I would click the "like" rather than the "dislike" button for Pavel Kuczinski's art. What does the "f" stand for in some of these pieces?Originally Posted by Danik 2016
I would click the "like" rather than the "dislike" button for Pavel Kuczinski's art. What does the "f" stand for in some of these pieces?
What exactly does provided by the government mean? The government does not create or provide anything. It redistributes what it takes from other people and everyone who pays into the system has a right to criticize how that money is spent.
Anyway we've discussed this before and the difference here is that nearly everyone in the world understands that roads and infrastructure are important. We need well maintained roads to live our lives and we're willing to pay for them. If you put it to a nationwide vote today I think you would find that a strong majority of Canadians would heavily support spending money on infrastructure and most likely border control as well. Nobody needs "piss christ" and that's why it's an unfair use of public money because it's taken from people who more often than not don't have much money to spare and redistributed (in this case) to a small number of absolute ****wits who are able to game the system into getting themselves grants and bursaries for masturbating on a canvas or urinating into a fiberglass condom or finger painting with their own menstrual blood, and it benefits quite literally no-one apart from them; as I've said before, you can take the worst managed public health system in the world and you can at least point to some people who have benefited from its implementation.
No, you have this upside down. Besides I never said that I don't want to pay taxes, I said that since I don't have a choice in the matter I'm going to complain about grotesque uses of public money when I see them.
Last edited by Clopin; 06-14-2016 at 03:00 PM.
So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether
Maybe "follow", Yes/No. One of these sites prompts one to follow it.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
It's the f from Facebook's logo.
Actually, the government prints the money, and regulates its use. The paper itself is practically worthless. In any event, it's reasonable to want the government to spend money on whatever we want it to spend it on. But, since you said you object to the funding of art on principle (not because the art is bad), I just thought I'd point out that it's also reasonable to object to funding gigantic walls on the borders, or police and laws that protect personal property, or the military on the exact same principle. It is doubtless true that publicly funded roads are supported by a larger percentage of the population than "Piss Christ". However, the "principle" of "stealing money" to fund road-building remains identical to such "theft" designed to fund art. So it seems to me that you want the government to spend money on things YOU think are valuable, despite the "principle" involved. (Again, I think this is a reasonable position --most of us feel the exact same way, and only differ on the details. Still, your supposedly "principled" stance seems paradoxical)
I want the government to spend money sensibly on things that most people who pay taxes value. If I were somehow convinced that the list of things that most working Canadians would support their tax dollars going towards included Piss Christ then I would be okay with it. I personally think art is EXTREMELY valuable, but that doesn't mean I want money taken from people who work in, say, rural Alberta to pay for me to go to school for a literature degree. For example, if I told someone working in the middle class that I expected to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars - repurposed money, gained entirely through non voluntary donations from working Canadians - to finance four years of doing book reports because this would enhance my life, I would realistically expect anyone who actually works for a living to tell me to go **** myself. And, even though I would personally enjoy very much going to school for literature, without spending any of my own money, I would never vote for the public to subsidize such a thing.
Paper money has no intrinsic value. The government does not "create" wealth, it only prints symbols of it for use in barter. The government creates nothing. No government gives people anything other than what they first give to the government, and in every instance the return is less than that which was paid in.Actually, the government prints the money, and regulates its use.
Last edited by Clopin; 06-14-2016 at 05:46 PM.
So with the courage of a clown, or a cur, or a kite jerkin tight at it's tether
Ah, Facebook. That makes more sense now.
I was thinking about art, human subjectivity and government involvement. Both liking and disliking art even with prejudice is an authentic human response to art, something computers are incapable of doing. I think some artists deliberately want others to dislike their art. Part of their success is to be condemned for their art.
Here is a video titled "Afghanistan Taliban Muslims destroying Bamiyan Buddha Statues": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYYBlPWYb7Y
This is how the story goes. Once upon a time there were statues of the Buddha in what is now Afghanistan. To create them was a work of art likely supported by whatever government was there at the time. Eventually the Taliban moved into the area. The Taliban wanted to create their own works of art by which they could be remembered. So they created a pile of rocks.
If it were me, having heard about the "Piss Christ", I would have done it differently. I would have walled in those statues with clear, waterproof plastic and then pumped urine from the villages into the huge container. It would take some time to fill it, but I would set up tourist booths and charge pilgrims to watch the vat get filled.
