From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Summary: Chocolate covered women... Yum!
Date: 22 Aug 92 22:54:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

In article <1992Aug22.210923.6942@zip.eecs.umich.edu> sechrest@z.eecs.umich.edu (Stuart Sechrest) writes:
>Two views of the NEA have been expressed.  I disagree with both.

	  [Much intelligent, though wrong-headed discussion deleted.]
>
>Steve Hendricks (among others) seems to think that the NEA, while predominantly
>a supporter of mainstream projects whose ``few instances of cultural 
>adventurism'' ``represent a tiny counterbalance in favor of diversity and 
>provocation (a critical aspect of art's function.)''
>
>Neither side in the NEA debate deserves much respect in my mind.
>Attacks by Helms and Buchanan are nasty and small-minded.  They pick out a
>few things that they don't like and propose categories of subject matter
>to be denied funding.  On the other side we have those who argue that art
>is supposed to be ``challenging,'' that public distaste validates art,
>and that any questioning of the value of chocolate-covered women interacting 
>with canned yams is simply philistinism.  
>
>--Stuart Sechrest

Just for the record... I'm not familiar with the "chocolate-covered women
interacting with canned yams" exhibit, he cites.  I suspect that it 
may be hyperbole aimed at making a point.  (Although after reading the
description I must confess I have difficulty getting the image out of my
mind.  This might suggest it would be a worthwhile project. :-)).

Mr. Sechrest raises an interesting point, however; that of the task of
public agencies asked to distribute scarce resources in areas where 
everyone considers himself an expert on what is legitimate/illegitimate,
art/trash, worthwhile/worthless.  It is clearest in such arenas as 
art funding, but also exists for grant distribution in the hard and 
social sciences.  

I don't think there's an easy answer here.  Each one of us can point to
one or more examples of "obviously" stupid decisions to spend taxpayers'
money in a worthless pork barrel project.  What we mean is that we
wouldn't have voted for the expenditure if it were our job to decide.

On the whole, I think one can only look at these endeavors from a 
broad perspective.  I have no opinion one way or the other on the famous
Maplethorpe exhibit, not having seen it.   I am familiar with some of
Maplethorpe's work and I find it exceedingly worthwhile, however.  And
I'm also familiar with Jesse Helms and his views.  So, am I willing to
defend the NEA/NEH decision-making process?  You bet.  Anything that
Jesse attacks so stridently must have some redeeming social value.

And if anyone can tell me where the chocolate covered women are on display, 
please send e-mail.

Steve
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
   ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp.  ms LL2-2B    |  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
   E. 22425 Appleway                   |  Ma Bell: 509 927-7034
   Spokane, WA  99220-4008             |  FAX: 509 927-2499
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics