NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

Bloody fuck. That's all I have to say.

That is the one of the more... unusual news articles that I have read recently. However, I am still not shocked. At some point, I have seen lots and heard about the rest, and nothing anybody can do will shock me.

Art has gotten really stupid lately.

I should make a sculpture of a toilet resting on a pedestal of asses and see if people consider that art too.

Bloody fuck.

You, sir, win one internet for that pun.

Art is crap these days. I can understand wanting to move away from the hyper-realism of classical and Renaissance works, but I think one still has to create something of beauty. It's not enough to just provoke your audience and claim you're some kind of genius because people are thinking.

wow, um. Not really my taste in art. I prefer Aguste Rodin.

this is pathetic.

Art has gotten really stupid lately.

I should make a sculpture of a toilet resting on a pedestal of asses and see if people consider that art too.

yeah, almost everything after 1900 has been total crap.

my god

sounds hilarious. like a freakshow.

Art is crap these days. I can understand wanting to move away from the hyper-realism of classical and Renaissance works, but I think one still has to create something of beauty. It's not enough to just provoke your audience and claim you're some kind of genius because people are thinking.

unfortunately... it is art.. shock art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_art).

not my cuppa tea tho.

You, sir, win one internet for that pun.

Not actually intended, but I'm taking the win anyways.

unfortunately... it is art.. shock art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_art).

not my cuppa tea tho.

Meh, it's not art any more than a latrine ditch is architecture. Sure, both involve moving dirt and building stuff, but one's crap.

Meh, for me it's still murder.

Bizarre but i daresay she just did it for temporary fame and maybe money.

my god

Yeah....

this is pathetic.

Especially if she just did it for attention.

Art has gotten really stupid lately.

I should make a sculpture of a toilet resting on a pedestal of asses and see if people consider that art too.

Reminds me of a "sculpture" from my favorite book:

Is Nothing Sacred?
Or: The seventh circle of the cheese monkeys

Materials:
1 plaster garden pedestal
Bags of pretension
Hot air

Man, what is with the sick artists these days. Let's take Guillermo Vargas:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tzFBD-LgKV0&feature=related

Not exactly what I would call art.

*Bit better video

Man, what is with the sick artists these days. Let's take Guillermo Vargas:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tzFBD-LgKV0&feature=related

Not exactly what I would call art.

*Bit better video

Its strange to think that nobody said or did anything about it...

sparked debate on a taboo subject at the same time making some sort of statement

take that Commie-Nazi tacky statues of some non-existent ideal that aims to fulfill mans desire to know what hes here for (but fail miserably because superman is a massive douche and we all live in some bum paradise)

she did require them to be screened for STDs.

The art major insisted she wasn't concerned about the effects of her research on her own body.

who here can see a woman in tears given 5+ years time?

I should make a sculpture of a toilet resting on a pedestal of asses and see if people consider that art too.

it relates to the human ability to completely ignore the reason something came to be and rather look at it as a final piece of development. (when was the last time you thought about how something came to be the way it is rather than how it works?)

A- :p

This isn't art at all. This, in my opinion, is wrong. Art is about emotion, talent and damn good pictures/ sculptures, or whatever. This is just... so... wrong. I find this sick, and I'm a guy.
:(

Its strange to think that nobody said or did anything about it...

Apparently some people tried to feed it, and he refused to let them do it. Which kind of contradicts the whole point he was trying to make.

If it were me, I'd beat the shit out of him. Screw my passive agressive nature, and my relative pacifism. Somethings are just bad enough to push aside my personal beliefs.

This is the best thing about freedom of expression: it allows people like that to prove to the world that they are so tasteless they shouldn't be taken seriously.

it relates to the human ability to completely ignore the reason something came to be and rather look at it as a final piece of development. (when was the last time you thought about how something came to be the way it is rather than how it works?)

A- :p

LOL.

As an aside, I am constantly thinking of how something came to be. Part of being an Archaeology major(Yes, I know I use the more archaic version of the word. I don't care. :P ).

When looking at art, I actually consider *how* the piece was created. Each brush stroke, each chisel, each weld, or each what have you. I find the process far more interesting than the result. Each individual action is meaningless and does nothing for bringing the final result forward, yet when you combine them together, somehow they make something recognizable, in some sort, or pleasing to the eye, or makes you think.

This isn't art at all. This, in my opinion, is wrong. Art is about emotion, talent and damn good pictures/ sculptures, or whatever. This is just... so... wrong. I find this sick, and I'm a guy.
:(

i should imagine there was a fair bit of emotion experienced by the artist as she shat out a load of stem cells and sticky blood. i'm not going to comment on the talent cuz i haven't seen the thing. why does art have to be just pictures and carvings? what does having a penis have to do with this?

i should imagine there was a fair bit of emotion experienced by the artist as she shat out a load of stem cells and sticky blood. i'm not going to comment on the talent cuz i haven't seen the thing. why does art have to be just pictures and carvings? what does having a penis have to do with this?

You have just made me think of my next great masterpiece:

I'm going to use my "special material", and smear it across the walls, ceilings, door handles, and floor.

I will call it "The Happy Clown". I will leave it up to the public to decide what it means.

LOL.

As an aside, I am constantly thinking of how something came to be. Part of being an Archaeology major(Yes, I know I use the more archaic version of the word. I don't care. :P ).


...

what do you young whipersnappers call it these days then?

*is an archaeologist*

Especially if she just did it for attention.

This isn't art at all. This, in my opinion, is wrong. Art is about emotion, talent and damn good pictures/ sculptures, or whatever. This is just... so... wrong. I find this sick, and I'm a guy.
:(

ah still living in a world where art has to fit some kind of ideal are we?

SNIP

well I needed that like I need a lobotomy

You have just made me think of my next great masterpiece:

I'm going to use my "special material", and smear it across the walls, ceilings, door handles, and floor.

I will call it "The Happy Clown". I will leave it up to the public to decide what it means.

i don't think you can call it art if there's no original intention of meaning behind it. at least this girl had a subject.

...

what do you young whipersnappers call it these days then?

*is an archaeologist*

Apparently the "new" and "proper" way of spelling it is "Archeology"

That just seems awkward to me.

And where do you study? Eh? What is your "forte' " so to speak?

i don't think you can call it art if there's no original intention of meaning behind it. at least this girl had a subject.

I know, I know. I was joking. Or was I... *shifty eyes*

I actually consider *how* the piece was created. Each brush stroke, each chisel, each weld, or each what have you. I find the process far more interesting than the result. Each individual action is meaningless and does nothing for bringing the final result forward, yet when you combine them together, somehow they make something recognizable, in some sort, or pleasing to the eye, or makes you think.

sounds like you would ejaculate wildly to the Gothic style architecture where every mason adds his own unique style (which leads to a huge mesh of ideas making one larger piece of art)

help me I've been bitten by an art student :(

What the fuck indeed!

Well if she wanted to shock,she achieved it. If she wanted fame, she got that too. If she wants recognition as an artist, well then I think she took a step in the wrong direction...

imagine how proud her parents are to being paying for her yale education.

Apparently some people tried to feed it, and he refused to let them do it. Which kind of contradicts the whole point he was trying to make.

If it were me, I'd beat the shit out of him. Screw my passive agressive nature, and my relative pacifism. Somethings are just bad enough to push aside my personal beliefs.

I totally agree.

imagine how proud her parents are to being paying for her yale education.

Yeah, exactly.
ah still living in a world where art has to fit some kind of ideal are we?



well I needed that like I need a lobotomy

Maybe not exacly to an ideal, but this "shock art" is just sick.
It's not art at all. It's murder. WTF indeed.
:(

sounds like you would ejaculate wildly to the Gothic style architecture where every mason adds his own unique style (which leads to a huge mesh of ideas making one larger piece of art)

help me I've been bitten by an art student :(

I actually quite enjoy Gothic architecture... good call. Didn't realize everyone mason did his own unique approach, though. That makes it all the more interesting.

It's actually the same when I think of any monument or piece of architecture. From nothing something gradually arises, and without all of the stones, the structure would fall, but yet each individual strone adds nothing to the overall structure when viewed alone.

