From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
XXXDate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 22:43:35 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A77351A712030614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 22:44:17 GMT

In article <1207@bug.UUCP> Steven R Fordyce, stevef@bug.UUCP writes:
> <In response to Greg Bradt's original comment of...>
>>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!).

You totally ignored a crucial part of my definition... that it makes people
=want= to think.  It doesn't take much thinking to realize why most people
find a fart or a dump on a public sidewalk obnoxious.  Conversly, it takes
considerable thought to understand why people have reacted in the many and
varied ways that they did to "Piss Christ."

>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.

While this is a nice list of perfectly valid ways to evaluate art, it is far
from comprehensive.  Art also educates, as Mapplethorpe did in giving us a
glimpse at how physical beauty is seen through the eyes of the homosexual. 
Sometimes art scares us, as the movie "Aliens" did.  In fact, I don't think
such a list could ever be complete, because art also, by it's very nature,
frequently redefines our ways of looking at things.

>>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.

Actually, your limited definition of art isn't all that "lofty" either,
since it limits it so.

>>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
>antisocial.

I can't agree.  Social discourse is =always= good.  There are no forbidden
topics of discussion.  The more offensive something is, the more is =should=
be discussed... if only to make it =known= that it is found to be offensive.

Besides, it's absurd to consider any purely artistic expression
"antisocial".  Art once shared, is inherently "social."

As for art that expresses a hostile point of view, it should be welcomed. 
After all, the artist is, in presenting that point of view, giving opponents
an opportunity to express theirs.

>>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 neoNazi hate
>groups so that they can get their views out too (at least if they
>expressed their hateful ideas through art).

We should neither make a point of funding them or excluding them from
funding.  You simply allow them to be one of the many points of view.

>>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.

If I thought that the NEA were limiting themselves to a narrow "category" of
artistic expression (such as the one you described above) then I would
support abandoning it.  However, at this point, I don't think that has
become a major problem.

>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. 

Quite correct.  The NEA doesn't pay for certain "types of art."  Their
mandate is to help artistic expression to flourish in our culture.

>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.

Incorrectly stated.  It's my understanding that the ACLU's position is that
they can't place restrictions on how the NEA, as it is currently set up, for
the reason stated 2 paragraphs up.  If they want to commission an artwork to
decorate the grounds or walls of a specific building, or for any specific
use, then they have full artistic control.

>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.

You have to understand the purpose of the NEA.  It is not to =produce= art
but, rather, to =promote= artistic expression.  A very important difference.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh