Skip

It's things like this
October 5, 1999 11:23 AM   Subscribe

It's things like this that make me want to go out and produce artwork based on defaced religious symbols.
posted by mathowie (2 comments total)

 
I wouldn't go that far. :)
I think the point is that the government shouldn't necessary sponsor art that is offensive to most of the population. I mean, if the art is good, the artists can find a way to pay for it. They don't need the government. And the government shouldn't subsidize just crazy junk.
posted by tdecius at 8:17 PM on October 5, 1999


Art is an important part of society and culture and deserves to be supported. The thing about art is that financially successful artists (*cough* LeRoy Neiman *cough*) are known for producing forgettable work. Art that is popular enough to get the artist paid well (*cough* Patrick Nagel *cough*) isn't worth looking at 5 years after it's created, much less 50 or 500 years down the line. All the great works of art we think of from the renaissance were controversial back then. I'm not saying an elephant dung portrait is going down in history as a masterpiece, but funding 'unpopular' art is a Good Thing for the other 99% of the work it funds. Some people have a problem with any art being funded with public funds and they like to use extreme cases like this one to support their cause.

The deal with this controversy is that a few politically like-minded people are using this during an election year to further their cause and do some posturing for their party.
posted by mathowie at 7:33 AM on October 6, 1999


« Older Holy crap! Check out Adobe's new redesign.   |   Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post