John Kennedy on Art

[Zorkorist]

What you forget, Cubby, is that as soon as Government is in control, art will sease to exist.

There is no place for Art in Government. There is no place for Government in Art.

-John

 

[Zebo]

I agree that art is an important part of society.

But art is reserved for a country that has built it's financial base to support non essential activities like this in society. The United States is a declining power and our middle classes have no wealth, little personal time, and grew up in a society that did not teach them the importance of the arts, philosophy, literature, or much of any other related subject. Just turn on the televusion, we're a nation of mongrels. Jersey Shore, BET, daytime soap shows. People care nothing for the arts.

The United States needs to take a step back and it needs a generation of people to take a lesson from third world countries and work hard, strive, live below our means, and save, and most importantly produce.

We need a generation of capitalists and business owners BEFORE we can have a nation of artists and musicians.

John Adams once said, “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.”

The United States is a declining empire. We need an industrial rerevolution to revitalize and create massive amounts of wealth in the middle and upper middle classes (most upper middle class people don't even have much wealth).

This will cause more people's children to attend college not just for job purposes, but private colleges for the arts. Wealthy families are the number one source of the artistic and creative. Exceptions happen, but you don't usually learn to be artistic growing up in a life of struggle. Artists come from backgrounds where they were taught to be creative and sophisticated and we given the education to put this on paper.

I am in a way an example of this. I'm writing this after finishing a 16 hour shift at work. I also own a business which I feel confident that it will be a source of financial freedom for my descendants so they can study they things they enjoy, not the things they must to survive.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. I wish I could be an artist, writer, musician, etc, but that's not my place. My place is to secure this dream for my descendents.

This is a good post but I'm not sure you point about need capitalists. We have them in Spades. They control govt (too big to fail)) Wealth has never been more concentrated. Both corporately and individually in USA history. Driven down main streets and seen boarded up shops replaced by corporate box stores? I understand it's more efficient at first glance but so is offshoring to 70 hour a week slave nations. But you have to add up all costs. Such as disappearing middle class, race to bottom, paying people to sit at home and putting food on their tables in addition to Chinese tables. Huge debt. Civil strife. etc. Cheap is more expensive.

 

[bamacre]

Like the righties who advocate a 'Miss White America' pageant claiming they have no bigotry in their motive.

LOL, where do you get this shit?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

IMO, that's not real 'art' usually anyway, it's some right wing bigot who thinks he's clever trying to get away with hate speech by pretending it's 'art'.

Did you say the same thing about the "artist" who put the crucifix in a vase full of urine?

And no, that was not art in any way, shape, or form.

 

[rudder]

As soon as art is bought and paid for by the Government, then it no longer posseses the impact of art.

I realize that artists would like to be paid, and I don't deny them Government contracts, but I will or would like to deny the Government paying them, because then you get all this other bull-shit.

So, anyway, I think you are right.

Let Art live.

But Art lives, independent of Government.

-John

Well said. I do not understand the point of this thread. Conservatives are not anti-art. So the jesus/ants exhibit offends some people and they want it shut down because it is housed in a place that is funded by taxpayers. This is the exact reason why the government does not need to be in the art business.

So you want to go admire the statue of jesus getting humped by an aardvark... fine enjoy it. But don't expect religious conservatives to be fine with that when they are under fire for putting up a nativity scene on government property. That is their art.

Art will survive without government funds.

 

[JockoJohnson]

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies. I can't remember the other 5%.

I'd 'tolerate' art that attacks Muslims - and have. I can criticize it.

IMO, that's not real 'art' usually anyway, it's some right wing bigot who thinks he's clever trying to get away with hate speech by pretending it's 'art'.

Like the righties who advocate a 'Miss White America' pageant claiming they have no bigotry in their motive.

And oh by the way, I've 'attacked Islam' for a number of things at some length here - things that could fit art just fine. How about art about gays in some Islam societies?

So is it 'real art' when people do the same of Christianity or is it some left wing bigot who thinks he's clever to get away with hate speech by pretending it's 'art'?

Also, not that I condone a 'Miss White America', but why is it ok to have a 'Miss Black America"? I don't think either should be allowed. Are the people who support 'Miss Black America' bigots also?

 

[Carmen813]

Conservatives appreciate art as much as liberals, we just have differing ideas about its rightful role in society. Conservatives believe that if art is good, people will pay to see it or own it. Liberals believe in finding art and artists that support their agenda, then forcing people to pay for it whether they consider it to be art or not. Thus we have crucifixes in urine, videos of ants crawling on a Jesus statue, performance art. Because even liberals know these things suck as art, the only way they can exist is if liberals extort money - to support the "artists", to furnish staffed buildings where they may be displayed.


A valid point. Imagine movies if government paid for the theaters and movies didn't have to be even minimally commercially feasible. We'd be seeing two hours of different crucifixes in different containers of urine - maybe not all that offensive, but certainly not The Matrix.

Because looking back through history, it was always the well funded artists or least controversial who had the biggest cultural impact.

I'm looking at you van Gogh

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So is it 'real art' when people do the same of Christianity or is it some left wing bigot who thinks he's clever to get away with hate speech by pretending it's 'art'?

I wouldn't count on getting a response to this question, which I also asked him above.

 

[fskimospy]

So is it 'real art' when people do the same of Christianity or is it some left wing bigot who thinks he's clever to get away with hate speech by pretending it's 'art'?

Also, not that I condone a 'Miss White America', but why is it ok to have a 'Miss Black America"? I don't think either should be allowed. Are the people who support 'Miss Black America' bigots also?

 

[CycloWizard]

LOL, where do you get this shit?

Oh that? Just another obvious double standard by the resident hack. Either that, or he's not aware of the Miss Black America pageant, which has been running for 42 years now. Repeat after me: Christians bad, Muslims good. Whites bad, blacks good. "Bigot" is a title reserved for those who disagree with those mantras, simply because there is no rational way to defend them.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh that? Just another obvious double standard by the resident hack. Either that, or he's not aware of the Miss Black America pageant, which has been running for 42 years now. Repeat after me: Christians bad, Muslims good. Whites bad, blacks good. "Bigot" is a title reserved for those who disagree with those mantras, simply because there is no rational way to defend them.

Yes. Clearly there is no rational way to defend Miss Black America and Black History month.

I wish I had saved Privilege Denying Dude for you.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yes. Clearly there is no rational way to defend Miss Black America and Black History month.

I wish I had saved Privilege Denying Dude for you.

I don't see the case for calling a crucifix in a urine-filled vase "art" and defending the "artist" while at the same time, calling someone who pulled a similar stunt with sacred Islamic items a "bigot." That, my friend, is a double standard.

As far as black history month -- yeah, I can understand it and I have no problem with it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Yes. Clearly there is no rational way to defend Miss Black America and Black History month.

I wish I had saved Privilege Denying Dude for you.

Either basing something completely on race is bigoted or it isn't. You can try to rationalize it however you want to make yourself feel better.

 

[fskimospy]

Either basing something completely on race is bigoted or it isn't. You can try to rationalize it however you want to make yourself feel better.

You need to go learn the definition of bigotry.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see the case for calling a crucifix in a urine-filled vase "art" and defending the "artist" while at the same time, calling someone who pulled a similar stunt with sacred Islamic items a "bigot." That, my friend, is a double standard.

As far as black history month -- yeah, I can understand it and I have no problem with it.

Whatever group is on top is always going to have to endure things like that it comes with the territory of being the privileged group. (and despite that particular problem, it's certainly far easier to be a Christian in America than a Muslim.) It's not fair though, you're right, as we should be able to criticize whatever we want.

 

[CycloWizard]

You need to go learn the definition of bigotry.

Oh I'm well aware of the definition, which is why I could make my previous post with absolute certainty. But, since you are apparently not aware, a bigot is:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So, can you explain why it's bigoted to have a Miss White America pageant, but not bigoted to have a Miss Black America pageant? My position is that either both are bigoted or neither is bigoted.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh I'm well aware of the definition, which is why I could make my previous post with absolute certainty. But, since you are apparently not aware, a bigot is:

So, can you explain why it's bigoted to have a Miss White America pageant, but not bigoted to have a Miss Black America pageant? My position is that either both are bigoted or neither is bigoted.

When 'Miss Black America' was created in 1968, there had never been a single black contestant in the national Miss America pageant. Gee, I have no idea why you make your own event up when you aren't invited to the first one. Must be bigotry.

I also cannot possibly fathom why a group that is already massively represented in an event deciding to create another event for that group only could be viewed as an attempt to exclude.

One was created as an outlet after lack of inclusion, one would be created purposefully to exclude. Similarly, this is why we have black history month and not white history month.

Jesus christ.

 

[1prophet]

95% of what's said here about liberals is wrong or lies. I can't remember the other 5%.

I'd 'tolerate' art that attacks Muslims - and have. I can criticize it.

