Piss Christ Thread Here

[Dreadsox]

Well....here you go.

 

[financeguy]

Ok, my thoughts on it are:

(1) Taxpayers' money should not be used to finance controversial artworks.
(2) However, first amendment rights protect freedom of expression, and rightly so.

 

[melon]

Well, aren't we looking to be controversial?

Art should be funded using taxpayer funds, because a culture is judged by its art and like it or not, art is not economically feasible in the private sector.

Art, as I see it is a "loss leader." You probably will spend more money to provide art than you'll take in, but the economic health of a city is often determined by the depth and breadth of its art. Do you think people go to NYC for its commerce? No. They go for its art, and spend money on commercial interests along the way. It would be economically foolish to abandon taxpayer-funded art, because a city without art will hurt the economy of the private sector, as well.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

Well, aren't we looking to be controversial?

In fairness, it's a spin off from another thread where the issue was brought up in passing and then somehow the thread got derailed, as sometimes happens.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Ok, my thoughts on it are:

(1) Taxpayers' money should not be used to finance controversial artworks.
(2) However, first amendment rights protect freedom of expression, and rightly so.

Your first point is almost moot. How does anyone define what is tasteful or offensive? Controversy usually comes afterward too, not something which can always be predicted.

 

[Angela Harlem]

On Piss-Christ, could it be interpreted as Christianity frequently getting pissed on? A protest, if you like, against the ever increasing railing agasint the church?

I'm writing in response to having just read the other 2 threads in which this came up, but I also want to add, those who think art should not be tax funded should take their sport and fuck off back to 'street sport' with friends and neighbours. I'm sick of my tax dollars funding such fruitless efforts which see my entire country stop so Cathy bloody Freeman can run 100 metres in record time. Now there's a pointless assigning of public funds.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'm writing in response to having just read the other 2 threads in which this came up, but I also want to add, those who think art should not be tax funded should take their sport and fuck off back to 'street sport' with friends and neighbours. I'm sick of my tax dollars funding such fruitless efforts which see my entire country stop so Cathy bloody Freeman can run 100 metres in record time. Now there's a pointless assigning of public funds.

What in the world are you talking about, Angela?

 

[BVS]

The problem is not the art but the interpretation. The beauty of art is that it can be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways.

Piss Christ can be interpreted as a protest of the church.

As a rejection of Christ.

As an analogy that Christ took on the world's sin, with the urine representing sin.

Etc.

Art is expression, escape, extacy, entertainment, enlightenment, exalting and shouldn't be judged. If you don't like it move on.

There are a lot of things funded by this government that I don't like, so be it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Here's my stance. I don't expect to have to pay for art that I find offensive, and I really don't expect athiests to have to pay for Christian art.

While should I have to pay a grant so that someone can paint a masterpiece, or so that someone can write a play? I compose music, but I would never expect any of you to subsidize it.

 

[BonosSaint]

Here's my stance. I don't expect to have to pay for art that I find offensive, and I really don't expect athiests to have to pay for Christian art.

While should I have to pay a grant so that someone can paint a masterpiece, or so that someone can write a play? I compose music, but I would never expect any of you to subsidize it.

Put in for a grant.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Ha ha. No thinks, I wouldn't want you to have to pay for music that you might not like anyway.

That being said, voluntary donations are always accepted...

 

[Angela Harlem]

What in the world are you talking about, Angela?

Sorry dear, I was being facetious, but failed miserably lol.

When I was at school (I was always one of the "art students"), our school had a rather full on sports curriculum. Sport is very important, I think. It promotes healthy lifestyles, good competition and sportsmanship, and a liking of physical activity. Virtually everything to do with sport has a positive outcome and I have absolutely no problem with it at all. My school did focus on it quite significantly (sorry, I do have a point here if you can bear with me lol) and it was compulsory to do 3 hours of competitive sport in school time, 3 carnivals each term (4 terms per school year) and outside additional sports counted toward extra curricula credits and so on. Ballet didn't, unfortunately. I did ballet for quite a few years. Which is neither here nor there, but anyway. The school's art department had frequent funding cuts, sub standard materials and resources, second rate teachers, and was considered less important in virtually every way. Other departments like Drama was the same. Anything which was not 'academic' or sport, was of secondary importance. Perhaps this has more to do with me being Australian where Sport is our most practiced religion, who knows. But I have a massive problem with this. Leaving school, I noticed that the real world outside was much the same as my insular and Goanna Oil stinking school. Art is just not considered worthy. And why? Art can be very controversial. Like many things in life, it has it's downside. Sport too, has a few which I didn't mention before, like over competitiveness and pressure placed on shoulders too young to carry it. But these are all exceptions, not norms. Controversial art and self esteem destroying sport are not everyday. In their good, I see them as side by side and equally important to a well rounded and diverse society. I'm picking on sport because I see it as equally important or as equally insignificant as art. I know I am taking this way further than any comments in this thread suggested, as yours and others' replies were only talking about art which is controversial and the issue you have with funding it. And that is fine. I'm not even disagreeing really. I do have issues with society being unwilling to let art be learned about by society.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Angela, that same sort of thing has happened in the U.S., too-there've been schools where the sports programs get all the favoring imaginable, and the arts stuff? Tough. We have that whole "Save The Music" thing because so many schools are in danger of losing the music programs, and that makes me sad. I agree with you-art and sports should both be treated with the same amount of respect, as they both bring many good things to society.

