Well what did you expect?

December 23, 2001 1:18 AM

Well what did you expect? After years of forcing taxpayers to pay for stuff they hate, the National Endowment for the Arts "has been transformed from a lightning rod and punching bag into a benign institution, averse to controversy and with a significantly different mission than it had a decade ago."
posted by BGM (32 comments total)

For any good the "old" NEA did in supporting artists who were too, ahem, non-mainstream to get funding elsewhere, they did much more harm to the art community as a whole by providing ample ammunition for the media to portray contemporary artists as talentless, sensationalist perverts. To me, their current agenda seems to be much more productive in the long term. Getting people involved at a level they're comfortable with and letting them develop at their own pace will generate much more apprecation for art than having "cutting edge" (translation, sadly more often than not, = poser crap) art foisted upon them by yet another flock of bureaucrats.
posted by BGM at 1:43 AM on December 23, 2001

There's often a thin line between challenging your audience and assaulting them. Artists should never be afraid to offend, but for some odd reason a disturbing number of funding aspirants have mutated this into the notion that it is their sacred duty to offend; that anything less than evoking a reaction of indignant outrage is a failure on their part. This has predictable consequences, I'm afraid. The irony is that those projects (eg: "Piss Christ", et alii) are a miniscule fraction of the great work the Endowment does. They are the easy targets; tailor-made to be sensationalized beyond their significance.
posted by RavinDave at 1:43 AM on December 23, 2001

the guv wants to endow to material that jerk the it and the public off to appear culture-conscious and appease interest groups, whatever, it's news if it was otherwise. like the endowment gets nearly as much money as (insert bullshit policy) anyway.
why are they interviewing this ballenger guy? i got so pissed after that paragraph i couldn't even read the rest of the article.
posted by elle at 1:48 AM on December 23, 2001

If the NEA were paying people to churn out Norman Rockwell knockoffs and velvet Elvises, Americans would still complain. The "stuff they hate" is art and taxes.
posted by pracowity at 2:14 AM on December 23, 2001

I hope that isn't a cheeky swipe at Norman Rockwell. I've been to hundreds of art shows and one of the best I ever saw was an extensive Rockwell retrospective. Nor am I alone in my opinion. We could use a few more people cursed with his genius.
posted by RavinDave at 2:46 AM on December 23, 2001

> I hope that isn't a cheeky swipe at Norman Rockwell.

Yeah, yeah. There was nothing wrong with normal Norman's art (or taking cheeky swipes at it). But I meant it strictly in the sense that Rockwell never (that I've seen) turned out anything that would frighten or puzzle the church ladies.
posted by pracowity at 3:05 AM on December 23, 2001

Zen saying: He who controls the purse controls the cause.
posted by Postroad at 3:56 AM on December 23, 2001

For any good the "old" NEA did in supporting artists who were too, ahem, non-mainstream to get funding elsewhere, they did much more harm to the art community as a whole by providing ample ammunition for the media to portray contemporary artists as talentless, sensationalist perverts.

BGM, the number of "controversial" artworks funded by the NEA was miniscule compared to the overall breadth of their grants. The NEA didn't do harm to the arts community. They "simply" became a political football when the powers-that-be needed a new punching bag at the end of the Cold War.

And, these issues are so much more stratified than the "black and white" way Jesse Helms, et. al. have made them out to be. For example: Serrano, in his Piss Christ, used urine as a way of suggesting that religion, as it presently is used, has upended the more traditional values it is derived from. This is quite a different way of looking at this piece than Helms and conservatives have conveyed.

Whether you accept this position or not is really not the point. Art, in it's best form, promotes discourse, IMHO. Unfortunately, often the promise of intelligent discussion is only realized as political rhetoric.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 6:42 AM on December 23, 2001

Whew! Finally. It's about time. I know I won't be happy until all public art is composed of exploring - in a variety of different mediums - the theme of cute, white, blond haired children skipping happily through a field of daisies with their puppies.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:29 AM on December 23, 2001

" ... And, these issues are so much more stratified than the "black and white" way Jesse Helms, et. al. have made them out to be. For example: Serrano, in his Piss Christ, used urine as a way of suggesting that religion, as it presently is used, has upended the more traditional values it is derived from. This is quite a different way of looking at this piece than Helms and conservatives have conveyed ..."