IMO, that's not real 'art' usually anyway, it's some right wing bigot who thinks he's clever trying to get away with hate speech by pretending it's 'art'.

Like the righties who advocate a 'Miss White America' pageant claiming they have no bigotry in their motive.

And oh by the way, I've 'attacked Islam' for a number of things at some length here - things that could fit art just fine. How about art about gays in some Islam societies?

Here you go, to bad not allowed.

Sweden: Artist accuses museum of censoring gay exhibit




Sweden: Artist accuses museum of censoring gay exhibit

Swedish artist Elisabeth Ohlson-Wallin is accusing the Muslim of World Culture in Gothenburg of backing out of their arrangement to show her pro-LGBT project "Jerusalem". The project deals with the religious oppression of LGBT people.

The museum responds: that being nunaced is not cowardly, and that they wanted to give religion a voice in the discussion as well.




In a recent article in Expressen, Elisabeth Ohlson-Wallin wrote about her experiences in Jerusalem, photographing her naked models in sexual poses on the same streets where "Jesus and Mohammed" may have walked. For two weeks, she says, she photographed Muslim gays, Christian Lesbians and Jewish transsexuals. Her new friends in Jerusalem wondered how she had managed not to get shot. They thanks her and hoped she could display the pictures there. That hadn't worked out.

In Sweden freedom of speech is much more advanced, and yet the Muslim of World Culture refused to display her exhibit "Jerusalem" as it was intended. They told her they were going by what religious leaders who had seen the pictures said. Elisabeth Ohlson-Wallin got upset: had they asked those who oppress LGBT about her photos, which highlight the oppression.

The museum suggested that the photos be shown in a 'safe space', where not everybody can enter, or as a power-point demonstration. Otherwise, it would be offensive to Muslims, Christians and Jews, she was told.

Elisabeth Ohlson-Wallin says that when she offered the museum three years ago to premier her exhibit, they were happy. Maybe they saw it as a way to redress the 2005 scandal, when they pulled down the work of Muslim artist Louzla Darabi after getting threats from angry religious Muslims. Now, Elisabeth Ohlson-Wallin says, they once against decide not to irritate the religious, and that can only lead to prejudices about how religious people are expected to respond.

Allah o Gay-Bar: Sooreh Hera Depicts Muhammed As Homosexual

December 5, 2007



Sooreh Hera Depicts Muhammed As Homosexual, Sugiero, December 3
Iranian born artist Sooreh Hera, is decided to expose the hypocrisy regarding homosexuality and Islam. She says it is frequent that married muslim men have sexual relations with other men (she mentions specifically Iran and Saudi Arabia).
If you check out her pictures you’ll see that homosexuality is a major part of her work.
When she invited two Iranian men to pose they asked to wear a mask in order not to be recognized. The masks she chose were the ones you see in the pictures below: Muhammed and his son-in-law Ali.
She was going to be at The Hague Municipal Museum but she was denied because her exposition “could offend certain groups”.

Hague museum pulls offensive Muslim art, December 3, 2007
The city museum of The Hague has decided not to include in an exhibition a work of art that may offend Muslims, it was reported on Monday.
The picture, made by Iranian artist Sooreh Hera, is entitled Adam and Ewald and shows two gay men wearing masks of the Muslim prophet Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali.
It is part of a photoseries the Gemeentemuseum has included in the 7up exhibition due to open on December 15.
The Gemeentemuseum’s director Wim van Krimpen told reporters the museum is interested in purchasing Hera’s complete series, which he called “high quality works of art”.
However, he added he will not exhibit Adam and Ewald in the next few years because “certain people in our society might perceive it as offensive”.
Hera responded she was “disappointed” and added “apparently a Muslim minority decides what will be on display in the museum”.
Liberal-rightist Freedom Party (PVV) leader Geert Wilders, condemned the museum’s decision, adding it was “based on fear”.
Wilders has requested a reaction on the matter from Education and Culture minister Ronald Plasterk.
Meanwhile Siebe Weide, director of the Museum Association, told reporters “all Dutch museums are free to choose what they exhibit and what not”.
© 2007 AAP

 

[CycloWizard]

When 'Miss Black America' was created in 1968, there had never been a single black contestant in the national Miss America pageant. Gee, I have no idea why you make your own event up when you aren't invited to the first one. Must be bigotry.

I also cannot possibly fathom why a group that is already massively represented in an event deciding to create another event for that group only could be viewed as an attempt to exclude.

