posted on May 27, 2005 10:22:38 PM
More Smut, Called Art
Free speech and all.... But it doesn't have to be publically funded by the taxpayers. I do hope the county funding is completely pulled.
----
Broward pressures Art Guild to remove graphic painting of Bush from 'Controversy' exhibit
By Jean-Paul Renaud
Staff Writer
May 27, 2005
An explicit art piece at the private, nonprofit Broward Art Guild was removed from its prominent position in the gallery after the agency's director received a phone call from the county's Department of Cultural Affairs, which partially funds the group.
County Administrator Roger Desjarlais said Thursday the phone call placed by department director Mary Becht -- and the subsequent decision to take the painting off the wall -- will lead to an internal discussion of whether county agencies have the right to influence artistic decisions or fund certain exhibits.
The Broward Art Guild's annual exhibit, entitled "Controversy," caught the attention of Becht when she received a complaint from another artist in the show that an art piece entitled "Yahoo!" was offensive and inappropriate.
"It's not every day that you get a call from the director of cultural affairs at your home," said guild director Susan Buzzi. "Of course I took it very seriously."
Becht confirmed placing the call, but said the conversation was to inquire about the Guild's policy on displaying explicit art.
The piece in question is a painting depicting President Bush being sodomized.
Artist Alfred Phillips said images of an oil barrel and a man wearing a Muslim headdress in the work are part of a political statement about the United States being abused by oil companies.
Michael Friedman, the artist who complained to the county, said the painting is offensive and tasteless.
"Something snapped inside," he said. Friedman himself entered a piece depicting Pope Benedict XVI with several swastikas in the background.
"Sodomy in a public forum is not, from my perspective, considered art," he said. "I think somebody has to draw the line somewhere. I like political satire. However, that type of image ... I don't think is artistic."
posted on May 28, 2005 05:50:34 AM
I agree that it's in bad taste. However, freedom of speech and freedom of expression only if it doesn't apply to certain individuals or certain subjects? What next? More book burning? Should we burn all the books that put President Bush in a bad light? You have to take the good with the bad. That's part of what freedom and America is about. You can't silence everyone. Unless, of course, you approve of North Korea's form of government.
posted on May 28, 2005 06:25:33 AM
OH the DOUBLE STANDARD of the neocons!
"""Free speech and all.... But it doesn't have to be publically funded by the taxpayers""""
Same with religious events, displays....
So crowfarm you are saying that if this "art" is allowed then we should be able to see manger scenes on city/county properties again? Tablets of the 10 commandments should be ok, that is "art"
posted on May 28, 2005 06:28:16 AM
However, Ron, there is a little thing called the Constitution which calls for separation of church and state in order to protect our religious freedom.
posted on May 28, 2005 06:28:46 AM
Throughout history artists have painted whatever they feel is significant to them and sometimes to the world. You may see this painting as outrageously inappropriate but to many is is not.
One definition of rape is the act of despoiling a country in warfare George Bush, as commander in chief of this country has committed this offence against the Middle East and by his imperialistic agenda has essentially despoiled the world in the opinion of many. The art that some find offensive was made in an effort to depict such horror just as some write about horror in books. Would you also like to see all books removed from the library that offend your narrow minded, reactionary view. Freedom of expression in the field of art, literature and music should be tolerated and encouraged.
posted on May 28, 2005 06:38:48 AM
Art is Art, if someone does not like it, just don't look.
To censor one artist for this, then soon it will be censor other artists for that. Creativity will die eventually and what a boring world that would be.
I am curious Linda would it have made difference to have had that artist paint Monica on her knees in front of Clinton?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This was ratified by the States in 1791.
The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson.
Edited to add: I couldn't agree more with your above statement.
Cheryl
[ edited by CBlev65252 on May 28, 2005 06:45 AM ]
posted on May 28, 2005 06:48:32 AM
Ron says, "I am curious Linda would it have made difference to have had that artist paint Monica on her knees in front of Clinton? "
No, to me it wouldn't make any difference...the artist should be free to paint anything they want.
Just like people are free to make all the endless OLD boring jokes about Clinton and Monica.
Just like people are free to bring up such old news.
I don't care where, or if, anyone has written about the seperation of church and state , the seperation should be there.
