NationStates Jolt Archive

Should it even exist?

I personally don't think my tax dollars should go to fund a plastic crucifix in a jar of urine just because someone calls it "art"...or for performance artists masturbating on stage and calling it "art."

Also, having a NEA also allows for propaganda under the guise of "art"...which I also do not agree with.

Your opinion may differ. Discuss.

Art is what it is, you can not limit it without destroying it. Besides that artisitic expression is the lifeblood of culture, the fact that some of it angers you is exactly the reason it must exist. Art can challenge you, and make you better able to express yourself. Kinda sad that you see it as a threat.

I have to agree with Texpundit. Art is taste, and taste is relative, and it is unfair to ask people to support art they do not find in good taste.

Art is what it is, you can not limit it without destroying it. Besides that artisitic expression is the lifeblood of culture, the fact that some of it angers you is exactly the reason it must exist. Art can challenge you, and make you better able to express yourself. Kinda sad that you see it as a threat.
I'm not threatened by it. I am an artist myself. My point is: I don't think the government should fund it. Period.

Art should challenge your conception of the world, and as such is valuable in preventing the rise of an all encompassing hegemony. However, a crucifix in a jar of urine does not challenge anything. Funding for trivial art should be cut.

The problem is who decides. As a result of this, I believe that art should be self funding, and if it depends on tax dollars, then it does not deserve to exist.

Art is what it is, you can not limit it without destroying it. Besides that artisitic expression is the lifeblood of culture, the fact that some of it angers you is exactly the reason it must exist. Art can challenge you, and make you better able to express yourself. Kinda sad that you see it as a threat.

The thing that 'angers and offends' most people about the example given, is that the man was given fifty thousand dollars by uncle sam to create it-while literally thousands of Americans are struggling just to pay the rent and put food on the table.

While Paying Taxes.

You can call literally anything "Art", and while I have no problem letting some New York Socialite sponsor a display of toilets fastened to a piece of tile-covered drywall, I have a problem when Americans are being put out of work to buy cheap army-boots from China (as a 'cost savings') while their tax-dollars (extorted by law with the full lethal force of government) are being directed to pay for 'art' that nobody is willing to pay for voluntarily.

'Culture' is something that's fine when you can afford the slack.

I'm fully in favor of using tax money to fund art and humanities education, but not to subsidize artists. It's too subjective a field.

Art should challenge your conception of the world, and as such is valuable in preventing the rise of an all encompassing hegemony. However, a crucifix in a jar of urine does not challenge anything. Funding for trivial art should be cut.

The problem is who decides. As a result of this, I believe that art should be self funding, and if it depends on tax dollars, then it does not deserve to exist.
Thank you. I could not have said it better myself. :)

Should it even exist?

I personally don't think my tax dollars should go to fund a plastic crucifix in a jar of urine just because someone calls it "art"...or for performance artists masturbating on stage and calling it "art."

Also, having a NEA also allows for propaganda under the guise of "art"...which I also do not agree with.

Your opinion may differ. Discuss.

When the NEA is used to fund projects like the one you mentioned it's because sabateurs like Jesse Helms only want government support of harmful things like tobacco subsidies and weapons of mass destruction, so they put themselves in a position to make decisions for popular and beneficial public spending projects like Social Security and the NEA and have them do horrible things, like partially privatize or pay for S&M gay porn art exhibits.

Note, I have nothing against being gay, practicing S&M, or porn, but if you put the 3 together... ick.

Public art exhibits are not just about making pretty things, or even ugly, but artisticly meritorious things. When the NEA is used to do things like put up murals or design pretty store fronts they attract people. Peopel attract business. That attracts money and even a conservative can't argue with that.

When it's used to do things like put a crucifix in a jar of urine then the NEA gets its funding cut, public works projects don't get started. Investment in neighborhood restoration projects don't restore the economic bases of communities, and people become poor. If at the same time public welfare systems are cut then "Superchurches" have to pick up the slack and become powerful political institutions. Conservatives fucking eat that shit up like a Maplethorpe subject.