Yes ... should also mention that Mapplethorpe himself never got a penny of NEA money. The museum where his works were being shown had a grant from NEA that partially funded it's operations for that year. But of course details like this were rather lost in the heat of the political rhetoric ... and the notion that any museum receiving any funding at all from the NEA - however small - should therefore need to constrain all exhibits it puts on to the aesthetics and artistic maturity of Jesse Helms is now apparently accepted as perfectly fine.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:40 AM on December 23, 2001

Outta Context--

The mere ability to come up with an artistic definition of something does not great art make -- nor, incidentally, does the mere author of that art. Art, in the end, appeals to an aesthetic sense. Piss Christ appealed to disgust, and little more.

Just for the hell of it, I'm going to quote someone that I didn't even realize until, like, *now* that I had worked with a couple years ago. It's very scary finding aspects of your college years popping up in archives from high school...but anyway:

====

Subject: My GOD, is Amiga Tech THIS STUPID?!
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
From: J. Poag (bjp@interaccess) ]

Get aload of this bullshit Frog Design wrote about the "wonderful", second,
new logo, which consists of nothing more than the word "AMIGA" in a plain
old font with a little fucking red square dotting the "I"..

"The Amiga Wordmark evokes both a classic and elegant feel as well as
modern look. Bodoni, the font selected to build upon is a classic font.
Further refinements involving the manipulation and substraction of serifs
and the addition of the red square create a progressive, yet elegant logo.
the red square represents technology and adds energy to the logo by
implying a sense of motion."

GIVE ME A *BREAK*!

Translation: We loaded up Photoshop, picked "Bodoni" from the Font list
because it was the first one, we typed out the word "AMIGA" and then
hacked off a couple of those curvy tails at the edges of the letters.
Then we put a little red square above the "I".. Then we concocted some
art-gallery bullshit speech to make it look like a piece of artwork.

I mean, shit, hasn't it struck anyone within Amiga Tech that this piece
of crap took all of a whopping 30 seconds to make?!

Hey Gilles Bourdin! I've got a new logo. Here it is:

                 )
       \     (  /
        )  )  )( (
       /  /  / \  )
      (  (  (   )/
       \  \  \ /        ____,__._.__
      /  / /  /  /      (  x  \  ( (   )
      \__\__\__Y\__/
          A M I G A

"The selection of a piece of human extrement for the Amiga's new logo
represents, within the context of "fertilizer", PROSPERITY and GROWTH!
Variation within the many detailed creases of the turd & the waves of
methane-stench hovering angellically over the stool represent the
dramatic,unique and widely varying style of personal hygiene habits
displayed by the Amiga community. This fertile, but simple design is
accented by the addition of skewed, unkernable, off-centered
"A M I G A", shown here with a capitalized, unbolded, unitalicized Topaz
font, which is sure to GRAB attention and leave a lasting impression
of a force to be reckoned with."

You people at Amiga Tech fuckin' amaze me every day. You go to a company and
PAY THEM to design a logo that everyone HATES---And hates SO MUCH that the
Amiga community ITSELF begins submitting FAR superior logos, for FREE..
What do you do? You go RIGHT BACK TO THE SAME DAMN COMPANY, pay them
AGAIN, so they can come up with an even WORSE one?!

And these guys wanna run a company........ uuuuh-huh.
====

Ahhh, Bowie.

--Dan
posted by effugas at 8:51 AM on December 23, 2001

" ... The mere ability to come up with an artistic definition of something does not great art make -- nor, incidentally, does the mere author of that art. Art, in the end, appeals to an aesthetic sense. Piss Christ appealed to disgust, and little more ..."

Piss Christ - according to at least some of those that saw it - meant a variety of things different than you speak of. Believe it or not, the Christian religion, and the values it imposes, also invokes disgust in a not inconsiderable number of people (and for that matter, cultures and races - ever heard of a "Buddhist Inquisition"?). By your definition, I could just as easily say that Norman Rockwell appeals to cheap, emotionally immature sentimentality. (The last "exhibition" of Rockwell I saw was a series of reproductions ... in the waiting room of my dentist's office, and was nearly perfectly complimented by the Muzak in the background).

Point is, everyone has their own notions of what art, and "great" art is. What the NEA used to do is fund quite a wide range of those notions ... and the number of controversial projects was miniscule in relation to the whole picture. for every 1 "Piss Christ" exhibit, there was 5,000 community theatre productions of Oklahoma. Even during it's most controversial times, most of what it funded was exceedingly mainstream in it's appeal. All that has happened now is that ALL funding needs to almost by definition go to utterly bland and non-controversial projects. The tiny little bit that might have actually challenged anyone has now been wiped firmly off the map.

I'm a taxpayer, and I resent this. In other words, they are now "forcing (at least some) taxpayers to pay for stuff they hate".
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:23 AM on December 23, 2001

You know that Lucien Freud portrait reminded me of Norman Rockwell. Sort of.

Let's go to fantasyland for a moment:

Well what did you expect? After years of forcing taxpayers to pay for stuff they hate, the National Science Foundation "has been transformed from a lightning rod and punching bag into a benign institution, averse to controversy and with a significantly different mission than it had a decade ago."
posted by rschram at 10:35 AM on December 23, 2001

Midas--

Hmmm. There's some larger insight into human nature that I think you're starting to hit on; I suppose that brings some kind of penance for the extraordinarily simplistic summary of my feelings on art earlier.

Disgust is a sensation that normally travels quite well. People who consider peas quite sickening do not generally care about the amount of peas in a given meal; something gross is something gross, no matter how much is in there. People's reactions to hearing about tiny amounts of rat parts, animal feces, and whatnot in their meat, no matter how small, are often used to turn them into vegetarians! Steven Pinker explained that this was related to the fact that humans are generally extraordinarily picky eaters -- only a few animals from many, only a few muscle groups from most, for example.

But why be a picky eater? Think about a corrolary of Murphy's Law for a moment. A good meal will feed you for a day...but a bad meal might kill you forever. Clearly you have more to lose from eating something untrusted than you ever might hope to gain!

Now, how does this relate to the Piss Christ fiasco? Obviously, the small amount of "disgusting material" polluted the otherwise decent work of the NEA; I'd expect the same from a small amount of urine in an otherwise wonderful bottle of white wine. Merely believing we've consumed a disgusting substance can induce vomiting and convulsions; quite clearly the NEA experienced the political equivalent of both.

What I find really interesting is how hollow *and* valid both the first description of Piss Christ("shows how religion has upended the values it was built on") and the second("shows how christianity in particular is considered disgusting") ring. It's genuinely strange. One side of me nods my head and says, yes, I see that now, much like being shown the beauty of a particularly well crafted work might pop out.

The other side says, whoa. Dude. I just bought piss. Step on back, that guy got paid to piss on faith?

I actually think this is two separate mental systems at work, and the second one is alot more powerful. (It should be; it's rather tasked with our immediate survival!) It seems that with most illnesses food related, we look backwards in time for possible causes that made us ill. This strong temporal bias I think precludes looking for further meanings upon deeper (future) analysis and pretty much creates an imperative: Whatever brought us here was wrong. Find what brought us to this state of sickness, and never let it happen again.

Victims of food poisoning can tend to favor bland food. It is unsurprising the NEA is now only able to fund bland art. Congress wasn't being a bunch of troglodytes -- Serrano was dumb enough to do something that didn't even require an analogy to trigger core human protective instincts, and the NEA was apparently dumb enough to fund it.

Remember all that talk about the CIA funding Bin Ladin, apparently most of it unconfirmed and possibly even disproved? Understand the intelligence concept of Blowback? All relates back to our eating instincts that prevent us, among other things, from eating and drinking our own excrement, I do believe.

Thoughts?

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
posted by effugas at 11:47 AM on December 23, 2001

Whatever art is, should one person or group be able to force another person or group to pay for the propogation of art that they would not finance of their own volition? And if a government is moved to fund art that the majority finds inoffensive, is that not simply democracy in action?

Not that it would ever happen, because it would deprive incumbent politicians of a valuable campaign tool, but wouldn't it be better if there was just a section on your tax form where you would be required to assign a portion of your tax to the artistic endeavour of your choice? Getting past all the obvious chances for fraud and abuse that could provide arguments against doing this, who do you think would be more likely to be against this system - the Rockwellians or the Serranoites?