Angela

 

[80sU2isBest]

I think that art education, as in schools, should be funded. But personal art endeavors? Nope.

 

[BonosSaint]

Angela, one of my biggest gripes in school. All the money went to sports. So little of it went to debate, art, music, creative writing.
Wrote a column about it in high school for a local paper. Got called down to the principal's office. (Surprisingly two of the biggest supporters for my column were the football coach--and football was bigtime in school and the woman's basketball coach)
So I get a little testy when art is attacked (even when offensive).

 

[Angela Harlem]

I think that art education, as in schools, should be funded. But personal art endeavors? Nope.

Is it just art? Or any personal endeavour? What about personal endeavours such as any sport (professional and amatuer), writing, music, languages...any of them?

 

[deep]

Well....here you go.

Pic removed. - neutral

 

[80sU2isBest]

I really can't think of any personal endeavor that should be funded by taxes.

 

[Angela Harlem]

So you object equally to tax payer funded sport? Just wanting to clarify.

I agree with you both too, BonosSaint and Angela. Pity you got hauled to the principal's office, BS! Did he/she get angry over that?

 

[deep]

I really can't think of any personal endeavor that should be funded by taxes.

celibacy?

 

[BVS]

Here's my stance. I don't expect to have to pay for art that I find offensive, and I really don't expect athiests to have to pay for Christian art.

What about laws you find offensive? What about education you find offensive? What about Presidents you find offensive?

Offensive is objective, just like politics and our government.

 

[melon]

The amount of tax money that gets spent on art is miniscule compared to the pork projects we spend on on a regular basis.

Like I said: I believe an investment in art in a community pays back seven-fold in the private sector, if done properly.

Melon

 

[BonosSaint]

School complained to the paper and my weekly column got "retired." I thnk the principal was sorry (genuinely) he dragged me in. Have to admit I enjoyed one of my first controversial acts so it wasn't painful. I always was mouthy.

 

[80sU2isBest]

So you object equally to tax payer funded sport? Just wanting to clarify.

Yes, I do.

 

[XHendrix24]

The problem is not the art but the interpretation. The beauty of art is that it can be interpreted in an infinite amount of ways.

Piss Christ can be interpreted as a protest of the church.

As a rejection of Christ.

As an analogy that Christ took on the world's sin, with the urine representing sin.

Etc.

Originally posted by Angela Harlem
On Piss-Christ, could it be interpreted as Christianity frequently getting pissed on? A protest, if you like, against the ever increasing railing agasint the church?

Interesting interpretations. Does anyone know if the artist ever expressed his/her point of view on what it stands for?

 

[80sU2isBest]

celibacy?

Now you're just being silly.

 

[BVS]

When art is destroyed, society is destroyed. You may not believe it now, but when it happens you'll understand.

 

[BonosSaint]

When art is destroyed, society is destroyed. You may not believe it now, but when it happens you'll understand.

Good art asks the questions society is afraid to ask of iteself.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What about laws you find offensive? What about education you find offensive? What about Presidents you find offensive?

There are indeed things permitted by law that I find offensive, and education that I find offensive, and there have definitely been presidents I find offensive. The difference is that laws and public education and governemnt MUST be funded by taxes; there is no other way. There is no necessity that I should be forced to pay for someone's personal endeavors in art.

 

[80sU2isBest]

When art is destroyed, society is destroyed. You may not believe it now, but when it happens you'll understand.

I don't know what makes you think that stopping mandatory tax-funding of personal art projects would "destroy art". People create art every moment of every day without help from the government. I write music with no help from the government.