Something recently occurred to me. It seems like when there’s anything created or made that is insulting to religion, for example the now famous picture of a cross in urine, the writer, artist, painter, or whoever created it can get government funding for their work, but on the flip side, if anything is positive towards religion, then if it has any connections with the government, be it local, state or federal, then cries of “Separation of church and state.” are heard. Why the double standard?
I believe that you’ve got it backwards as regards to Andre Serrano’s “Piss Christ”. He got the NEA grant first, then he created the art. So the government didn’t fund him because his work was “anti-religious”. They funded him because he applied for a grant, and I believe there were no strings or stipulations attached to it.
So have you got any instances of (a) someone who requested, and got, government funding for what was specified in advance to be an anti-religious work, and (b) someone who requested, and was denied, government funding for what was specified in advance to be a pro-religious work?
And–that the funding in question was granted–or denied–specifically because of the work of art’s anti- or pro-religious bias?
Because otherwise, you’re right–without actual examples, it’s kind of a weak thread.
Also, have you ever actually seen Serrano’s Piss Christ? Many people who haven’t seen it talk about it as an “insult to religion”, but I’ve never understood why. The image itself is very dramatic and impressive, and to my mind doesn’t trivialize or denigrate the Passion at all. Now, if it showed somebody actually pissing on a crucifix or something like that I’d say you have a point, but how does the mere fact that Serrano used urine (which the exhibition catalogues call an “esoteric medium” ) in its construction make his work “anti-religious”? What’s “anti-religious” about urine, and why can’t an artist put a religious artifact in a jar of it if he likes the visual effect it produces?
I’m with DDG here: if you haven’t got a statistically significant number of much better examples than this one to support your hypothesis, you’ve got yourself a really weak OP.
– Kimstu (whose current residence in India where some sadhus anoint themselves with cow urine as it comes fresh from the cow has perhaps made her a trifle blase about pee)
The various military bands and orchestras are funded primarily by tax dollars (and maybe some box office), but Slayer and Marilyn Manson never were.
BTW, the liquid in Piss Christ was beer, not urine. And Serrano and Mapplethorpe provoke opinions and challenge perspectives in a way that Wyeth vistas and Keane waifs don’t; those NEA grants were well-spent.
I don’t agree that the government ought to be funding art, period. Let it stand or fall on its own merits.
That said, I don’t think the motivation for anything NEA has directly or indirectly funded has been anti-religious, even if some of the art has ended up with that tone.
Bricker got it right. There is virtually no way for the gov’t to fund art w/o resulting in the art offending someone or some group of people. There are plenty of ridiculously rich people who will fund almost any kind of ridiculous art to show how avante guard they are. The gov’t has no business being in the art business. If a work of art can’t attract patronage on its own, let it end up in the proverbial dustbin of history.
Man! You guys are intent upon trying to resurrect a debate out of this lame OP!
I sure don’t see a problem with government sponsorship of art. Especially at the ridiculously low historical levels. And I’m sure many of us could examine various governmental budgets and identify any number of “businesses” we feel the government ought not be in.
A healthy and diverse art community confers various benefits, important enough to not be left solely to the maketplace.
Folks interested in this topic might want to view the NEA’s list of grants. Apparently, they give $ for purposes other than photographing crucifixes immersed in urine - or beer. The rest probably goes to performance artists who roll around in chocolate…
Moreover, no reason to limit government involvement in the arts to the NEA’s whopping $122 mill. How about tax deductible donations that encourage all of those ridiculously rich folk to support ridiculous NPOs? And of course, we should eliminate any art or music curriculum from public schools. And no funds for aesthetics in public works projects.
I’m sure those ridiculously rich folks will pump their tax breaks into increased arts funding… Them Pubbies sure are the avid supporters of the arts!
I’m on a work break that’s about over, so all I all I have time to post is, gee, for a week thread, I sure got a lot of replies
Also, if artists get grants first, and then use them for art about religion that’s one thing, but still, say I got a permit from the city to put up a display at city hall and chose a religious one. Could I say, “Well, I got the permit first, and put up the display after.”?
Actually, in my last post I made a bad analogy. I had time inbetween my last break, and this lunch break to think of a better one.
I’m hearing the argument that it’s OK for artists to get NEA funding and then use it to make works of art of a religious nature.
If you think that is is Ok, then would you be OK with school vouchers where the parent gets the money, and then uses it to send their child to a private religious school?
Your missing the point. The art involved comments on religion and society. It doesn’t promote, preach or otherwise advocate said religion. Public schools can and do comment on religion all the time. It’s when “Americans experienced a great spirtual revival in the 1800’s” turns into “Lets now give thanks to the savoir” that problems come up.
I’m a “Kennedy Center Star” - this is a program by which I subscribe to the opera season at the Kennedy Center, pay in advance, and receive preferential seating at each event.
I collect giclees, especially Guido Borelli works. I also collect Claude Fauchére, James Llewllyn, and the Spanish artist Cuberos.
I support local theatre: over the past few years, I’ve seen at least two productions per year at the Signature Theatre, a local house, and subscribe to their season as well.
I’m not sure I qualify as “ridiculously rich.” But I’d suggest I support the arts more than the average bear.
People have made the argument that public schools are advancing a kind of religion, “secular humanism” they call it. The argument has not been met with a very warm reception. Not sure that adds much to the op, but it might give you another thing to think about. i.e. when does something become a religion?
) in its construction make his work “anti-religious”? What’s “anti-religious” about urine, and why can’t an artist put a religious artifact in a jar of it if he likes the visual effect it produces?