Which is why I'd rather not think about this particular piece. Due to my nature to try to understand how a piece is made, I inevitably come to think of how this piece was made. Now, I don't have a weak stomach, per se', but I definitely don't want those images in my mind. It's kind of hard for me to block things out of my mind.

Haha, Yale.

Losers.

Apparently the "new" and "proper" way of spelling it is "Archeology"

That just seems awkward to me.

And where do you study? Eh? What is your "forte' " so to speak?

ah, you're american, no?

i graduated last year for edinburgh university so i no longer formally study. but my main area of interest is in mesopotamia c.5000-3000 BCE, basically when there's the first states and proto-states doing their thing. i'm also interested in the wester european iron age but it's so fantastically complicated with migrations and definitions and ethnicities and cultures i often find myself lost. fortunately near eastern archaeology doesn't really go in for ethnology so much, or at least not what i studied. i would so love to be based somewhere like cyprus or jordan or turkey, i hate digging in mud. or rather i love it less than digging in dust. i much prefer it to diggin in paper and computers.

Anyone read the book "Skulduggery Pleasant Playing with Fire"?
Remamber the killer who tried to make murder into an art form? I think we've just found his female counterpart.

Anyone read the book "Skulduggery Pleasant Playing with Fire"?
Remamber the killer who tried to make murder into an art form? I think we've just found his female counterpart.

Are you calling this artist a murderer?

ah, you're american, no?


Yup.


i graduated last year for edinburgh university so i no longer formally study. but my main area of interest is in mesopotamia c.5000-3000 BCE, basically when there's the first states and proto-states doing their thing.

Fascinating area, really. I don't know *much* about the area, but what I do know intrigues me(I kind of missed this class... alot. Due to personal reasons, so my Professor understood, and it wasn't *so* bad, but eh).



i'm also interested in the wester european iron age but it's so fantastically complicated with migrations and definitions and ethnicities and cultures i often find myself lost. fortunately near eastern archaeology doesn't really go in for ethnology so much, or at least not what i studied. i would so love to be based somewhere like cyprus or jordan or turkey, i hate digging in mud. or rather i love it less than digging in dust. i much prefer it to diggin in paper and computers.

Ah, another interesting(But so incredibly complicated, I don't even want to consider it) area. Me, I'm thinking Mesoamerica and/or Paleolithics. I still have a year left of undergrad school, so eh. In actuality, I'm going on a dig this summer. Can't bloody wait.

help me I've been bitten by an art student :(

was she hot?

Wow. I've never been a big fan of modern art but this is just messed up.

Yeah, exactly.


Maybe not exacly to an ideal, but this "shock art" is just sick.
It's not art at all. It's murder. WTF indeed.
:(

bollocks it's murder. if that's so then biting your fingernails is suicide. or scratching a friend in a tussle is murder. or fucking shedding skin cells through the day is aggravated assault. fuck off.

yeah, almost everything after 1900 has been total crap.Care to think that though? I think there have been a plethora of great artists in the last century. The first that come to mind are Pablo Picasso, Frieda Kahlo, Salvador Dali, Edward Hopper, Joan Miro, Escher, Henry Moore and Barbara Hepworth.

Two more recent artists that I think are interesting are Anthony Gormley and David Hockney. Then of course there are now many more forms of art other than just fine art eg. film and photography.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

Bloody fuck. That's all I have to say.

And just think, she's probably looking for the NEA to fund more of that crap.


And they probably will.

Yup.


Fascinating area, really. I don't know *much* about the area, but what I do know intrigues me(I kind of missed this class... alot. Due to personal reasons, so my Professor understood, and it wasn't *so* bad, but eh).




Ah, another interesting(But so incredibly complicated, I don't even want to consider it) area. Me, I'm thinking Mesoamerica and/or Paleolithics. I still have a year left of undergrad school, so eh. In actuality, I'm going on a dig this summer. Can't bloody wait.

if you want a job in archaeology capitalise on every opportunity to dig you get. like seriously, no better advice i can give. every dig you can do that comes up, do it. most archaeology companies/intitutes/whathaveyou won't employ you without a good few months digging under your belt, and teaching will require a fair bit of field experience also. usually you have to go through the field circuit before anyone will seriously consider you for lecturing/etc.

