ChristiansUnite Forums

Fellowship => You name it!! => Topic started by: Tibby on January 31, 2004, 06:43:12 PM



Title: Ideas
Post by: Tibby on January 31, 2004, 06:43:12 PM
Ok, guys. Last time I was stuck on an English comp paper, you helps. I call upon your services as brothers and sisters once more.

In this paper, I’m arguing against the Nation Endowment for the Arts giving grants to artist who express political, religious, and social views, especially those that go against their communities. Any ideas? I’m not really stuck, I just would like to talk about more then just Aesthetic theory throughout the whole paper!!!!


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on January 31, 2004, 08:35:28 PM
What's the point of art, if it can't ask controversial questions?  Isn't what's left just decoration?


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: JudgeNot on January 31, 2004, 09:07:24 PM
Tibby –Duuuuuude!
You’re going to make me get all political here.  I abhor the National Endowment of the Arts.

Quote
political, religious, and social views

Wait a minute – what other ‘views’ are there?  Panoramic and limited?  (Just kidding, brother.)

Since the NEA is funded, in part, by me (and you when you begin paying taxes) the funding of ‘political’ should be left out totally.  Also, since the artwork in the court house in Alabama has been deemed “illegal” because of the ‘religious’ overtones it had (10 commandments) then we also have to leave out religious art (at least overtly – but I’ll get to that).  Which could be a good thing, in retrospect, considering the NEA funded the “art” not too long ago that depicted the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung.  

In my opinion, that leaves the social value of art as your best option.  Man – you can really weave, (covertly, of course) the Judeo/Christian backbone of our country into that and no one would be any wiser – after reading your paper the agnostics could have this “warm and fuzzy” feeling and wouldn’t know where it came from.  (He-he-he – who said Christians can’t be wily, hmmm?)  

OK – so what’s my point?  Rather than:

Quote
arguing against the Nation Endowment for the Arts giving grants to artist who express political, religious, and social views,

Argue in favor of ‘social views only’ – and base the preferred social views as those “in harmony with the majority of the community”.  Brother – believe it or not – the “majority of the community” believes in God.  You are now set to show how they project their beliefs through art, and whether the agnostic recognizes it or not, almost all real art is spiritually based.  

Of course, again, this is only my opinion – and if you should follow up on this opinion and get an ‘A’, then the credit belongs to c-unite.  While, if you get an ‘F’, it is only a stupid opinion you should have seen through from the beginning and ignored…


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Symphony on January 31, 2004, 10:14:36 PM
I agree with ebia to the point that art should make a statement--something the artist believes about whatever it is s/he is depicting.  Being controversial just for the sake of contraversy I'm not too sure about.  But true art I think should be a statement; otherwise, as ebia says, it's just decoration.

Does art have a place in society?  Someone once said, "Art is the reason we do everything else(mine it, grow it, harvest it, fish it, build it...).  If you take away art, you take away the reason why we do anything at all.  B/c I'm personally a Christian, though, I don't totally agree with that.  But it's a very good point--close to Jesus' proclamation, "Man does not live by bread alone..."

I need to distill JN's point a little further.  Thank you, JudgeNot.

But first, why are you arguing against the NEA?  By choice, or required by your prof?

If it were my choice, I would definitely argue against it, and not just predictably b/c I'm a Christian, or a conservative, etc.

I think the NEA is basically an insult to any self-respecting artist who hopes to establish himself/herself legitimately.  Furthermore, allowing oneself to be beholden to the likes of NEA, etc., compromises the individuality, or independence the artist chose his field for in the first place.  

If an artist can't produce a product that can ultimately support him, then it might be time to rethink careers.  I say might b/c sometimes it can take years b4 a wouldbe artist can realize any recognition.  Dance troupes operate many times at a continuing deficit.  But it's basically the same business proposition any would-be entrepreneur must face:  A business plan that will return enough to live on, without handouts.  Any business man knows that if his product doesn't sell, it isn't the government's fault.

In a capitalist economy such as ours, that is essentially what an artist has to think about first.  He has to be a business man.  In other ways, he has to construct his work in such a way that it at least pays the bills.

I think the NEA, and other efforts similarly, is a well-intentioned, but ill-conceived, attempt at social control; any self-repecting artist who hopes to experience the fulfillment of having someone just buy his art just b/c they like it, should avoid the NEA.  This is perhaps a little harsh, as many community theatres, etc. get a helping hand such as the NEA.

ONe last thing, I have difficulty that in some ways, also, the NEA isn't actually enabling promotion of the less-than-savory "art" appearing in recent years--such as Karen Finley's nude dancing in chocolate, or the crucifix in a beaker of urine, and other "art" apparently sponsored by the NEA, I think.

 Thanks, Tibby.  Good question.   et. al....


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: JudgeNot on January 31, 2004, 10:26:24 PM
Quote
I think the NEA is basically an insult to any self-respecting artist who hopes to establish himself/herself legitimately.  Furthermore, allowing oneself to be beholden to the likes of NEA, etc., compromises the individuality, or independence the artist chose his field for in the first place.  

Copious applause!  
Others always seem to be able to make my point much better than I can!
 :D


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ollie on February 01, 2004, 02:40:16 PM
An artist's statement should not be supported by public funds.
Some may disagree with the artist's statement so why should they be forced to support it.

The NEA supports homosexual, atheistic and even anti-American statements of art at times. Should a person of God have to support such with His money that goes into public funds, (taxes)?


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 01, 2004, 03:02:38 PM
Good points. But, this is a topic in favor of Aesthetic Philosophy. Both the Professor and my self are big fans of the Bohemian, fin-de-siecle, art-for-art-sake, Truth-beautiful-freedom-love kind of thing. Besides, this was on the topic of a lost of things I had to pick from, so I must argue from this stance anyways.

Besides, the problem isn’t art supporting the artist views, it is the NEA supporting the artist views. If the NEA does support artist with views that are blatantly expressed in their art, be it painting, writing, or music, it might just turn the NEA into a glorified political rewards program. For example, lets hypothetically say there is an artist. For the sake of argument, lets make up a name… Michael Moore. Now, lets say Mr. Moore hypothetically supports a Political candidate, while downing his opponent. And lets hypothetically say this candidate wins the election. Well, he puts a few calls into the NEA, and hypothetically, Mr. Moore gets a 3 mill grant for his next hypothetical work of art.

JudgeNot- Thanks for the support from all us artist out there! The NEA is the last place left where TALENT is stronger then cup size! I swear, if we just get these MTV heads to listen to Carmen (The opera, not the Christian), or Celtic folk for an hour, they would never watch MTV again. It is trash. The lyrics are trash, they have NO talent, and they have the gall to call them selves artists! I didn’t know power chording was a skill ::) And Rhyming. Wow, good thing you took K-1! And the rest of us, the ones with skill, who choose not to sleep with record executives, the ones who are to busy working on the art to worry about making sure there message is “controversial” enough to get noticed, without being “controversial” enough to get sued over, we are forced to go to college, get jobs, and do our music “on the side.” You want proof Darwin is wrong? I’ve got it right here. >:( >:( >:( Anyways, thanks for the support. It gives the rest of us a fighting chance!


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 01, 2004, 04:00:20 PM
Quote
Besides, the problem isn’t art supporting the artist views, it is the NEA supporting the artist views. If the NEA does support artist with views that are blatantly expressed in their art, be it painting, writing, or music, it might just turn the NEA into a glorified political rewards program. For example, lets hypothetically say there is an artist. For the sake of argument, lets make up a name… Michael Moore. Now, lets say Mr. Moore hypothetically supports a Political candidate, while downing his opponent. And lets hypothetically say this candidate wins the election. Well, he puts a few calls into the NEA, and hypothetically, Mr. Moore gets a 3 mill grant for his next hypothetical work of art.
Doesn't everyone have some sort of political agenda?  Where do you draw the line once you stop (trying to) judge the art purely on its merits as art?


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 01, 2004, 04:02:07 PM
An artist's statement should not be supported by public funds.
Some may disagree with the artist's statement so why should they be forced to support it.

The NEA supports homosexual, atheistic and even anti-American statements of art at times. Should a person of God have to support such with His money that goes into public funds, (taxes)?
If you go down this route, the government can't spend money on anything because somebody doesn't agree with it.  We all accept that some of our taxes are spent in ways we don't personally agree with, but other  people's money is spent on things we do (which they may not agree with).  Thats all part of doing anything collectively.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 01, 2004, 04:55:58 PM
Quote
Besides, the problem isn’t art supporting the artist views, it is the NEA supporting the artist views. If the NEA does support artist with views that are blatantly expressed in their art, be it painting, writing, or music, it might just turn the NEA into a glorified political rewards program. For example, lets hypothetically say there is an artist. For the sake of argument, lets make up a name… Michael Moore. Now, lets say Mr. Moore hypothetically supports a Political candidate, while downing his opponent. And lets hypothetically say this candidate wins the election. Well, he puts a few calls into the NEA, and hypothetically, Mr. Moore gets a 3 mill grant for his next hypothetical work of art.
Doesn't everyone have some sort of political agenda?  Where do you draw the line once you stop (trying to) judge the art purely on its merits as art?

We draw the line AT judging art by merit. Yes, everyone has a political veiws. They don't have to have some agenda to get across in the art. Art for art sake. The expression of your Artistic self is something we should support, but the expression of your political veiws are a whole other story, something that should be done on your own time and dollor.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 01, 2004, 05:10:15 PM
The NEA supports homosexual, atheistic and even anti-American statements of art at times.

that is just the problem I'm trying to address. Support good art, not politics.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 02, 2004, 04:07:30 AM
that is just the problem I'm trying to address. Support good art, not politics.
But if art can't ask questions with political ramifications, what can it do?

"Art for arts" sake is either an oxymoron, a waste of money, or snobbish euphamism for entertainment.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: sincereheart on February 02, 2004, 04:45:15 AM
I tell you, the more I think, the more I feel that there is nothing more truly artistic than to love people.
--Vincent van Gogh

Art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere.
--G.K. Chesterton

Good art maketh glad the heart of man.
--Jeff Krewson

Every good painter paints what he is.
--Jackson Pollock

The object of art is not to reproduce reality, but to create a reality of the same intensity.
--Alberto Giacometti

For me, painting is a way to forget life. It is a cry in the night, a strangled laugh.
--Georges Rouault

I want to touch people with my art. I want them to say 'he feels deeply, he feels tenderly.
--Vincent van Gogh

Nature is not only all that is visible to the eye -- it also includes the inner pictures of the soul.
--Edvard Munch

If the artist sees nothing within him, then he should also refrain from painting what he sees before him.
--Caspar David Friedrich


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 02, 2004, 08:49:45 AM
Ebia, ebia, that is Aesthetic Philosophy is all about. I guess you're not an artist, eh? Well, it is a shame. Men like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Edgar Allan Poe, and Oscar Wilde seemed to think this phrase was a little more then an "oxymoron, a waste of money, or snobbish euphamism." They teach that the beauty of the art is reason enough for one to make and perform it. Art does not in any way have to serve purposes taken from politics and religion to be of value. Maybe you’re a fan of “Eminem” Art, where the only reason it is worth pulling out of the crowd is because it is Controversial, but I’ve never been a big fan of sensationalism.

Good qoutes, sincereheart.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ollie on February 02, 2004, 02:23:10 PM
Good points. But, this is a topic in favor of Aesthetic Philosophy. Both the Professor and my self are big fans of the Bohemian, fin-de-siecle, art-for-art-sake, Truth-beautiful-freedom-love kind of thing. Besides, this was on the topic of a lost of things I had to pick from, so I must argue from this stance anyways.

Besides, the problem isn’t art supporting the artist views, it is the NEA supporting the artist views. If the NEA does support artist with views that are blatantly expressed in their art, be it painting, writing, or music, it might just turn the NEA into a glorified political rewards program. For example, lets hypothetically say there is an artist. For the sake of argument, lets make up a name… Michael Moore. Now, lets say Mr. Moore hypothetically supports a Political candidate, while downing his opponent. And lets hypothetically say this candidate wins the election. Well, he puts a few calls into the NEA, and hypothetically, Mr. Moore gets a 3 mill grant for his next hypothetical work of art.

JudgeNot- Thanks for the support from all us artist out there! The NEA is the last place left where TALENT is stronger then cup size! I swear, if we just get these MTV heads to listen to Carmen (The opera, not the Christian), or Celtic folk for an hour, they would never watch MTV again. It is trash. The lyrics are trash, they have NO talent, and they have the gall to call them selves artists! I didn’t know power chording was a skill ::) And Rhyming. Wow, good thing you took K-1! And the rest of us, the ones with skill, who choose not to sleep with record executives, the ones who are to busy working on the art to worry about making sure there message is “controversial” enough to get noticed, without being “controversial” enough to get sued over, we are forced to go to college, get jobs, and do our music “on the side.” You want proof Darwin is wrong? I’ve got it right here. >:( >:( >:( Anyways, thanks for the support. It gives the rest of us a fighting chance!