One was created as an outlet after lack of inclusion, one would be created purposefully to exclude. Similarly, this is why we have black history month and not white history month.

Jesus christ.

Are we still in the 70's, or did the Miss Black America pageant stopped when blacks were included in the general Miss America pageant? No? You must be outraged! Or you're ok with bigotry, as long as it's only in the direction of the minority against the majority.

 

[fskimospy]

Are we still in the 70's, or did the Miss Black America pageant stopped when blacks were included in the general Miss America pageant? No? You must be outraged! Or you're ok with bigotry, as long as it's only in the direction of the minority against the majority.

Gotcha, so minorities can make alternative arrangements if they are being actively discriminated against, but the moment the majority stops discriminating (or starts discriminating less), minorities are obligated to immediately cease and dismantle everything they set up, lest they be then bigoted themselves against the poor oppressed majority. Well that seems to be a totally fair standard to me!

What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[CycloWizard]

Gotcha, so minorities can make alternative arrangements if they are being actively discriminated against, but the moment the majority stops discriminating (or starts discriminating less), minorities are obligated to immediately cease and dismantle everything they set up, lest they be then bigoted themselves against the poor oppressed majority. Well that seems to be a totally fair standard to me!

What the hell is wrong with you?

What's "wrong" with me is that I apply logic to the situation. You think it's fine to be bigoted, as long as it's against the "privileged classes," but you keep dancing around this because you can't admit it to yourself. So, what is the timeline for your model of bigotry? Will it still be ok for Miss Black America to proceed 100 years from now? 500 years from now? Or is the line in the sand drawn if/when blacks become the majority in the US?

 

[fskimospy]

What's "wrong" with me is that I apply logic to the situation. You think it's fine to be bigoted, as long as it's against the "privileged classes," but you keep dancing around this because you can't admit it to yourself. So, what is the timeline for your model of bigotry? Will it still be ok for Miss Black America to proceed 100 years from now? 500 years from now? Or is the line in the sand drawn if/when blacks become the majority in the US?

Actually you apply ignorance. I am certain you had no idea what the history of Miss Black America was or else you wouldn't have been dumb enough to use it as an example.

Bigotry is entirely about intent, and the intent behind Miss Black America was a reaction to bigotry, not the practice of it. If you discriminate against people and they create new events to celebrate themselves despite your bigotry, you have zero right to tell them to cancel it once you think we've stopped discriminating. They never have to cancel it in order for it not to be bigoted, because it wasn't made to be bigoted.

What you should really do is be grateful that people responded to shittiness by making something positive instead of trying to use it as a way to cry about how mean minorities are to decent white folk.

 

[CycloWizard]

Actually you apply ignorance. I am certain you had no idea what the history of Miss Black America was or else you wouldn't have been dumb enough to use it as an example.

Bigotry is entirely about intent, and the intent behind Miss Black America was a reaction to bigotry, not the practice of it. If you discriminate against people and they create new events to celebrate themselves despite your bigotry, you have zero right to tell them to cancel it once you think we've stopped discriminating. They never have to cancel it in order for it not to be bigoted, because it wasn't made to be bigoted.

What you should really do is be grateful that people responded to shittiness by making something positive instead of trying to use it as a way to cry about how mean minorities are to decent white folk.

I did know the history of it - I'm the one that linked to it in the first place, if you can think back that far. I never told them to stop the pageant, nor did I claim that its continuation was bigoted. I only pointed out that it is incorrect to claim that continuing to host a black-only pageant while railing against a white-only pageant is contradictory since the conditions under which the black-only pageant might be assumed as a legitimate response to discrimination is long past. None of the contestants in the MBA pageant were even born before the first black contestant competed in the Miss America pageant. Your claims here are as hollow as people in South Carolina, who claim that flying the rebel flag is "Heritage, not hate!" It's a legacy of something which ended a while back and should probably be let go at this point.

 

[Throckmorton]

What's "wrong" with me is that I apply logic to the situation. You think it's fine to be bigoted, as long as it's against the "privileged classes," but you keep dancing around this because you can't admit it to yourself. So, what is the timeline for your model of bigotry? Will it still be ok for Miss Black America to proceed 100 years from now? 500 years from now? Or is the line in the sand drawn if/when blacks become the majority in the US?

Christians first started celebrating Christmas as a response to persecution by the Romans. They had to participate in celebrations otherwise they'd be outed.

So, because Christians are no longer persecuted does that mean Christmas should end?

 

[Throckmorton]

Obama declared March to be Irish History Month.