It's not art at all.

modern art (at least) represents life and how an artist sees this world because we all have our own unique picture with none being more important than any other (or something for instance try could you guess why this guy loved skyscrapers? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg))

if she wants to show something or (as pop art/childhood proved) just show something because it can, then how is that not art in itself? :p

I definitely don't want those images in my mind. It's kind of hard for me to block things out of my mind.

how like life *smokes cigarette on one of those snazzy straw things*

I'm not entirely repulsed by this, though I'm not going to fly over to Yale just to see it. If indeed this is a deliberate exposition and snub of the whole notion of Abortion on Demand then it's a thought-provoking and prophetic outcry, whether or not you wish to call it art.

if you want a job in archaeology capitalise on every opportunity to dig you get. like seriously, no better advice i can give. every dig you can do that comes up, do it. most archaeology companies/intitutes/whathaveyou won't employ you without a good few months digging under your belt, and teaching will require a fair bit of field experience also. usually you have to go through the field circuit before anyone will seriously consider you for lecturing/etc.

Yup, the one this summer is for only a month, though. Still, experience, eh? I honestly cannot wait.

Planning on presenting at next years academic conference, as well(Just need a topic...).

Shocking... but after reading earlier about the art piece, Mother and Child Divided, I can't say I'm surprised art has gone this far. Would be interesting to know what her thought process through all of this was...

In case anyone doesn't know what Mother and Child Divided is...

http://www.af-moma.no/images/D_hirst_mother_and_child_divided(0).jpg

Basically a cow and a calf, sliced in two, and put against panes of glass filled with formaldahyde.

I am generally for a woman's right to choose whether or not to abort.(some exceptions maybe, but believe it or not this thread isn't about abortion so I won't go any further into this). However, I find this ridiculous.

"But Shvarts said the goal of the project is to encourage debate and discussion about the connection between art and the human body.
Ookay...?
"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse," Shvarts, whose age was withheld, told Yale's newspaper. "Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone."
Discourse about what? What the heck message is she going for here, because I don't see one. I don't even think she knows, saying 'some sort' of discourse.

It's her body to choose to subject to this. She doesn't seem to have harmed herself, so no harm done.

Yup, the one this summer is for only a month, though. Still, experience, eh? I honestly cannot wait.

Planning on presenting at next years academic conference, as well(Just need a topic...).

good good, by the end of that you'll have as much field experience as i have. i couldn't afford to do much beyond the minimum field experience required to complete my degree. and also archaeology is one of those fields where it really i who yo know rather than what you know that counts, as long as you impres them.

Discourse about what? What the heck message is she going for here, because I don't see one. I don't even think she knows, saying 'some sort' of discourse.

I think that we're looking at the "Wow, man. Deeep…" kind of discourse here.

Archeology banter

Q) What's an archaeologist?
A) Someone whose career is in ruins.

sounds hilarious. like a freakshow.

I'll bring the popcorn if you bring the beer.

I think that we're looking at the "Wow, man. Deeep…" kind of discourse here.

I would have to agree.

It seems an unfortunate trend these days that people confuse or automatically connect 'deep' and 'philosophical' with grim, dire, downright odd, or somehow twisted. It may just be me, but I haven't recently heard anything particularly profound and uplifting.

Q) What's an archaeologist?
A) Someone whose career is in ruins.


someone that digs in the ground hoping to find old tuff to identify and classify as belonging to a certain time period and so establish a timeline of occupation for a particular site. basically. there's more technical stuff besides relating to type of occupation and stuff but that is essentially it.

I would have to agree.

It seems an unfortunate trend these days that people confuse or automatically connect 'deep' and 'philosophical' with grim, dire, downright odd, or somehow twisted. It may just be me, but I haven't recently heard anything particularly profound and uplifting.

why doeS philosophical discourse have to be uplifting? as for profound, i don't know about this cuz i have barely thought about it beyond, "oh ok, look teh reactionaries are judging without seeing, how typical".

And just think, she's probably looking for the NEA to fund more of that crap.

And they probably will.