Tibby, do you contradict your first post with this post?

Quote 1st post of Tibby: "Ok, guys. Last time I was stuck on an English comp paper, you helps. I call upon your services as brothers and sisters once more.

In this paper, I'm arguing against the Nation Endowment for the Arts giving grants to artist who express political, religious, and social views, especially those that go against their communities. Any ideas? i'm not really stuck, I just would like to talk about more then just Aesthetic theory throughout the whole paper!!!!"


 ???

Maybe it is just me and my inability to comprehend peoples thoughts and the way they put them in writing at times?


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 02, 2004, 03:48:27 PM
Maybe you’re a fan of “Eminem” Art, where the only reason it is worth pulling out of the crowd is because it is Controversial, but I’ve never been a big fan of sensationalism.

Good qoutes, sincereheart.
There's a big difference between asking worthwhile questions, and controversery for its own sake.

If art is "just" about beauty, what distinguishes it from any other form of entertainment?


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Symphony on February 02, 2004, 04:21:56 PM
In this paper, I’m arguing against the Nation Endowment for the Arts giving grants to artist who express political, religious, and social views, especially those that go against their communities.

Should an artist accept handouts?  Sort of, that is what the NEA is offering?

I understand recently that P. Bush did just approve add'l funding for the NEA.

Tibby, if the NEA can't give grants to those expressing views in those three areas, that is, political, religious, or social, what other views would there be, and how would you distinguish those.  I'm not sayig there are not other views, I'm justg wondering what they'd be.

I'm thinking, like for yours earlier, ebia, that maybe the love of Jesus as expressed there in I Corinth. 13 transcends any political agenda?  I'm thinking that love transcends any plitical agenda; and maybe this is what Jesus was talking about all along?

That's why I'm thinking that if true art is a labor of love, that accepting handouts, might be a perversion of that "labor of love"?

BTW, my understanding of Van Gogh, and Gaugin, and others of the fin de sicle movenment, were Bohemian, rather care-free with lives of fairly a dark, loose-living, dismal sort?  Their art was intense and expressive, but their circles were, um...

    ???


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 02, 2004, 05:59:55 PM
Tibby, do you contradict your first post with this post?

Yes, corrections often do. :) If the correction was the same thing as the first statement, it wouldn’t be much of a correction, now would it? I am stuck on the paper, because I have 2 great pages of Aesthetic theory. I would not like to thin it out by adding oversized words and writing in circles. And I’ve maxed out the Aesthetic Theory angle. I’d like more ideas.


Quote
Maybe it is just me and my inability to comprehend peoples thoughts and the way they put them in writing at times?

Or maybe I just can't put my thoughts in writings well at times (like 3 in the morning, for example)


Quote
If art is "just" about beauty, what distinguishes it from any other form of entertainment?

Talent, my good man (or woman).  True Beauty in art isn’t a run of the mill kind of thing. There is a reason why 10 years from now people will remember who Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead where, but they will have never heard of Johnny Rimshot and the Screaming monkey’s of Joy. :)


Tibby, if the NEA can't give grants to those expressing views in those three areas, that is, political, religious, or social, what other views would there be, and how would you distinguish those.  I'm not sayig there are not other views, I'm justg wondering what they'd be.

That is the point. No views. Viewless art. Art for Art’s Sake.

Quote
That's why I'm thinking that if true art is a labor of love, that accepting handouts, might be a perversion of that "labor of love"?

I like you thinking. But we just need money for paints and canvas and dance shoes and violin strings and bows and stage time and studio time, etc, etc. Labors of love cost money.