Art should challenge your conception of the world, and as such is valuable in preventing the rise of an all encompassing hegemony. However, a crucifix in a jar of urine does not challenge anything. Funding for trivial art should be cut.

The problem is who decides. As a result of this, I believe that art should be self funding, and if it depends on tax dollars, then it does not deserve to exist.

The thing is, for the most part, wierd, abstruse, and mind-bogglingly pointless "art" is usually self funding because it only has to appeal to really rich people with too much time on their hands and more education than they know what to do with. That's not what the NEA is for. The NEA is about attracting money.

NYC subsidises plenty of museums not because they're pretty, but because they attract tourists and their money. Not all of that money goes to the museums of course, some of it goes to hot dog vendors, resteraunts, hotels, theatre tickets, souvenier shops etc. and NYC gets all the money it laid out in taxes back in taxes, and then some. It earns more money than the city spends maintaining the museums by maintaining them. From the perspective of the whole city art is self funding, if it wasn't then NYC wouldn't do it.

But the art doesn't pay for itself at the immediate level. Take the recent exhibit of saffron curtains in Central Park. It cost millions. What did it earn? Nothing. Until you start to look at how much money the surrounding businesses took in while the curtains were up. And even when the curtains are down it still has people thinking that NYC might be an interesting place for their next vacation because the news suddenly became free advertising. Even Saturday Night Live was talking about it.

The circuitous money making makes it easy for conservatives to turn the opinion of the public against it as an institution, and they get to pretend that they're the money-wise candidates. The anti-art funding argument is a simplistic one so it's easy to swallow if you're gullible enough.

Should it even exist?

I personally don't think my tax dollars should go to fund a plastic crucifix in a jar of urine just because someone calls it "art"...or for performance artists masturbating on stage and calling it "art."

Also, having a NEA also allows for propaganda under the guise of "art"...which I also do not agree with.

Your opinion may differ. Discuss.
I need the arts. I personally could not exist without them. The only things that kept me going while I was in public middle school were my General Music and Art electives.

I need the arts. I personally could not exist without them. The only things that kept me going while I was in public middle school were my General Music and Art electives.
I agree with you there. Art and Music were my two biggest things in school. But why do public schools need government funding in the form of the NEA to teach art and music...especially when they are continually raping us with higher and higher property taxes in order to pay for schools? If the NEA ceased to exist, would all public school art and music programs cease to exist? I don't think so.

My problem is with the government paying subsidies to 'artist' that could never survive on their own. If they can't be successful on their own...let them find a real f'n job.

It depends upon what you take from serrano's work as to whether or not it is worth funding. Frankly I find more merit in it than the "cheese house" in Wisconsin, and therefore not the least deserving work out there.

It's also a bit much to dismiss it as trivial. (Unless you want to dismiss all photography as trivial).

On the otherhand, I will admit Serrano is no Gerhard Richter.

Art should challenge your conception of the world, and as such is valuable in preventing the rise of an all encompassing hegemony. However, a crucifix in a jar of urine does not challenge anything. Funding for trivial art should be cut.

The problem is who decides. As a result of this, I believe that art should be self funding, and if it depends on tax dollars, then it does not deserve to exist.


Piss Christ is a photograph. Not a crucifix in a jar of urine.

Edit: And it does challenge conceptions.

Piss Christ is a photograph. Not a crucifix in a jar of urine.

Edit: And it does challenge conceptions.
Um... the point that it's a photograph of the crucifix in a jar of urine that the artist was paid for makes no difference. The act of pissing in a jar with a crucifix in it was paid for as well. It's not like he FOUND the jar and took a picture.

Also, what does that have to do with the fact that I think government shouldn't subsidise ANY artist, no matter what his political/religious leanings?

Um... the point that it's a photograph of the crucifix in a jar of urine that the artist was paid for makes no difference. The act of pissing in a jar with a crucifix in it was paid for as well. It's not like he FOUND the jar and took a picture.

Also, what does that have to do with the fact that I think government should subsidize ANY artist, no matter what his political/religious leanings?


Actually, I believe that the bucket was filled with urine, then the crucifix was dropped in.

Look, I can see the point of completely stopping all funding for the arts, it's a legitimate viewpoint. At the same time, I don't think you should pick upon serrano's work, as if it is artistically meritless or, somehow, the least deserving of the funded projects out there. (Not least of which was that silly **** who used to cover her body in chocolate pudding and talk about her twat for half an hour).

Piss Christ is a completely legit piece of art, not a silly concept piece or something. (Fitment sculpture comes to mind). If art is funded - and it is - it is completely right that a work like this should be subsidized. No question.

And it is a photograph. That is the work you are referring to. The fact that someone had to drop a crucifix into a bucket of urine in the first place is irrelevant. (And how do you even know that it was actually urine, other than the title?)

I agree with you there. Art and Music were my two biggest things in school. But why do public schools need government funding in the form of the NEA to teach art and music...especially when they are continually raping us with higher and higher property taxes in order to pay for schools? If the NEA ceased to exist, would all public school art and music programs cease to exist? I don't think so.
Well... since they are being cut right now at a frightning rate due to lack of avalable funding... yeah, I'd say we would lose that.

Given that the NEA provides monies for more than just shock peices (and honestly, not a lot of money period) I'd say we need it. It alows for art and culture to reach the masses instead of being locked up for only the rich patrons to enjoy.

On a related note though, in Japan, music and art are required subjects, and all students present to their parents and the community at large (covered by the news media) at a yearly school fest. My Japanese co-workers could not understand why the United States is cutting out art and music when it is so important to student growth and devlopment.

There's a good case for the NEA right there.

(And how do you even know that it was actually urine, other than the title?)
Serrano said so...and that it was his own urine.

I've read his explanations of the work and they don't wash. 'Art' just for the sake of pissing off a part of the population isn't 'art', in my opinion...and that's what it sounds like what he was doing when he cashed his government check.

I still contend that individual artists should NOT be subsidized for their work.

With that said...that doesn't apply to government commissioning murals/sculptures/etc. for public buildings. That's completely warranted, in my opinion. It's a transaction. The government pays for it and gets a work of art in return.

I do NOT think the government should GIVE money to artists...which is what the NEA does.

Well... since they are being cut right now at a frightning rate due to lack of avalable funding... yeah, I'd say we would lose that.

Given that the NEA provides monies for more than just shock peices (and honestly, not a lot of money period) I'd say we need it. It alows for art and culture to reach the masses instead of being locked up for only the rich patrons to enjoy.

On a related note though, in Japan, music and art are required subjects, and all students present to their parents and the community at large (covered by the news media) at a yearly school fest. My Japanese co-workers could not understand why the United States is cutting out art and music when it is so important to student growth and devlopment.

There's a good case for the NEA right there.
Bullshit. The schools waste money hand over fist. I've seen it first hand in Texas public school systems. Schools wouldn't be cutting art and music programs if they weren't wasting money on administrative practices and pumping WAY too much money into sports. Sports get WAY too much funding, especially here in Texas. Take some of that money and give an equal share to music and arts.

...and don't get me started on "tolerance education" in public schools. :headbang:

Art does not need government grants to exist. The NEA is simply a cash cow for many lazy individuals.
LOOK! I pissed on a picture of a monkey, covered it in cellophane and called it God's Love! It's art because I have deep feelings!!! Give me money!!! I deserve government money for my freedom to piss on pictures of monkeys!!!

crap.

Serrano said so...and that it was his own urine.

He's said lots of things about it.

I've read his explanations of the work and they don't wash. 'Art' just for the sake of pissing off a part of the population isn't 'art', in my opinion...and that's what it sounds like what he was doing when he cashed his government check.

It wasn't just for the sake of pissing off part of the population. But that wasn't my point anyway. I was going to it's techinical merit, because people said it was "trivial". You cannot justifiably say that, unless you dismiss all of photography - Ansel *yawn* Adams included - as trivial. Whether you like it or not, it is a bona fide piece of art.