I'm not sure what the requirements are for NEA grants in art, would she even qualify?

As an aside - is there actually a good reason why the NEA shouldn't fund art you don't like?

I would have to agree.

It seems an unfortunate trend these days that people confuse or automatically connect 'deep' and 'philosophical' with grim, dire, downright odd, or somehow twisted. It may just be me, but I haven't recently heard anything particularly profound and uplifting.

Well, I don't really mind grim or twisted art, so long as it carries meaning. Or intentionally carries no meaning. It's the "intentional" part that seems to get people.

good good, by the end of that you'll have as much field experience as i have. i couldn't afford to do much beyond the minimum field experience required to complete my degree. and also archaeology is one of those fields where it really i who yo know rather than what you know that counts, as long as you impres them.

Yeah, I honestly can't wait. They said it was going to be boring, I asked what it was like... and it sounds amazing to me. I don't know, I have a penchant for the tedious. :/

Funny story though, I actually wasn't *supposed* to go on the dig. I just declared my major last year(Was teetering between Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology), and the dig was already all full up with a few spots over. Then, I was talking to my advisor(Who told me it was full up in the first place), and he said "Sure, come on down and I'll put you on the list! I'll just give you an override."

Well, about a month ago I was talking to him about classes I should take, and I brought up the dig. Turns out he *forgot* I was going on the dig, said I wasn't on the list(Which was right above his computer, with my as #13), but noticed that a *cultural* anthropology student had signed up for it by accident, instead of the Cultural Anthropology field school(Which are filming us during the dig, apparently), and put me on the list. Heh.

Yeah, I honestly can't wait. They said it was going to be boring, I asked what it was like... and it sounds amazing to me. I don't know, I have a penchant for the tedious. :/

field archaeology is not boring. it can be frustrating and initially unrewarding but not boring. although i guess that depends on your approach to physical work.

I support this as it will obviously outrage conservatives, and that makes it worth it.

Meh, it's not art any more than a latrine ditch is architecture. Sure, both involve moving dirt and building stuff, but one's crap.
and to some, a latrine ditch is architecture... and whats in the ditch can be art to some.

"Art" is relative. :cool:

Q) What's an archaeologist?
A) Someone whose career is in ruins.

A2) Someone with a Mummy Complex

why doeS philosophical discourse have to be uplifting?
It doesn't. My point was that dark does not automatically equal 'deep'. However, since death is such a 'loaded' or 'weighty' topic, some people automatically assume that talking about it or attempting to represent it in a 'new' fashion is somehow automatically intelligent and profound.
Automatically foo.
as for profound, i don't know about this cuz i have barely thought about it beyond, "oh ok, look teh reactionaries are judging without seeing, how typical".
That might be what reactionaries do, but it is hard to tell if they haven't seen it, whatever 'it' is. Though I am not sure if you are referring to reactionaries in general, or reactionaries in this particular abortion art case. However, I do not think seeing necessarily needs to be a prerequisite to judging.

I support this as it will obviously outrage conservatives, and that makes it worth it.

Pissing people off...terrible reason to support something.

Unless you're a troll. Then it's a good thing.




But only if you're a troll.

why doeS philosophical discourse have to be uplifting? as for profound, i don't know about this cuz i have barely thought about it beyond, "oh ok, look teh reactionaries are judging without seeing, how typical".

No one said it had to be uplifting, just that there is both a lack of uplifting philosophical ideas lately and also that many people are overly dark and somber to try to be philosophical and that it comes off as just being twisted rather than poignant.

And it's not just the conservatives that are upset:
The abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America also condemned the exhibit.

Man, what is with the sick artists these days. Let's take Guillermo Vargas:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tzFBD-LgKV0&feature=related

Not exactly what I would call art.

*Bit better video

This guy should be leashed while food surrounds him, and everyone can watch him starve to death.

It would be art in the form of justice.

This guy is sick, and has no place in the crowd of humanity.

As an aside - is there actually a good reason why the NEA shouldn't fund art you don't like?

I imagine the point was that this, really, is debatebly even art in the first place. What gallery can I go to, and view her piece of art? Oh, it's not a piece, but rather an idea? Thats not art. I can conceptualize a story, but without writing it, it's neither screenplay nor novel, but so many words floating inside my head, and her 'work' is really just ideas.