And finally, what piss christ really means is : I wanna be famous, but I'm nothing special, so I'll just drum up some attention with a cheap troll, and the usual crowd of naked emperors will fall right into line.
posted by BGM at 11:48 AM on December 23, 2001

the first description of Piss Christ("shows how religion has upended the values it was built on")

Perhaps they should have drafted the check for his NEA stipend on a used sheet of toilet paper -- just so he could have a piece of art too ("shows how the modern art elite has upended the values it was built on").

:)
posted by RavinDave at 12:01 PM on December 23, 2001

P.S. I'd be happy to "sign" it.
posted by RavinDave at 12:11 PM on December 23, 2001

Whatever art is, should one person or group be able to force another person or group to pay for the propogation of art that they would not finance of their own volition?

Hmmm, sounds like an argument against pretty much every single government expenditure to me. This is a classical position for far more than mere art.

--Dan
posted by effugas at 12:16 PM on December 23, 2001

bgm-
we don't have a say in the fine points of how the government utilises tax money. aside from the endowment for the arts, people want a say in how the guv spends in everything else, too. some people don't want to finanace wefare but they don't get a box to check that says 'my money isn't going to welfare'. government is management.

effugas-
no, not all art in the end appeal to aesthetics to everyone, it depends on the goal of the piece. besides, everything can seem physically beautiful in the correct light; piss christ, the example, looked like cool colours until i realised it was urine. film and literature are 'arts' too, are they necessarily pretty?
posted by elle at 1:19 PM on December 23, 2001

Dan, you're wrong. Everyone directly benefits from a reliable system of providing infrastructure. And while there are disagreements regarding methods, (roads v. rapid transit, for instance) the democratic system tends to give us what we need and are willing to pay for, despite the outrage of those who unsucessfully try to circumvent the system (WTO protesters, for instance) only to discredit their own cause. Grouping essential expenditures with discretionary ones may get you points when you're preaching to the choir, but it won't withstand being scrutinised with a look towards the long term. In other words, if everybody stopped paying for roads, even the greenest tree-hugger would get miffed when his organic tomatoes stopped showing up at the natural foods co-op. If we never spent another tax dollar on art, thereby tossing the ball to special interest groups and businesses, (who provide most of this type of funding anyway) the vast majority of us would be totally unaffected, and those who were would only have to shift their efforts from wheedling cash out of publically employed bureaucrats to wheedling cash out of privately employed bureaucrats. Meanwhile, politicians would be relieved of a straw man and pork barrel item.
posted by BGM at 1:29 PM on December 23, 2001

elle-
Of course we have a say. It's called voting. A past mayor here, a hard core lefty, announced a user fee for garbage pickup. If a household set out more than 2 bags a week, they would have to buy tags to put on every additional bag. She said it was essential tp protect our children's futures, keep the city from being overrun by garbage dumps, etc.... She backed down in about a week, and we've had a right wing mayor from the next election on, even though it's a pretty left leaning town. You sound awfully sheep like to me....

Anyway, stop welfare and you have Argentina. Stop arts funding and you have a few more black-clad whiners cluttering up Starbucks....
posted by BGM at 1:45 PM on December 23, 2001

Grouping essential expenditures with discretionary ones may get you points when you're preaching to the choir, but it won't withstand being scrutinised with a look towards the long term.

The US is a country that subsidizes for-profit ventures like professional sports and gives hundreds of millions in corporate welfare for corporations that can have no legal requirement to give anything back in the form of consumer discounts, drug price cuts, or jobs. The NEA not only pays for the modern art so many here hate, but also supports literature, media arts, and musuems. [list of grants]

If you want to go the 'smaller government' route thats fine but you have bigger hobgoblins to slay before the paltry NEA.
posted by skallas at 1:56 PM on December 23, 2001

Everyone directly benefits from a reliable system of providing infrastructure.

Actually, I'm moderately amenable to the concept that art, especially experimental art, can be serve a very real infrastructural purpose. Art quite clearly can expand awareness of our intrinsic natures, our interactions with our surrounding world, the depths to which our minds can connect, shuffle, and perceive... art can inspire, art can question, art can imitate life and as such help define it.

Much like standard infrastructure, though, profits from art are often unpredictable at best and predictably nil at worst. That doesn't mean they're without value -- it simply means they don't recover their own value from the public(you know, like you didn't pay for Metafilter, most lilkely).