But, back to the picture....I'm sure the neocon whining will get it some publicity which artists love...helps sell their paintings
posted on May 28, 2005 08:05:45 AM
So start a thread about the seperation of church and state and when I can't sleep I'll start reading it and then can peacefully doze off.
posted on May 28, 2005 08:15:34 AM
A BRIEF AND IDIOSYNCRATIC HISTORY OF CENSORSHIP
Robert Atkins
Should homo sapiens be renamed homo censoris? We're certainly the only species capable of censorship. Where does this troublesome urge come from? Perhaps it's merely an extension of that age-old, apparently hormonal instinct to dominate and control. Whatever its origins, censorship--the prohibition of speech or expression divorced from action--transcends cultural boundaries and predates recorded history. The Old Testament informs us that the Hebrews burned the prophecy of Jeremiah because it was too downbeat. Confucius's writings were incinerated around 250 BC after a change of dynasty made them politically incorrect. The Roman historian Tacitus mistakenly believed that Augustus was the first emperor to destroy books and punish speech, but the Romans had actually taken their cues from the Greeks. To be fair, the Romans should be credited with refining the practice of censorship, as well as with coining the term itself. Beginning in the fifth century BC, they commissioned "censors" whose primary purpose was to conduct the "census," in order to rationalize the collection of taxes. As night follows day, the imposition of moral standards followed the imposition of standards for citizenship. Around the time of Christ, Augustus codified these moral standards into law. But as Tacitus wisely noted about "immoral" books:
"So long as the possession of these writings was attended by danger, they were eagerly sought and read: when there was no longer any difficulty in securing them, they fell into oblivion."
So what else is new? That's the thing about censorship--it seems to spring from misguided, but ever-so-human nature. What follows is a sometimes tragic, sometimes inadvertently amusing chronicle of mostly Western milestones in censorship since the fall of the Roman Empire. Rest assured that each of these objects--or agents--of censorship stands for hundreds like it.
VENUS DE MILO. The armless classical statue was tried, convicted and condemned for nudity in Mannheim, Germany, in 1853. Reproductions of that day chastely renamed Venus the Goddess of Liberty. In 1911--in what critics ridiculed as an "elephantiasis of modesty"--Buffalo alderman John Sullivan and local Catholic clergy sought to cover up several reproductions of classical statues including Venus. Circa 1930 reproductions of the statue in Palmolive ads got censor's dots over Venus's breasts, and in Hungary, police burned her photo in a shop window. In 1955, in Winona Lake, IN, a full-scale reproduction was covered in poison ivy by a puritanical housewife hoping to disguise the statue's nudity
posted on May 28, 2005 09:18:20 AM
Wash- I agree with your comments about censorship. In the little time I've seen your postings on here, I feel as though you are one of the few sensible and intelligent conservatives on RT. We may differ in opinions, but I can respect the fact that you are open and balanced. It may be that you work in Portland and are persuaded by all the liberals here. lol.
My issue with your "manger scenes" is that they represent only one sect of religion, and that is Christianity. I don't have a problem with the idea that a manger scene can be displayed. What I have a problem with is the exclusion of all other religions and ideological beliefs. If Christianity is going to be represented, then by all means, equal celebration of all religions and beliefs should be adhered to, but that isn't the case.
What I find so interesting about your argument and my response is that we rarely ever touch on the difference between Christianity and other religions. When was the last time you heard a Muslim argue about displaying a Koran in front of a court house, or Buddhists wanting a statue of Buddah in front of a public school? You generally don't (with I'm sure a few exceptions). It's the Christians who are front and center with this arguement. So, how about we make it a fair and equal playing field. Christians have had their way with displaying manger scenes and the ten commandments for at least a hundred years. Is this not correct? So, where ever one of these displays were put, every religion should have equal amount of time to "catch up" with Christianity's time they were given. Then we can simply rotate from there. One year the Christians can put a manger scene, then another year... you get the idea. I believe this would be fair a compromise. So, how would you like that idea?
SMUT- that is funny. We have some friends who own a store called SMUT. It is an acronym for So Many Unique Treasures.
