Yeah, me too. No value whatsoever.
And instead reflect an even narrower and moronic viewpoint of insider art posing as edgy. Why don’t the curators and artists just go circle jerk someplace on their own dime and let someone who appreciates real art run the museum.
I wonder that with all the people who view abortion as murder and genocide, there isn’t a single artist among them with enough talent to come up with artwork that meets curators’ criteria.
I’m not sure I agree that the American people have clearly spoken on the issue of hosting controversial artwork.
Do you contend that if a national poll showed the same image at issue here --Jesus covered with ants – and asked respondants if they believed federal funds should support its exhibition, there would be a positive response?
[hijack]
What does this phrase mean? I’ve only ever encountered it twice, and both times were by you today.[hijack]
Which people? The curators? Yeah, they tend to want to provoke a reaction, especially with this sort of show. They’d probably consider it a failure if they didn’t. The artist? He died from AIDS-related complications.
I’m not entirely clear why an image of Jesus covered in ants is necessarily insulting to Christians. I mean, I can understand why people got upset by a picture of Jesus in a jar of urine, or the Virgin depicted in elephant dung - I don’t think they should have, given the context of each work, but I can understand, based on a simple text description of the image, how those images could be interpreted to be insulting to some Christians. But I can’t really parse any sort of useful meaning out of “Jesus covered in ants,” at least, not without some fuller context from the video in which it appeared.
I kinda suspect that if a different (as in, “less gay”) artist had used the same imagery, no one would much care.
How long is that Jesus ant clip and what percentage would you say it represents of the Smithsonian’s collection and it’s budget?
Well, conservatives tend to suck at art in most forms.
I don’t give a flying fuck. If they support the principle of a national cultural institution like this, or haven’t opposed it before, they should support it whether they happen to find one or two pieces of artwork stupid or controversial. I don’t like everything the Smithsonian displays either, but i recognize that art has value even if i happen to find it ugly or offensive or stupid.
For me, this whole issue is similar, in a philosophical (as opposed to a legal) sense, to the issue of free speech. If you want to suppress speech with which you disagree or that you find merely offensive, then you’re not really for free speech, no matter how much you might protest to the contrary. If you want this particular art thrown out of the Smithsonian, but who claims to value the Institution for its other works, then you’re just a simple idiot who doesn’t understand why art is important.
That’s fine, and your right, as long you don’t expect me to refrain from calling you a fucking moron if that’s your position.
Damn, mhendo, you posted what I wanted to post but more eloquently. Hell, Thomas Kinkade’s art offends the hell out of me, but I’m not calling for the closing of malls or the suburbs.
Never fear, here’s Bricker here to save the GOP bigots! God forbid someone should compose a Gay Themed art exhibit.
Also here’s a sampling of the general exhibit including Ellen wildly groping herself:rolleyes:
So what? I pay taxes, and I approve. Why don’t my tax dollars speak as loud as the tax dollars paid by Christians?
To be fair, so do liberals. Ninety percent of everything is crap. Then again, Maplethorpe wasn’t bad, though his work was a little austere for my tastes.
In general I think the answer to bad speech is more speech. But hey, I’m an ultraliberal by US standards.
Art without potential to offend someone isn’t art, it’s decor. Art is supposed to make you think, not go ooh and ahh/
There may well be. There may even be some that have been exhibited. But, are the sort of people that would want to view that art the same sort that goes to museums to view modern art. After all, these museums aren’t 100% federally funded. They still need to attract customers.
It’s really the same criticism of all modern art. The artists being displayed are the artists that the most people are willing to pay to see. The people that criticize modern art, don’t generally visit modern art museums frequently. Of course they may claim that they would visit modern art museums more if they put out art they wanted to see, but do they even look to see what museums are displaying? How often to they go to other museums? The reality is that these people don’t go to museums, so catering to their whims would be poor business.
Yes, I’m confused about this as well. Christianity is all about the Jesus torture porn. Were all these people complaining about Gibson’s Passion of the Christ too?
And I hate people who judge art by their opinion of it’s political content. It’s appallingly, flamingly ignorant.
“I’m not stupid! I’m psychic!!!” :rolleyes: