Comments on: Latest NEA Controversy Isn’t the First

By: garment business daily

garment business daily — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:19:13 +0000

Cool sites…

[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……

By: Mastering the Art of Orchid Growing | 7Wins.eu

Mastering the Art of Orchid Growing | 7Wins.eu — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:21:21 +0000

[...] Orchid Care | Mastering the Art of Orchid GrowingPlants We Grow-Orchids Lesbian Batwoman!: Superhero or Superhype? – Chicago Stage ReviewAsian Art Museum Blog Big Hollywood [...]

By: Concerned

Concerned — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:23:15 +0000

The premise that this art has damaged the country in someone is incorrect. Its art. It doesnt bite. The point whether or not someone is offended is irrelevent, these people judge the work without thinking about it. Art has individual meaning to each spectator, but only if its though about, did you think about it? did you think about why you were offended? did you think about why someone might like it? did you think about the artist? why they made it? who for? the time period it was created in? Art doesnt have to be pretty. it can be ugly

By: palmtree

palmtree — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:39:37 +0000

If we really can't deal with being offended, than it's true, either you stop funding art , or you control closely what is funded. I think it's a good thing for the cultural life of this country to support the arts and I don't want government propaganda art any more than you on the right do. I say let artists do their thing, if sometimes it offends, well just let it go and move on.
And as a side note , both Andres Serrano and Mapplethorpe made a lot of really quality work besides the infamous stuff. Would I want the bullwhip photo in my living room? No. Does it make me want to cut all arts funding ? No.

By: palmtree

palmtree — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:29:42 +0000

I didn't call you any names, nor did I accuse you personally of being homophobic. What I said was that there is a section of the conservative movement that is anti-gay, and they use homosexuality( and really urban decadent lifestyles in general) as a political wedge issue to get people riled up. In my opinion this is what the NEA issue was largely about.
I'm happy to defend paying for the bullwhip photo. I think it's perfectly ok for grants to go to Arts Organizations or artists themselves, who are then free to do their work without government interference. If sometimes a work is shown or created that is offensive to some, well is that really such a big deal? Aren't we the land of the free? Isn't an occasional offense a small price to pay for supporting the arts and maintaining free expression? I thought conservatives were sick of too much "political correctness", and everyone being too sensitive. Ok , you find the bullwhip photo gross. Well, big deal, go on to the next photo of a flower or whatever.

By: palmtree

palmtree — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:19:34 +0000

you said this "…in my opinion, through the eyes of most conservatives at teh time. We weren't anti-gay, but we were labeled as such." , and you put up a picture of Helms so I used him as an example.

By: StageRight

StageRight — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:15:44 +0000

His "campaign" was not against Mapplethorpe. And, it was not his campaign. He was a US Senator charged with the responsibility, no, the DUTY to represent the people who elected him as their Senator. And he took the position to suggest that perhaps his constituents' tax dollars should not be spent on an exhibit which included a photo of a bull whip shoved up a man's ass. If he was a homophobe, or a racist, or a murder, he could still take that position and that position would be reasonable and you need to deal with that POSITION instead of making the issue about gay rights.

By: StageRight

StageRight — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:12:01 +0000

But here you do exactly what is always done to a conservative trying to lay out that argument. "If you are against paying for Mapplethorpe's ass with a bull whip shoved up it then you must be a Homophobe. " Then it is up to the conservative to defend themselves against the ad hominem attack and try to prove a negative. Meanwhile the actual issue gets lost in your vapid and
juvenile name calling. I am sick of it and I refuse to play along. If you want to defend paying for Mapplethorpe's ass with a bull whip shoved into it, then fine. Defend it… but do it without calling me
names.

By: StageRight

StageRight — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:11:44 +0000

I made no opinion about whether Helms or conservatives were anti-gay or pro-gay. I said that the NEA issue was not an "anti-gay" issue as you asserted. The only reason Mapplethorpe's photos were an issue was that NEA funding was used for an exhibit of his work in Ohio which used some photos that crossed the line of public decency (a self portrait of his rear end with a bull whip shoved into it?) The argument then about the content was not anti-gay, and it wasn't even against public funding of the arts, it was against public funding of the arts which the vast vast vast majority of those PAYING for that
art would find offensive.

By: palmtree

palmtree — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 05:32:30 +0000

Here are a couple quotes from that lovely man Jesse Helms whose image we see above:
( I don't think you can detach this attitude from his campaign against Mapplethorpe)

“He fought bitterly against federal financing for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from “unnatural” and “disgusting” homosexual behavior.”

“1993: On the nomination of a gay rights activist to a federal post: “She’s not your garden-variety lesbian. She’s a militant-activist-mean lesbian, working her whole career to advance the homosexual agenda. Now you think I’m going to sit still and let her be confirmed by the Senate? … If you want to call me a bigot, go ahead.””
:
“The Bible is unmistakably instructive on the sin of sodomy,” he declared in 1994. “I confess I regard it as an abomination.” Aids, he suggested, was acquired through “deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct” and he became an ardent opponent of government funding for Aids research and education. In 1987 he described Aids prevention literature as “so obscene, so revolting, I may throw up.”
:
“The government should spend less money on people with AIDS because they got sick as a result of deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct.”

“Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality “degenerate,” and homosexuals “weak, morally sick wretches.” (Newsweek, 12/5/94) In a tirade highlighting his routine opposition to AIDS research funding, Helms lashed out at the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988: “There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy.” (States News Service, 5/17/88)”