Boehner and Cantor call for closing of Smithsonian exhibit

[sandorski]

As sure as you can count on Democrats to overspend, you can count on Republicans wasting time on things like this.

But let's face it liberals would be upset too if this was desecrating Muslim religious symbols.

How can you maintain this Fallacy? Srsly.

 

[werepossum]

..another 'Meh' - They're not censoring it. They're just saying it doesn't belong in a Publicly funded facility.

I agree in principle, but I believe the Smithsonian also displays religious artwork. Hard to accept one and not the other, although whomever made the point that a crucifix in urine was "art" whereas a Quran in a toilet is a hate crime is spot on. I also agree that this is art only insofar as what your kid brings home from kindergarten is art. This is indeed puerile and silly, art not for its beauty or profound statement but merely as a slap at organized religion. I'd also bet money that whatever"artist" created this is on the public dole in some fashion.

 

[Scotteq]

So now you just want Art you prefer?

Now it seems youre just starting an argument for the sake of doing so. You mentioned Classical art, so I dropped the first example that came to mind. Pick a different example, if you like. My point was these pieces have artistic value and impact independent of their religiosity.

So ask yourself: If nobody said the man in the image was Christ would it still have impact based sole~ly on it's artistic qualities? Or is it merely a fly covered man?

 

[zsdersw]

I would object, and for the same reasons.

I wouldn't, because I think all of us need to be big boys and girls... and not get our undies in a bunch when we see religious symbols and imagery depicted, reverent or otherwise, in public-sponsored places or otherwise. Our sensitivities should not be so immature.

 

[sandorski]

Now it seems youre just starting an argument for the sake of doing so. You mentioned Classical art, so I dropped the first example that came to mind. Pick a different example, if you like. My point was these pieces have value independent of their religiosity.

So ask yourself: If nobody said the man in the image was Christ would it still have impact based sole~ly on it's artistic qualities? Or is it merely a fly covered man?

Sorry, but you doth protest too much. You're attempting to make distinctions that are not there. I can assure you that when DaVinci and his Peers made their Art, they certainly were viewed as more as Religious pieces than we do today.

Again, it seems you just want your Preference on Display and have no true interest in Art being on display.

 

[theeedude]

As sure as you can count on Republicans to overspend, you can count on Republicans wasting time on things like this.

But let's face it conservatives would not be upset if this was desecrating Muslim religious symbols.

Fixed.

 

[Scotteq]

Sorry, but you doth protest too much. You're attempting to make distinctions that are not there. I can assure you that when DaVinci and his Peers made their Art, they certainly were viewed as more as Religious pieces than we do today.

Again, it seems you just want your Preference on Display and have no true interest in Art being on display.

*laugh*


When DaVinci and his peers made art, it was at the request of (and paid for, incidentally) by the political, business, and (especially) religious leaders of the day. These individuals/organizations often/usually dictated the subject matter because they were paying the artist to create it. It was not done simply for the sake of creating Art. That's how these guys made their living. So clearly, at the time said religious painting was made, its purpose was religious.

And not to mention that most people then could not read: So ideas had to be communicated with pictures. So - How do you express to someone who can't read what it must have been like to be on the Cross? You hire an artist to paint or carve it for you. (Well... you could also crucify the guy. He'd know *exactly* what it was like then. But he'd also be pretty pissed off...)



These were the result of commercial activity. Yet we still revere many of those pieces today due to the level of skill and expression these artists achieved while doing so. Again - Independent of the subject matter.



(interesting choice of DaVinci, BTW - He made much of his money as an Armaments Engineer.)

 

[sandorski]

*laugh*


When DaVinci and his peers made art, it was at the request of (and paid for, incidentally) by the political, business, and (especially) religious leaders of the day. These individuals/organizations often/usually dictated the subject matter. It was not done simply for the sake of creating Art. That's how these guys made their living.

Yet we still revere many of those pieces today due to the level of skill and expression these artists achieved.

(interesting choice of DaVinci, BTW - He made much of his money as an Armaments Engineer.)

...and?

 

[Scotteq]

...and?

You're ignoring my point: Does the image of a fly covered man have artistic value independent of it's religiosity? (Great art) Or does it only have meaning in the context of it's puerile mocking of a religion?

 

[theeedude]

He's just upset he wasn't born in Europe and the Middle Ages, when government endorsement of religion was peachy.

 

[theeedude]

You're ignoring my point: Does the image of a fly covered man have artistic value independent of it's religiosity? (Great art) Or does it only have meaning in the context of it's puerile mocking of a religion?

Have you been to a modern art museum?

 

[Throckmorton]

What's up with shock art anyway?? We get it, you're making a statement by putting Jesus in urine or flushing a Koran down a toilet... but it doesn't take any talent or craftsmanship and only makes laypeople think art is "anything you say it is"

I spend 4-8 hours a week creating art, yet these assholes can spend 3 minutes dreaming up some new way to offend people, and they're the ones who are "true artists"?

 

[Scotteq]

Have you been to a modern art museum?

I have - I live within driving distance of New York City and have been to the Guggenheim, MOMA, the Met, Whitney, etc etc.... My mother is a (professional) artist, and I was raised on it.

And my question stands: Does the art have value independent of it's subject matter? Or is it a puerile attempt at getting attention?

What's up with shock art anyway?? We get it, you're making a statement by putting Jesus in urine or flushing a Koran down a toilet... but it doesn't take any talent or craftsmanship and only makes laypeople think art is "anything you say it is"

Thank you.

 

[theeedude]

What's up with shock art anyway?? We get it, you're making a statement by putting Jesus in urine or flushing a Koran down a toilet... but it doesn't take any talent or craftsmanship and only makes laypeople think art is "anything you say it is"

It's not my cup of tea either. I went to Tate modern in London, and basically a lot of it was just DIY stuff or worse. They had a plain mirror there, it was an exhibit. By that measure my bathroom is a modern art piece.

 

[theeedude]

I have - I live within driving distance of New York City and have been to the Guggenheim, MOMA, the Met, Whitney, etc etc....

And my question stands: Does the art have value independent of it's subject matter? Or is it a puerile attempt at getting attention?






Thank you.

Who cares? Subjective and irrelevant questions.

There are only two questions to ask:
1. Is it government endorsement of religion?
2. Is it government prohibition on free exercise thereof?

The answers are No and No.

 

[PokerGuy]

The exhibit is not funded with public money.

That exhibit is not, but the Smithsonian is. The exhibit would not be possible without all the money that the smithsonian gets from the federal government.

 

[PokerGuy]

Who cares? Subjective and irrelevant questions.

There are only two questions to ask:
1. Is it government endorsement of religion?
2. Is it government prohibition on free exercise thereof?

The answers are No and No.

So those are the only questions that are relevant to deciding if federal money should be spent on something? I think not. Funding for the Smithsonian should be reviewed carefully like funding for anything else. If they don't live up to expectations of what is appropriate they should not get funding.

 

[sandorski]

You're ignoring my point: Does the image of a fly covered man have artistic value independent of it's religiosity? (Great art) Or does it only have meaning in the context of it's puerile mocking of a religion?

Again, you don't like it is your motivation. You're just attempting to White Wash the issue by arguing "It's not Art".

 

[Scotteq]

Who cares? Subjective and irrelevant questions.

There are only two questions to ask:
1. Is it government endorsement of religion?
2. Is it government prohibition on free exercise thereof?

The answers are No and No.

Well - Firstly: If you didn't care, then why did you ask the question?

Secondly: If the 'Art' has no independent value, then how is it worthy of being viewed as Art?


Related question: Why is it OK to do this stuff to a Christian image. Yet a hate crime to do it to a Muslim one?

 

[theeedude]

So those are the only questions that are relevant to deciding if federal money should be spent on something? I think not. Funding for the Smithsonian should be reviewed carefully like funding for anything else. If they don't live up to expectations of what is appropriate they should not get funding.

Do you want Congressmen Boehner and Cantor deciding what art you get to look at?

 

[theeedude]

Well - Firstly: If you didn't care, then why did you ask the question?

Secondly: If the 'Art' has no independent value, then how is it worthy of being viewed as Art?


Related question: Why is it OK to do this stuff to a Christian image. Yet a hate crime to do it to a Muslim one?

Show me a US statute that says it's a hate crime to do it to a Muslim image? That's right, you can't cus you are full of it.

 

[zsdersw]

So those are the only questions that are relevant to deciding if federal money should be spent on something? I think not. Funding for the Smithsonian should be reviewed carefully like funding for anything else. If they don't live up to expectations of what is appropriate they should not get funding.

Who gets to decide what's "appropriate" and what isn't?

 

[zsdersw]

The exhibit would not be possible without all the money that the smithsonian gets from the federal government.

The exhibit wouldn't be possible without its sponsors, not money from the government.

 

[Scotteq]

Show me a US statute that says it's a hate crime to do it to a Muslim image? That's right, you can't cus you are full of it.

Really??

Then why don't you cover a Khoran in sh*t, publicize the act, and see what happens?

Bet the people around you don't congratulate you on your "art"!

 

[Amused]

Okay, but color me confused.

How is this exhibit any different than burning the koran?

Seriously?

It's religiously offensive. OF COURSE people in that religion are going to object.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but there was a MASSIVE outcry from the left over the koran burning.

Now, to state my position: I am against ANY censorship of any kind. The artist is free to make his religiously insulting stuff, and people are free to protest it.

I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy here.