Disgusting, and stupid, but not art.

I support this as it will obviously outrage conservatives, and that makes it worth it.

You applaud this only because it will outrage people? Mayhaps you have a psychological problem.

Its strange to think that nobody said or did anything about it...

Not in the slightest...Kitty Genovese, anybody?

We, as a species, are a bunch of sick fucks, and we've got to get over being scared of being called out, or of someone trying to stop us. If someone had the balls, the right thing to do would be to punch out the Vargas, take the dog to a vet, and waterboard Vargas in a back alley, while pumping him full of LSD.

Make all the shock art you want. Just don't force me to pay for it through taxes and don't tell me it's relevant. It's just the manifestation of you own emptiness, IMHO.

Make all the shock art you want. Just don't force me to pay for it through taxes and don't tell me it's relevant. It's just the manifestation of you own emptiness, IMHO.

Agreed.

Make all the shock art you want. Just don't force me to pay for it through taxes and don't tell me it's relevant. It's just the manifestation of you own emptiness, IMHO.

I think this is a good response to GnI's implied point about who decides what is art and what is not: I'll call it art, but I'll also call it crap. To that end, feel free to fuck your body up if you want, but I don't want to fund it with my taxes. So what GnI said is exactly right: I do not want the government to fund art that I do not like, which is a perfectly reasonable request, as it's my tax money and I may vote on how it is used.

And still no response to my over the top post :(

And still no response to my over the top post :(

Not in the slightest...Kitty Genovese, anybody?
No thanks. Really. I don't want to get involved.
We, as a species, are a bunch of sick fucks, and we've got to get over being scared of being called out, or of someone trying to stop us. If someone had the balls, the right thing to do would be to punch out the Vargas, take the dog to a vet, and waterboard Vargas in a back alley, while pumping him full of LSD.
A bit extreme. Nah.. sounds like a good time.

And SHE got into Yale??!

Ah fuck it. I was too good for them after all

:D:D:D

Are you calling this artist a murderer?
Yes.
bollocks it's murder. if that's so then biting your fingernails is suicide. or scratching a friend in a tussle is murder. or fucking shedding skin cells through the day is aggravated assault. fuck off.
Se quite frankly interrupted a biological functioning organism, which without any external influence would have grown to a human.
I don't know how it comes that so many people limit themself to such a very strictly material view point. If it were for that. I could shoot you and claiming I didn't do anything but tore a little grown tissue... ridiculously small bits of tissue compared to your body size. You'd still be dead.
What makes you big lump of cells so much more worthy to life than that little lump of cells, which will life on if you don't kill it, life on only to awake as human!

It's art (art2 [aːt] noun any of various creative forms of expression)

We're discussing it hence it even has value as art.

Man, what is with the sick artists these days. Let's take Guillermo Vargas:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tzFBD-LgKV0&feature=related

Not exactly what I would call art.

*Bit better video

That's not art, that's sadistic! The guy should have the crap beaten out of him.

that anyone would even mention fox news in the context of an otherwise intelligent discussion is, in and of itself, a major "wtf" to me!

i mean i like little kitsune's, but its one of this worlds major misfortunes that the guy that started that outfit had to be named after them.

=^^=
.../\...

Oh, it's not a piece, but rather an idea? Thats not art.

Really?

Why?

I see no reason to disqualify it as "art" on that ground.

This guy should be leashed while food surrounds him, and everyone can watch him starve to death.

It would be art in the form of justice.

This guy is sick, and has no place in the crowd of humanity.
Ok, now that's going to an extreme. Yes he should be punished, but that's cruel and unusual punishment.

I imagine the point was that this, really, is debatebly even art in the first place. What gallery can I go to, and view her piece of art? Oh, it's not a piece, but rather an idea? Thats not art. I can conceptualize a story, but without writing it, it's neither screenplay nor novel, but so many words floating inside my head, and her 'work' is really just ideas.

Disgusting, and stupid, but not art.
Ideas? Yes. Very disturbing ideas? Even more correct.