Linda of course wants to censor someone's ability to get funding by the government because she thinks the particular artwork in question is indecent. I wonder how she would feel if someone said the same thing about an artist depicting Jesus Christ on a cross who found that offensive. I find the cruxifiction is offensive and indecent, but if you want to place it in your home, your church, your car... whatever... I'm ok with it. Linda proves once again that an opinion is the end all of decision making. Forget equality. Forget the fact that some people may find something humorous, some may find it offensive, the point is that it is art and it makes you think. If the government is going to fund art, it needs to do so without restrictions of content. The government and an individuals opinion of what they find offensive is not, and should never be the deciding factor whether something gets funded or not.
posted on May 28, 2005 10:29:08 AM
As someone who attends many functions, openings, art shows, galleries, etc and have many friends who are, were, or have backgrounds in art, I can tell you if we tried to show ANYTHING remotely comparable to the painting mentioned above we would be asked to remove it as most would find it grossly offensive. (Regardless of who was getting sodomized...)
Also, this may depend on the size of the community. Smaller communities would find this too offensive, and those who financially support these galleries would more than likely pull their monies. If it were shown in an urban gallery, it would be more acceptable.
posted on May 28, 2005 12:39:53 PM
crowfarm once again displays her stupidity.
That was a figure of speech in case you dont get it in reference to all the cram it up yer azz around here. (which btw, maybe the artist has been hatching that cram it up your' from someone here.) I am not the president of the United States either. Even political cartoonists have to watch where they go. In case your unaware of whats considered akin to soft porn or even hard core porn which ever way you lean it, this constitutes it.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 28, 2005 12:43 PM ]
posted on May 28, 2005 12:47:06 PMThe art that some find offensive was made in an effort to depict such horror just as some write about horror in books...
Helen if this was the artists intended interpretation, he would have shown Bush doing the sodomizing, not being sodomized. Dont you think?
posted on May 28, 2005 01:44:33 PM
Snippet of a larger article. Url can be found below.
A modern definition of censorship is the “suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, or artists themselves” (Grolier 246). This definition states that “anyone” can perform censorship, as opposed to the nineteenth-century definition in which “an officer” performs censorship. These definitions already indicate some differences in the act of censorship. The nineteenth-century definition suggests “officers” or governing bodies, while the modern definition states that “anyone,” including the public, has the power of censorship.
Today, one might expect that censorship can not occur because the courts have affirmed personal rights and freedoms, especially through the Constitution's First Amendment declaring freedom of speech. However, obscenity is not protected by First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court defined obscenity in the landmark case Roth v. United States (1957): (a) Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest -- i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. (b) It is vital that the standards for judging obscenity safeguard the protection of freedom of speech and press for material which does not treat sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. (c) The standard for judging obscenity is whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, appeals to prurient interest. Therefore, artwork perceived by some as obscene can be censored, even though others may not find it obscene. The community in which the artwork is displayed decides the definition of obscenity.
posted on May 28, 2005 01:58:21 PMArt is Art, if someone does not like it, just don't look.
Oh...but we have other choices, Ron. IF we are donating our money...or is tax dollars are being used, which they are in this gallery's case, then we DO have the option of withdrawing funds for what we find offensive.
To censor one artist for this, then soon it will be censor other artists for that. Creativity will die eventually and what a boring world that would be.
Censoring? No where did I mention censoring. If you think I did, please point it out to me.
I am curious Linda would it have made difference to have had that artist paint Monica on her knees in front of Clinton?
No, because filth is filth. Just as it was with the Catholic cross in urine...that some Artist thought to be Art. It does not surprise me that because this was Bush rather than clinton the left here finds it acceptable. HAD it been clinton....we'd be seeing much different statements.
----------------
dbl - I was wondering IF anyone was going to 'catch' that fact. It obviously went over helen's grasp. You don't get the credit you deserve, imo, for being one of our 'brighter' bulbs posting here. They see the word BUSH...and it blinds them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 28, 2005 02:05:30 PM
Also wanted to mention my TOTAL agreement with Ron's statement on the supposed 'separate of church and state'. And to say I agree, it's NOT in our Constitution. If we took every letter that one of our forefathers had written, voicing ONLY THEIR opinion in....and decided that too SHOULD be included as part of our Constitution...well..that's just crazy making, imo.