I still contend that individual artists should NOT be subsidized for their work.

Like Handel, or Mozart? Yes, it was wrong to subsidize that. In any case, as I said, that is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, I just took issue with you trying to trivialize serrano, because it doesn't seem like you know what you are talking about.

With that said...that doesn't apply to government commissioning murals/sculptures/etc. for public buildings. That's completely warranted, in my opinion. It's a transaction. The government pays for it and gets a work of art in return.

Oh good, more crappy urban sculpture, designed to offend no-one, and please nobody. Just what the city needs. Those should be the first thing to get the chop. Have you ever looked at some of them closely. Michealangelo they are not.

And often, they don't get a work of art in return, they just get a few sketches and it is left up to the city to actually do the work. Then the artist sells the original sketches.

I do NOT think the government should GIVE money to artists...which is what the NEA does.

The NEA, does not just give money to artists. It commisions works, and gives grants to produce works. The artist actually has to qualify and produce something you know. If it is so damn easy, why aren't you getting an NEA grant?

@ Lacadaemon. You said, in an edit, that the urine and crucifix work (whether it be a jar, a bucket, his urine or not, is irrelevant really) challenges our conceptions. I would like to know in what way you think it does this. It does not challenge any conception of mine, but that might just be me missing the point.

@ Lacadaemon. You said, in an edit, that the urine and crucifix work (whether it be a jar, a bucket, his urine or not, is irrelevant really) challenges our conceptions. I would like to know in what way you think it does this. It does not challenge any conception of mine, but that might just be me missing the point.

Two things here:

1. My point about it being a photograph, and the urine not being relevant was really going to it's technical merit as a piece of art. If you haven't seen it, here is a link. [CLICKY] (http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/images/serrano.jpg) (Warning do not click if you are easily offended by religious icons being dispoiled)

As you can see, there is more involved that just dumping a crucifix into bucket of urine. A great deal of thought has gone into lighting, focus, texture and color. (In fact, I believe that the fluid it is suspeneded in is not just urine, but a mixture of urine and cows blood to achieve the right desired color balance). Remember, before Serrano started his full color blow up work, he was a black and white artist that concentrated on capturing street life in Brooklyn, and before that he was a commercial artist. You can see some of that here in the choice of frame, angle and lighting. Obviously, there is a lot more to the work that just some guy with a polariod, and desire to submerge a crucifix in piss. So unless, you are prepared to dismiss photography in general as trivial art form, then you have to admit, judged on technical merit alone, this certainly qualifies as legitimate art. Even if you disagree with the subject.

And if one concentrates purely on the aesthetic aspect of the image, it is not even that unattractive. Depending upon your taste.

2. As to conceptions being challenged, Serrano chose to use a disposable cheap plastic crucifix, of the type that is regularly thrown away, dumped in the garbage, end up in landfills &c. Indeed, there are a thousand worse things that happens to these little pieces of plastic everyday, than being dunked into a bath of cows blood and urine. Neverthless, this whole disposable "jesus" industry survives for the simple reason that the item being sold is supposedly sacred. So what "Piss Christ" says, is, basically, look how you treat what you consider sacred. On the one hand, the crucifix is this inviolable and sacred item, that should never be desecrated and worshiped, yet on the other, producing millions of little plastic ones that are disposable and end up in landfills is also somehow a holy act. (Part of this I presume comes from serrano's latin american background). In other words, it is a statement about a percieved contradiction in the way that many religious christians treat the image of christ, and an attempt to understand their motives. It's more than just an idle desecration, some thought went into it.

I considering it was one of the most contraversial pieces in the late twentieth century, I don't see how you can't acknowledge how it challenged conceptions. If nothing else, it did stimulate discussion on the nature and treatment of sacred images.