In any big organization there is a lot of waste -- and funding experimental arts is clearly likely to produce what many see as waste. I'll bet (though) that if we look at the art (as a whole) funded by the Government and that funded by the people (mainstream movies, for example) you would find an equal percentage of the good, the bad and the ugly. (I have no idea if this is true; I'm betting blind.) Picking out a few examples of bad, government-funded art is simply not a good argument against public funding for art, although it may appeal emotionally to those with a predisposition to see government funding as theft.
From my experience the art championed by the wealthy "elite" collectors, by the masses, and through government support is prone to the same level of "the good, the bad, and the ugly". We can blame the wealthy collectors for purchasing Tracey Emin, Damian Hirst, and Jeff Koons. We can blame the government for supporting the museums that placed these "artists" on public exhibition, and we can blame the masses for the likes of Justin Bieber.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Nobody needs "piss christ" and that's why it's an unfair use of public money because it's taken from people who more often than not don't have much money to spare and redistributed (in this case) to a small number of absolute ****wits who are able to game the system into getting themselves grants and bursaries for masturbating on a canvas or urinating into a fiberglass condom or finger painting with their own menstrual blood, and it benefits quite literally no-one apart from them; as I've said before, you can take the worst managed public health system in the world and you can at least point to some people who have benefited from its implementation.
You are tilting at windmills of your own imagining, here. Serrano, the photographer of Piss Christ, received no direct government aid. The work was exhibited publicly two years prior to the great outrage by American Neo-Con politicians after the work was brought to their attention as part of an exhibition at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art. The assumption was that if the government is to offer public money to any arts institution, then they should be given oversight and the ability to censor was is to be seen/experienced. Considering that the government subsidies do not amount to anywhere near the majority of the funding for such institutions, it seems more than pretentious to suggest that the government should have such control over all that such institutions do. As for grants from the federal government (from the NEA and the NEH) these do not exist excepting in the instance of support of National Heritage Fellowships to master folk and traditional artists, NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships to jazz musicians and advocates, and NEA Opera Honors to individuals who have made extraordinary contributions to opera in the United States. Most of the extremist crap you are railing against is paid for by wealthy collectors who are able to use their wealth and connections (often as members of the board trustees of museums and arts institutions) to push exhibitions of the art they have collected at museums and other arts institutions as a means of increasing the visibility and "worth" of their art.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Let's try it with Martin Luther King and see what happens..
Last edited by Pompey Bum; 06-14-2016 at 07:49 PM.
Yes, of course, NS. As I donīt have a facebook account itīs not a ready association for me.
"I seemed to have sensed also from an early age that some of my experiences as a reader would change me more as a person than would many an event in the world where I sat and read. "
Gerald Murnane, Tamarisk Row
Excellent work, satire with wit and humor.
Another conservative rant with no substance. Something Donald Trump would say.
The government does indeed propagate wealth through infrastructure (transportation, communication, etc, etc), standards, regulation, policing, judicial oversight, investment in new technology and innovations, product testing and safety, labor laws, and dozens more not listed.
Good one. Everyone knows Americans revere Martin Luther King (and probably George Washington and Abraham Lincoln) more than Jesus, although few know why.
To Clopin: everyone wants the government to spend money sensibly. But, first, when you're spending trillions of dollars, some small percentage (but massive amount) will inevitably be spent frivolously. Second, the rural farmer who wants to hire Mexican workers to pick his apples might not want to spend multi-millions of dollars preventing illegal immigration. Nor would he donate to vigilantes policing the borders. The principle is the same (although, of course, we are all entitled to our voice as to how the government spends money).
The government has an intrinsic role in creating wealth, because property (i.e. wealth) exists because of laws enacted and enforced by the government. If (for example) the government was Communist, individuals would be unable to amass wealth (and, based on the evidence of history, the nation as a whole would be less wealthy).
By the way, after a few beers, I confess that I like "Piss Christ". I saw it at a museum once, in a high-quality, framed print, and it's gorgeous. I don't know anything about it's history, except that it was originally entitled "Immersion". Under that title, it looked like a crucified Jesus, floating in an ethereal and bubbling golden liquid, As a work of art it was gorgeous, but minor. A snapshot, very beautiful, evocative of, perhaps, spiritual and significant questions.
One question: does relabeling the photo as "Piss Christ" add to, or detract from, the virtues it had as "Immersion"? I'd suggest that it may add to them, not by being blasphemous (although it is), but by adding an aesthetic question of whether "piss" (by virtue of our associations) can be beautiful, or even holy. I'm curious what other Litnetters think.
p.s. One more thing: isn't Christ immersed in urine somewhat analogous to God, immersed in a human body? That, I think, adds to the interest of the re-naming.
Last edited by Ecurb; 06-14-2016 at 11:03 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