Pissing people off...terrible reason to support something.


I think 'outrage' was the actual suggestion, rather than 'pissing people off'. Small difference, maybe, or maybe not. Outarage could be a perfectly good justification for art - the whole point of art (for a lot of artists) is to create something that challenges, or shapes, the way people think.

Of course - in this case - I happen to think the 'artist' is a Pro-Life advocate who is trying to be as shocking as she can with work that is probably not even 'real', to raise tensions against the pro-choice platform.

I imagine the point was that this, really, is debatebly even art in the first place. What gallery can I go to, and view her piece of art? Oh, it's not a piece, but rather an idea? Thats not art. I can conceptualize a story, but without writing it, it's neither screenplay nor novel, but so many words floating inside my head, and her 'work' is really just ideas.

Disgusting, and stupid, but not art.

So - it's only 'art' if it's in a gallery? I couldn't diagree more. If you create art on a pavement, it's still art... you can call it 'pavement art'. If you create art in a room, that room becomes an installation of art - it doesn't have to be in a gallery.

I must be misunderstanding you. If you mean what it looks like you mean, then the Sistine Chapel isn't 'art'...

As far as I can tell, the only absolute rule for what constitutes 'art' is - does the artist say it's art. Of course, that doesn't make it good or bad art, but it does set it out as an artistic work.

Disgusting and art, but not stupid.

I think this is a good response to GnI's implied point about who decides what is art and what is not: I'll call it art, but I'll also call it crap. To that end, feel free to fuck your body up if you want, but I don't want to fund it with my taxes. So what GnI said is exactly right: I do not want the government to fund art that I do not like, which is a perfectly reasonable request, as it's my tax money and I may vote on how it is used.

You get to vote for the government. That's as much say as you have... and SHOULD have... on taxes.

Sure, taxation should answer to the needs of the many, and all that - but you can't start discriminating against people that need assistance (for example), just because a few people would rather not help 'darkies' - or whatever.

Ultimately - while YOU can be a consumer of art, is there really a reason why YOU should be the arbiter?

I'm not sure what the requirements are for NEA grants in art, would she even qualify?

As an aside - is there actually a good reason why the NEA shouldn't fund art you don't like?

I don't know what sorts of requirements the NEA puts on anything. But I do know that the government shouldn't be in the business of propping up any particular business -- from farm subsidies to art subsidies, it should all be eliminated.

...the government shouldn't be in the business of propping up any particular business -- from farm subsidies to art subsidies, it should all be eliminated.

You're wrong.

Government should be in the business of the greater good, not satisfying the greedy and the idle rich. So - whatever it takes to make sure a nation can feed itself, has to be good. The art? Debatable. I doubt you live an entirely utilitarian existence, however, so I don't think even you believe that 'art' has no value.

"The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body,"

Hahahah! How pretentious. :D

"The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body,"

Hahahah! How pretentious. :D

Pretentious? How so?

You get to vote for the government. That's as much say as you have... and SHOULD have... on taxes.

Sure, taxation should answer to the needs of the many, and all that - but you can't start discriminating against people that need assistance (for example), just because a few people would rather not help 'darkies' - or whatever.

Ultimately - while YOU can be a consumer of art, is there really a reason why YOU should be the arbiter?

Since when did I start talking about discrimination? We're talking about crappy art, not black people. Where the hell did that come from?

My point is not that I should be the arbiter, but we should be the arbiters because we are paying for the subsidies. To that end, I will choose not to support this art, and hope that others will agree with my decision.

Since when did I start talking about discrimination? We're talking about crappy art, not black people. Where the hell did that come from?


You said "I do not want the government to fund art that I do not like, which is a perfectly reasonable request, as it's my tax money and I may vote on how it is used."

The idea that you should get to choose where your tax dollars get spent is not only unhelpful and impractical, but also insulting, kinda dumb... and discriminatory.

If people choose who gets their tax dollars, the expenditure of tax incomes becomes intrinsically political and unfair. People are feeling anti-immigrant under Bush's undeclared fascism? Cool - just don't spend any tax dollars on immigrants. See?


