And yes, there IS such a thing as "bad" art.

Flame Away. :)

[Quila]

and I have to admit it hasn't always--the Maplethorpe controversy proved that

Exactly how much do you know about Mappelthorpe? Have you seen an exhibit, or only those couple photos the conservative press has been talking about? The man actually warrants serious study in the legitimate art world, not just a self-righteous AFA press release.

I am personally quite turned-off by his most graphic photos, but I have to admit that the man had serious talent even in thier production. There are some prints I would love to own, prints that most of you wouldn't mind hanging in your homes if it weren't for the attached name.

[Cicero]

Yes, most of the world's great art was supported by patrons: kings, aristocrats, and the Church. Visit Italy, and virtually all the great art of the middle ages and the Renaissance was supported by people like Lorenzo di Medici or Pope Alexander VI, or was painted by monks and anonymous stoneworkers, who labored for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

BUT, something went wrong in the modern age. I'd trust the Medicis to know great art when they saw it, but does anyone really believe that the NEA has the slightest idea which artists to support? It would be better to give the money to the Mafia and let the Godfather choose.