I object to art that depends on the name of its creator, and little more, to establish its value. I object to art that uses disgust and mere strangeness as a proxy for real interpretation and thought. Idiocy is idiocy, unless it's in the context of a mindless teen comedy, in which case it's not meant to be high art anyway and critics need to learn how to laugh.

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining", but don't tell me there's no such thing as a good rain either. Funding artistic infrastructure prevents the drought of monoculture, when done right.

Not that I'm convinced that the blandness of today is right, but as the topic of this entire thread suggests...what did you expect?

--Dan
posted by effugas at 2:51 PM on December 23, 2001

If this means more funding for better architecture in public buildings i'm all for it. That's usually non-offensive, and affects much more people. If it's boring-only paintings though, bleh.
posted by rhyax at 3:28 PM on December 23, 2001

If the average person can do it, it ain't art.

Crimony, how often do we have to rehash this? I can pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. Just because I didn't have the foresight to be the first to put it in an art gallery doesn't make it art.

Amaze me. Challenge me. Show me something I haven't seen or thought of, and make me wonder about what it means. But don't take your bodily excretions, combine them with religious symbology, and expect me to hail you as the next Rembrandt.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:03 PM on December 23, 2001

OK, I guess I'm pretty sure the eternal debate over 'What is art?' isn't going to get settled here on MeFi. I also guess that part of the NEA's job is making sure people get to decide the question for themselves, rather than being spoonfed Thomas Kincade paintings and Precious Moments dolls. So ... here's hoping that some provocative, expressive, beautiful art wins the war in the end.

But I do agree that Kincade and his ilk aren't the only enemy of art. And yeah, I'm talking to you, Mr. Lights-Going-On-and-Off. Grr. Arrgh.

Martin Creed doesn't bother me, actually. Rock on, m*f*er. People can express themselves however they want. That's fine. But I sort of can't help feeling that when we overvalue art that chooses vague, unfiltered social commentary over personal expression, some big battle has been lost somewhere. Like we're truly moving farther and farther away from the Renaissance and closer to artistic insularity; the good stuff is all getting obscured by inaccessible, pretentious, masturbatory expositions on the post-1960's movement against materialism. Like we'll never have another Sistine Chapel to look into, because instead of Michelangelo, we'd hire Martin Creed to turn the friggin lights on and off, and find some way to tell ourselves that this is our pathway to God. Roight.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 5:26 PM on December 23, 2001

A few years ago the poet Rita Dove made the case for the NEA in a speech to the American Library Association . Dove made some rather pointed comments about the situation of Russian poets who lacked official funding during the Soviet era.

As a result of our minimal government funding for the arts, the art scene in the US is much like the former Soviet Union, only in reverse. We are getting our own version of "officially sanctioned art," in which corporations and individual patrons call the tune.

Is restricting art production to what commercial / monied interests want really in our national interest?

Perhaps we could take a tip from Vienna. The Austrians spend all their money on classical music, so that Vienna will be full of foreign visitors every summer, not Russian tanks or Taliban!

"In Austria, the clock ticks with a different beat ... In Europe, development and expertise in the field of new media receives a broad base of support." The World Information Organization wins hands down as the most challenging thing on the web.

But the right wing in Austria isn't too happy about funding it.
posted by sheauga at 10:24 PM on December 23, 2001

bgm-

still got to disagree with you there. tax payers do not vote on all policies; as a non-sheep (you must be a shepherd) you are likely against bureaucracies and maybe even dislike a strong executive branch which can in fact execute policies without voting.

bills the public vote on are usually broad, enabling a range of power for executives, say granting a certain amount of money for a certain project, how it's distributed is up to management of the government. the united states has three levels of executives (government,) federal, state, and local. bills are drafted by people in these three levels of executive branches, not the public.

the national endowment for the arts is distributed by a bureau at the federal level, the public only got to decide if the endowment exists because the public's representatives in congress only had to ask the public if they wanted it to exist, distribution is done by the bureau, we the voters, as much as we want to, do not get to vote on the fine points.

(refrain from personal attacks, please, it's just information, i don't need shepherding, though the effort is noted, thanks.)
posted by elle at 2:00 AM on December 24, 2001

hoo-ray! the art debacle begins again!