Quote
BTW, my understanding of Van Gogh, and Gaugin, and others of the fin de sicle movenment, were Bohemian, rather care-free with lives of fairly a dark, loose-living, dismal sort?  Their art was intense and expressive, but their circles were, um...

um... yeah...  :-\ Just think of how their art woudl be if they wanted to futher their veiws thru it? It would be totally different, and much freakier! Which is why fin-de-sicle is a good thing. :)


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 03, 2004, 01:55:47 AM
I'm thinking, like for yours earlier, ebia, that maybe the love of Jesus as expressed there in I Corinth. 13 transcends any political agenda?  I'm thinking that love transcends any plitical agenda; and maybe this is what Jesus was talking about all along?
Depends what you mean I guess - ideally it transends any polical agenda completely - if we all were really able to live by 1 Cor. 13 we wouldn't need any politics, but that isn't going to happen until His Kingdom comes, so in the mean while it informs and guides (hopefully) our politics.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 03, 2004, 02:00:19 AM
Quote
Talent, my good man (or woman).  True Beauty in art isn’t a run of the mill kind of thing. There is a reason why 10 years from now people will remember who Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead where, but they will have never heard of Johnny Rimshot and the Screaming monkey’s of Joy.
So art is just another name for quality entertainment?

In that case, it should be self funding - paid for by those who are entertained.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 03, 2004, 02:23:12 AM
Now you are starting to understand things, Ebia. Here in America, people who don’t like Art do not commonly give to the National Endowment for the Arts. Those who DO like art, however, commonly do, and also donate to their local art museums and Symphonies as well. Art is paid for by those who are entertained, through the use of the NEA. With the NEA dealing with the Fans money, it is more important then ever that they support the GOOD art.

Thanks for the good point. I'm going to use that one! :)


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 03, 2004, 04:43:00 AM
Now you are starting to understand things, Ebia. Here in America, people who don’t like Art do not commonly give to the National Endowment for the Arts. Those who DO like art, however, commonly do, and also donate to their local art museums and Symphonies as well. Art is paid for by those who are entertained, through the use of the NEA.

Thanks for the good point. I'm going to use that one! :)
Sorry - I assumed (for no good reason) that the NEA was government funded, like the Arts Council in the UK, and whatever its equivalent is called here.

So who elects/chooses/whatever the people who run the NEA?

Quote
With the NEA dealing with the Fans money, it is more important then ever that they support the GOOD art.
Presumably, the people who allocate the money think they are supporting good art - no-one would be moronic enough to support what they think is bad art (would they).   They just disagree with you about what constitutes good art.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: sincereheart on February 03, 2004, 07:42:11 AM
Presumably, the people who allocate the money think they are supporting good art - no-one would be moronic enough to support what they think is bad art (would they).

Ever read "The Emperor's New Clothes"?

 ;)


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 03, 2004, 11:00:33 AM
NEA does get government funded, as well as donations from the supporters. At least that has always been my understanding.

Sincere- well put.

Lets talk about a few famous "artist" that people support, Ebia. Britany Spears. You know, I was going to make is a list, but I think that just about gets my point across. People will support those with no talent. Don't ask me why, but they will. And all these pre-teen girls copy her and sing like her and dress like her, do they have talent? No, but people support them.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 03, 2004, 03:46:46 PM
NEA does get government funded, as well as donations from the supporters. At least that has always been my understanding.
In that case, it should represent everyone who funds it - i.e. the whole tax-paying electorate, in its choice of what to fund, not just the art enthusiasts who pay extra.

Quote
Lets talk about a few famous "artist" that people support, Ebia. Britany Spears. You know, I was going to make is a list, but I think that just about gets my point across. People will support those with no talent. Don't ask me why, but they will. And all these pre-teen girls copy her and sing like her and dress like her, do they have talent? No, but people support them.
I wouldn't claim for a moment that Britney Spears or any other popular music person was producing art, but that's my call.  How come you get to decide what is art and what is not?


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 03, 2004, 05:44:10 PM
In that case, it should represent everyone who funds it - i.e. the whole tax-paying electorate, in its choice of what to fund, not just  the art enthusiasts who pay extra.

Then that can speak out about it. It just so happens those who are vocal and active in the NEA are the ones who pay extra money and enjoy the art. If someone who isn’t a fan wants to be active in what to support, they are welcome to. But they don’t .


Quote
How come you get to decide what is art and what is not?

Because it is MY paper. ;D


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Symphony on February 03, 2004, 08:32:54 PM

This thwead makes my head hurt... :-[


(http://sc.msn.com/2{/B4JV7DOJIT1@ESPQCW-JR[.jpg)




Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: JudgeNot on February 03, 2004, 08:45:17 PM
No kidding Symph.