HAD ALL of our forefathers wanted is ONE opinion in our Constitution...it would have been PLACE IN THE DOCUMENT....included in our law.
----------
And in answer to rusty's post....other religious groups ARE allowed to have their religious 'pieces' displayed....but the Christian one's are being taken down. Even this past Christmas...happened again and the Christian groups had to go to court saying it was unfair that the 'others' WERE ALLOWED...but the ones that had been out in public since our Nation began...weren't.
So, to say this nonsense is because we have more religions now...not just Christianity is a farse and very untrue.
And, imo Ron was correct in tying the two issues together. Atheists and godless don't want Christian displays out in public. Even though nothing in our Constitution PREVENTS it...but let some piece of what they consider 'Art' work be called what it is 'trash, garbage, filth, SMUT' listen to them wail about freedom of speech.
LOL
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 28, 2005 02:14:21 PM
"And in answer to rusty's post....other religious groups ARE allowed to have their religious 'pieces' displayed....but the Christian one's are being taken down. Even this past Christmas...happened again and the Christian groups had to go to court saying it was unfair that the 'others' WERE ALLOWED...but the ones that had been out in public since our Nation began...weren't.
So, to say this nonsense is because we have more religions now...not just Christianity is a farse and very untrue."
Do you have some court documentation to back this claim up? I would like to see some specifics of these lawsuits, other than something that Bill O'Reilly attempts to pass as facts on his show.
posted on May 28, 2005 02:16:47 PM
LOL Linda ...for being one of our 'brighter' bulbs posting here...
Well now, if they wanted to run with Bush takes it up the..to pay off the devil type thing...I might say okay I understand that interpretation if you wish.... But even then its lost on me somewhere in the translation in depiction of GW Bush. ??? I just dont think he needs to pay off a devil do you if he is the this devil incarnate we are to believe he is as the libs subscribe?
btw, I dont want my shining star to be too bright round here though. I might just shamatter myself and everyone else along with me because of it. That would be chock foe'de-point, but in the grand scheme of things, point-price-less, imo, and everyone has their price to pay, or price to ask, including me.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 28, 2005 02:40 PM ]
posted on May 28, 2005 02:18:26 PM
linduh says, "It does not surprise me that because this was Bush rather than clinton the left here finds it acceptable. HAD it been clinton....we'd be seeing much different statements. "
Crowfarm stated earlier in the thread....
"""Ron says, "I am curious Linda would it have made difference to have had that artist paint Monica on her knees in front of Clinton? "
No, to me it wouldn't make any difference...the artist should be free to paint anything they want. """
My friend, a devout Christian, and I , an atheist, fight against religious use of PUBLIC places. These places are owned by taxpayers, ALL taxpayers and should not be used for the promotion of any religion.
The religions have their own TAX FREE property and can do anything they want to on it....just stay off MY property.
Why does that seem so unfair to the Righties?.
Oh, I know....it's that "common sense" thing they're so afraid of
[ edited by crowfarm on May 28, 2005 02:21 PM ]
posted on May 28, 2005 02:21:52 PM
LOL...do you form ALL your opinions on some false belief that if anyone disagrees with something you say...it HAD to have come from O'Reilly?
Boy...he's threatening the left more than I realized.
If you want court case rusty, start reading the ACLJ website. They defend these cases against the ACLU in court.
But if you'd ever read anything EXCEPT left leaning newsprint...you'd see it in hundreds of papers all across our land. Case after case after case are in small town, big city newspapers. The athesists, ACLU and godless work hard all year round to remove ANY mention, icon, etc. of religion from the public eye. To NOT see it happening is to live in a cave.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
There is nothing more debase and vile than depicting a straight married man getting sodomized. I dont care who it is. For that, this artist and the left have their freedom of speech to thank so that is their dowry of hate to display. And there is nothing that changes that in this "Art" Nothing so ill-conceived and hated-filled.
.
spelling.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on May 28, 2005 02:27 PM ]
But it doesn't have to be publically funded by the taxpayers. I do hope the county funding is completely pulled.
You don't get the credit you deserve, imo, for being one of our 'brighter' bulbs posting here. They see the word BUSH...and it blinds them.