1. public art can never be art. ever. ever ever again. forget it. it's too contrived in order to please our lovely taxpayers at this point. (aside: i had a teacher who made public art as a living -- it is horrible stuff; the gauntlet of commitees you must go through robs any sort of soul or meaning the work actually had.)

2. art is art is art is art -- and that's not art. or wait, maybe it is. wait -- i don't like it -- so it's not art.

3. the UK pays for work. the UK pays for lots of work. any work. work many people hate. the UK probably has the highest number of respected artists (gallery, museum, critics, you name it) in the world right now.

4. i am durnk. no dots are connected.

5. i don't mind my tax money paying for art. art that i don't like. i don't mind my immediate money going to art/art shows/galleries featuring work that i don't entirely love.

6. i like art.

7. we can probably live without paying for art, but this will not stop artists from making it. artists don't make art for money. artists are not rich. artists make art because they're beautiful idiot idealistic fools -- and we get some beautiful things out of their (typically) decades long devotion. 50 cents out of my taxes each year is too little to pay (if even that).

8. gut the NEA. do it. we'll still have artists. I know many many people who make work, and none of them make it for money, or to get commissions, etc. Grants allow an artists to undertake more ambitious work, given, but if you think your money is ill spent, well, take away the NEA, and stop complaining. Serrano would still have made Piss Christ. Maplethorpe will still be taking pictures. Hirst will still be pissing people off. The kids in the UK will still be blowing minds. your tax dollars won't be invoved. be happy.

ok.
posted by fishfucker at 3:58 AM on December 24, 2001

Inheriting an Uneasy Truce Between Art and Government. [NY Times] "When Michael Hammond, a composer and arts educator, assumes the helm of the National Endowment for the Arts, he will find himself in the middle of a historically stormy and always uncertain relationship between the arts and the federal government. The Senate confirmed Mr. Hammond, 69, as the agency's new chairman late last week without a speck of controversy. That absence was striking given the stormy battles during the 90's when the agency's very existence was in question."
posted by Carol Anne at 9:37 AM on December 24, 2001

elle-
Now I am sure you are covered with wool and get nervous around men in rubber boots. Your civics lesson aside, you clearly have no idea about how power is wielded and policy made. You can write or phone your elected officials to express your positiion on a very narrowly defined issue, and if enough of your fellow voters weigh in with the same sort of comment, (and it takes less than you might think, often less than 1% of number of eligible voters who actually showed up at the polls, because statistically each voter who bothers to call or write is assumed to represent a certain number that share the opinion but don't make contact)the elected official will probably bow to the weight of public opinion, unless it's some kind of core position like reproductive rights or the pol is in thrall to a special interest. You can campaign for alternate candidates, organise special interest groups, manipulate the media, educate your fellow citizens - but you have to play the game "their" way. All this street demonstration/riot stuff destroys credibility so effectively that if I was a little more paranoid (give me time...) I would think that the violence and destruction was being provoked by agents of the protester's targets.
I apologise for what you characterise as a personal attack, even though it was meant as a humorous jibe. Your type of attitude does piss me off, however. If you can shape your thinking to run a computer, you can learn to have a positive impact on your government. The system works if you work within its parameters. I have done it and seen it done by others. Sure, people with money have an advantage, but that's the whole point of having money. Those of us without beaucoup cash have to use our time and energy, and our votes. All politicians want to maintain a grip on the proverbial reins of power. Threaten to take those reins and you have their attention and co-operation in the majority of cases. Any astute politician will be grateful for feedback. Do you have any idea how much is spent on polling every year? This entire concept seems to have escaped you, and way too many other people, as well. The people who take the time to learn how to work within the system get their agenda advanced. Those who think that it's beneath them to do this because of the moral superiority of their position.... well, I think they're pitiful and self-destructive.

Since this post will probably never be seen by you, elle, I will close by adding that your magazine has too many ads and the articles are boring. But the pictures are nice.
posted by BGM at 1:01 AM on December 25, 2001

i'll concede, bgm; i do have a negative attitude about government and a problem with authority figures. you're right about taking action and giving the system some credit instead of accepting that which can be altered. see? i saw it.
posted by elle at 3:43 PM on December 26, 2001