I have to write an article covering "Website Collaboration Tools for Large Design-Build Engineering Projects".  

You think I should post for help on this website???  :D  :D  :D  ;D


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Symphony on February 03, 2004, 11:31:01 PM

Design/Build?  And when you say large, do you mean like civil engineering?  And so you're working on networking software for that?


I doubt if I could "help".  Tho it might depend on what you mean exactly by the word "help".

I could probably mess things up for you really good, tho.  


(hehe)   ???


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 04, 2004, 02:16:43 AM
In that case, it should represent everyone who funds it - i.e. the whole tax-paying electorate, in its choice of what to fund, not just  the art enthusiasts who pay extra.

Then that can speak out about it. It just so happens those who are vocal and active in the NEA are the ones who pay extra money and enjoy the art. If someone who isn’t a fan wants to be active in what to support, they are welcome to. But they don’t .
No, they should be represented by the body that syphons their money into the NEA, ie the democratically elected goverment.


Quote
Quote
How come you get to decide what is art and what is not?

Because it is MY paper. ;D ;D
;D




Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 04, 2004, 08:49:11 AM
In that case, it should represent everyone who funds it - i.e. the whole tax-paying electorate, in its choice of what to fund, not just  the art enthusiasts who pay extra.

Then that can speak out about it. It just so happens those who are vocal and active in the NEA are the ones who pay extra money and enjoy the art. If someone who isn’t a fan wants to be active in what to support, they are welcome to. But they don’t .
No, they should be represented by the body that syphons their money into the NEA, ie the democratically elected goverment.

It is the NEA's call, they can do what they want. And they want to support thoses who support their cause.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 05, 2004, 02:25:16 AM
In that case, it should represent everyone who funds it - i.e. the whole tax-paying electorate, in its choice of what to fund, not just  the art enthusiasts who pay extra.

Then that can speak out about it. It just so happens those who are vocal and active in the NEA are the ones who pay extra money and enjoy the art. If someone who isn’t a fan wants to be active in what to support, they are welcome to. But they don’t .
No, they should be represented by the body that syphons their money into the NEA, ie the democratically elected goverment.

It is the NEA's call, they can do what they want. And they want to support thoses who support their cause.
You've missed my point, but I dont think this is going anywhere, so ...  ::shrug::


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 05, 2004, 10:56:17 AM
I got the point. The Tax payers should decide what to do with the Taxes they pay. However, that just isn't how it is here.

I just think you don’t understand America. We start originations for specific groups. Congress could take the money and start "the Homosexual Marriage Support Organization" with our tax dollars, and we can’t stop them.


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Symphony on February 05, 2004, 12:03:35 PM

Actually, the NEA is a good barometer of overall morality.  The Roaring Twenties--with rampant immorality, in Hollywood and out--was climaxed with the Stock Market Crash of '29.  How were things shortly thereafter??  Hmmm.  Unemployent lines a mile long.  The Thirties were'nt quite so "Roaring".

So the more outlandish the NEA becomes, in the type of art it supports, is perhaps a measure of things to come??


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Tibby on February 05, 2004, 02:21:25 PM
I would say MTV is a better measure then NEA. Originations that buy Violins for inner city schools to give the children a taste of culture are not a prime examples of the moral decay of our society. :)


Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: Symphony on February 05, 2004, 05:10:06 PM

Point well made.

But still, if the NEA is ALSO supporting such as have been mentioned earlier here--dancing nude in smeared chocolate?  crucifix in urine; something else with elephant dung.  (um, I think "scatological" is the word here? ::)).

I mean....


Do I really NEED to see what MTV has to offer?   :-[


Besides, all that has to bring AMerica to its knees is for someone to simply shut down the power grid.

Or for  our food supply to be shut down.  Or God to simply withhold any rain.

That's all it would take.  JUst turn off the faucet of HIs blessed rain.

And interestingly, that is what happend in the 1930s--the dustbowl.  And why so many Oklahomans ended up, I believe, in California("The Grapes of Wrath..." ??).   Hey, where's bep here when we need him.






Title: Re:Ideas
Post by: ebia on February 08, 2004, 05:15:49 AM
I got the point. The Tax payers should decide what to do with the Taxes they pay. However, that just isn't how it is here.
That wasn't the point, but never mind.