From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Summary: End the NEA
Keywords: NEA, Arts
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:00:33 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

[Sorry for the long delay in sending this.  My hard disk failed, but it is
fixed finally.]

In article <1992Dec4.152238.1349@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <#+2ajg@rpi.edu> Keith Jackson, jacksonk@rolls.cs.rpi.edu
>writes:
>>Please clue me in on what artistic value a crucifix in a jar of urine
>>has. It seems obvious this was meant to directly offend Christians,
>>i.e. "I piss on your most sacred beliefs."  While you may argue that
>>this is "art", I would say that it fits only the loosest definition of
>>art.
>
>This smacks of "I don't know what art is, but I know it when I don't
>see it."
>
>The piece you mention =does= fit my definition of "art."  I can say
>this dispite the fact that I have never seen any depiction of it and
>have no idea what it actually looks like.  So how can I be so sure it
>is "art?"  Because part of my definition if "art" is things that evoke
>an emotional response and make people want to think about them.  Was
>this a successful work of art?  I guess so, since it got a =lot= of
>people talking and thinking, even those who, like myself, never saw
>it.  It was certainly more successful than the thousands of works that
>nobody has or will ever know of.

A loud fart, in an inappropriate public setting, might well evoke an
emotional response and start people thinking.  It could even be called
art (certainly by your low standard), but it isn't in the same class as
Bach, Mozart, or even the Beetles, Weird Al Yankovic, or Garth Brooks.
Taking a shit on a busy public sidewalk will evoke an emotional
response and start people thinking it, especially if you let it be known
that this "art" is being paid for by an NEA grant (and if you think
"Piss Christ" stirred them up, try this!).  This is "art", just like
Michaelangelo's or Rodin's, only in the same sense that a ball of lint
and the earth are both objects.

The best art exhibits, glorifies, upholds what is best in man,
culture, and society.  It promotes what is best in us.  It condemns
what is bad.  It lifts us up and encourages us to strive to be better
by showing us what can be.  It enriches our lives and makes us glad to
be alive, proud to be human.  It entertains and gladdens our hearts. It
shames us for our shortcomings.  It adds beauty to our lives.  It
teaches.  It isn't that, to be art, it has to be all of these things,
but the best art is at least some of them.  Too much of what the NEA
funds, is not just none of these things, it is the antithesis of these
things.

>>Regardless of what constitutes "art", we must also consider the
>>purpose of publicly funded art.
>
>The declared purpose is to promote artistic expression in all it's
>forms.

That's a mighty low purpose if you don't qualify "artistic expression"
better that you did above.

>>The purpose is not to fill the wallets of arbitrary artists, or to al
>>low them to proverbially slap a group in the face with a hateful mes
>>sage.  In the very least, the artist should enhance the "beauty" or
>>"consciousness" of the public.  
>
>I've never heard of an artist making more than a subsistance living
>from public art funding, except through outright fraud.  But, to
>proscribe publically funded artists from expressing their opinions,
>however disagreeable, isolates us from those opinions

With respect to Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano, a majority of
the public would say, "good" to that.  I say, "No big loss.  Certain
not one that justifies even my small share of the cost."

>>However enhancing the consciousness of
>>the public doesn't mean disgusting or offending them  to take that
>>viewpoint is quite antisocial and approaching sociopathy.
>
>But sometimes the best way to enhance the public "consciouseness" is
>to put something blatantly controversial in front of them and get them
>to talk about it.  I can't accept that it is antisocial to promote
>social discourse.

That, of course, depends on what discourse you are promoting.  Some of
the artists funded by the NEA are openly hostile to U.S. culture and
society and their art reflects that.  This could be said to be
anti-social.

>>But, should you wish to argue that this is too limiting  how about
>>paying some Aryan group to make "art" showing violence against non
>>Aryans or promoting Nazism?  Or how about something with an antigay
>>message?  Should the public have to pay for something which offends or
>>disgusts a large portion of the population?  
>
>The best way to deal with offensive points of view is to think and
>talk about them as much as possible.  It then becomes more clear just
>how unacceptable those opinions are.  Nazism, like mushrooms, grows
>best in the dark.

But do you fund them?  That's what you are arguing for in the case of
the NEA.  You are defending government funding of offensive points of
view.  By your line of "logic" then we should also fund neo-Nazi hate
groups so that they can get their views out too (at least if they
expressed their hateful ideas through art).

>>In addition, you must differentiate the issue of censorship from that
>>of adequacy for funding.  Just because something is not illegal doesn't
>>mean we should pay for it.
>
>Adequace of funding is always a valid issue.  However, discriminating
>on the basis of the tastes of any subset of the society (even the
>majority) is less acceptable, in my opinion, than providing no funding
>at all.

Then you should be for no funding at all, since we now decide what art
is to be funded by the tastes by small panels of artists, often artists
who also get NEA grants, in other words, exactly what you say your are
against.

In fact, if you care at all about the arts, you should demand and end to
the NEA at once.

...
>>Ahh, the arrogance of this statement  you assume that anyone who
>>doesn't agree with your sense of art must be stupid.  So why should
>>your ideas be valued any more than those of others?
>
>No, just those people who try to define art in terms so limiting.  I
>just don't want the boundries of publically funded art to be any less
>than the boundries of nonfunded art.  And I most certainly don't want
>those boundries to be defined by people who don't even understand what
>art is, beyond that limited definition.

In other words, you don't want how people's tax dollars should be spent
on art decided by the voters or their elected representatives, at least
not if they want to limit the types of art they are willing to pay for. 
How very democratic of you.

To argue, as the ACLU has, that Congress has no right to oversee or
place restrictions on how taxpayer's money is spent on art is patently
ridiculous.  It isn't just their right, it is their Constitutional
obligation.  They can place any restrictions on the art the taxpayer's
will pay for they want.  This isn't censorship.  The artist can still
make any type of art he likes.  He just has no right to force us to pay
for it.

I have heard people state that, while there is no obligation for the
government to fund the arts, if it does it can't place content restrictions
on the art it does fund.  I can't find any basis for this statement.

I have also heard it argued that the government shouldn't because of it's
effect on the arts, and they might be right, but personally I think the NEA
and NEH should be done away with completely, not just because the federal
government has no business forcing the taxpayers to fund the arts, but
because of the corrupting effect federal funding has on the arts.  If you
truly care about the arts, you should demand an end to the NEA.
To read more about this, please read: "Saving the NEA", National Review,
November 19, 1990, pp 34-36.  Here is a quote from the article:

	As one observer put it, the NEA has allowed itself
	to become "an instrument for back-scratching and
	palm-greasing within the artistic community rather
	than an agency for the impartial administration of
	public arts appropriations." . . . the agency had
	become "a system willfully contemptuous of the public
	interest and the public voice [and] dedicated to the
	subsidy of in-group art at the expense of the
	taxpayer whose money it was so freely spending."

-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13635 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12248 alt.politics.correct:6148