Bullshit. The schools waste money hand over fist. I've seen it first hand in Texas public school systems. Schools wouldn't be cutting art and music programs if they weren't wasting money on administrative practices and pumping WAY too much money into sports. Sports get WAY too much funding, especially here in Texas. Take some of that money and give an equal share to music and arts.
While I agree with that, I would love to hear how you plan to push THAT idea in Texas.

Still, even with sports programs cut and equal share applied, there is still not enough money to fund the programs, especially for rual and inner city schools. The community programs that often times pick up the slack for the cuts again get funding from NEA.

Of course if you wish, we could change that to let people start directing their tax monies. I, after all, disagree with the current focus in sex ed and military operations in Iraq, so is it wise then for me to demand to pull my tax dollars out of those things I disagree with?

Should it even exist?

I personally don't think my tax dollars should go to fund a plastic crucifix in a jar of urine just because someone calls it "art"...or for performance artists masturbating on stage and calling it "art."

Also, having a NEA also allows for propaganda under the guise of "art"...which I also do not agree with.

Your opinion may differ. Discuss.
Government sponsored art is always the worst piece of crap that can be found. If you want to locate a government building, just find the biggest, most butt-ugly piece of sculpture around and you can be sure you have found a federal building. I suspect that the government committee won't rein in the artist. If I were commissioning a piece of art, it would be exactly what I wanted, or it would get redone.

Two things here:

1. My point about it being a photograph, and the urine not being relevant was really going to it's technical merit as a piece of art. If you haven't seen it, here is a link. [CLICKY] (http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/images/serrano.jpg) (Warning do not click if you are easily offended by religious icons being dispoiled)

As you can see, there is more involved that just dumping a crucifix into bucket of urine. A great deal of thought has gone into lighting, focus, texture and color. (In fact, I believe that the fluid it is suspeneded in is not just urine, but a mixture of urine and cows blood to achieve the right desired color balance). Remember, before Serrano started his full color blow up work, he was a black and white artist that concentrated on capturing street life in Brooklyn, and before that he was a commercial artist. You can see some of that here in the choice of frame, angle and lighting. Obviously, there is a lot more to the work that just some guy with a polariod, and desire to submerge a crucifix in piss. So unless, you are prepared to dismiss photography in general as trivial art form, then you have to admit, judged on technical merit alone, this certainly qualifies as legitimate art. Even if you disagree with the subject.

And if one concentrates purely on the aesthetic aspect of the image, it is not even that unattractive. Depending upon your taste.

2. As to conceptions being challenged, Serrano chose to use a disposable cheap plastic crucifix, of the type that is regularly thrown away, dumped in the garbage, end up in landfills &c. Indeed, there are a thousand worse things that happens to these little pieces of plastic everyday, than being dunked into a bath of cows blood and urine. Neverthless, this whole disposable "jesus" industry survives for the simple reason that the item being sold is supposedly sacred. So what "Piss Christ" says, is, basically, look how you treat what you consider sacred. On the one hand, the crucifix is this inviolable and sacred item, that should never be desecrated and worshiped, yet on the other, producing millions of little plastic ones that are disposable and end up in landfills is also somehow a holy act. (Part of this I presume comes from serrano's latin american background). In other words, it is a statement about a percieved contradiction in the way that many religious christians treat the image of christ, and an attempt to understand their motives. It's more than just an idle desecration, some thought went into it.

I considering it was one of the most contraversial pieces in the late twentieth century, I don't see how you can't acknowledge how it challenged conceptions. If nothing else, it did stimulate discussion on the nature and treatment of sacred images.

No, it's a photograph of a plastic crucifix in a bucket of urine. Whatever self-serving monologue goes along with it from the "r-Teeste" is just the shuck-and-jive of the salesman.

Regardless, as a taxpayer who actually works for his money I don't 'get' why said tax-money (in an era of Deficits) is being spent on what amounts to a picture of something that I'd throw in the landfill if I came across it in real life.

Comparing it to Mozart, or DaVinci says more about the person making the comparison, than it does about the piece they're gushing over.
Garbage is garbage, even wrapped in artcritiquese.