My point is not that I should be the arbiter, but we should be the arbiters because we are paying for the subsidies. To that end, I will choose not to support this art, and hope that others will agree with my decision.

Nope. Let the greater good decide - not the pretensions of some self-appointed armchair critics.

You're wrong.

Government should be in the business of the greater good, not satisfying the greedy and the idle rich. So - whatever it takes to make sure a nation can feed itself, has to be good. The art? Debatable. I doubt you live an entirely utilitarian existence, however, so I don't think even you believe that 'art' has no value.
There is absolutely no requirement for government to be an art patron. It has nothing to do with whatever you consider greed, but everything to do with stewardship of our resources. Because some people like art and think that it's a "good" idea for government to patronize artists doesn't make it reasonable or even desirable for government to do just that. Government should stay out of areas where taste and decorum are in the vocabulary.

There is absolutely no requirement for government to be an art patron. It has nothing to do with whatever you consider greed, but everything to do with stewardship of our resources. Because some people like art and think that it's a "good" idea for government to patronize artists doesn't make it reasonable or even desirable for government to do just that. Government should stay out of areas where taste and decorum are in the vocabulary.Governments are meant to provide cultural outlets for their citizens, even if they're not supposed to choose what their citizens are supposed to like. Art is not something that can be trusted to the free market, ever. What sells being the deciding factor of what art is is just as bad as a bureaucrat doing it.

There is absolutely no requirement for government to be an art patron. It has nothing to do with whatever you consider greed, but everything to do with stewardship of our resources. Because some people like art and think that it's a "good" idea for government to patronize artists doesn't make it reasonable or even desirable for government to do just that. Government should stay out of areas where taste and decorum are in the vocabulary.

Absolutely. If you ask me, every person should receive a little funding from the government, so the artists can make their art without starving, the good ones earn a extra bug, the bad ones have to live from instant noodles, but at least add to culture.
Same with programmers or poets or any other profession.

Art has gotten really stupid lately.

I should make a sculpture of a toilet resting on a pedestal of asses and see if people consider that art too.

You get extra credit if they're genuine human asses. *nod*

Just for the record, I have very little respect for the vast majority of 'shock artists', I mean what should I be impressed about? It's way too easy to produce some incredibly offensive and explicit image and then try and whimsically link it to some vague, pseud concept.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351608,00.html

Bloody fuck. That's all I have to say.

What's considered art these days is precisely shit like this. Abortion art, friggin' stupid and tasteless. But it doesn't surprise me in the least. We're talking about an American college student. It's not like Americans are well known for their 'established magnificent' taste in all things art.:rolleyes:

I like the art project so far. I wonder if she deliberately timed the information releases to create the effect that she did.

I like the way she used information vectors as part of her installation. The internet, for example, can be thought of as information space, and she is able to manipulate this space with her 'art techniques' to create an intellectual and emotional reaction.

It's like an information version of a physical installation.

Oh, and for all those people who couldn't be bother to read carefully: She never actually got herself pregnant.

Governments are meant to provide cultural outlets for their citizens, even if they're not supposed to choose what their citizens are supposed to like. Art is not something that can be trusted to the free market, ever. What sells being the deciding factor of what art is is just as bad as a bureaucrat doing it.
Well, I buy into the idea that goverment is to protect man's inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". No where in that concept is there room for the provision of cultural outlets for the citizens. Citizens can and should provide that for themselves.

Well, I buy into the idea that goverment is to protect man's inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". No where in that concept is there room for the provision of cultural outlets for the citizens. Citizens can and should provide that for themselves.If you don't like culture, you can always move to a rock in the middle of the ocean, you know.

If you don't like culture, you can always move to a rock in the middle of the ocean, you know.
Clever. Get an answer you don't like and resort to calling me uncultured.

You're reading it the wrong way. I help support arts of my choice by paying for tickets to go to the city gallery (The High Museum) or by buying tickets to see the Atlanta Symphony. These are both sponsored by the city of Atlanta. But they are also member supported. I'd rather see a greater emphasis on "member" but, at least they're not totally supported by taxes.

If you can't persuade the population that art is worth paying for, using tax revenue is not the answer. It's not the government's business to decide what art is culture and what isn't. It's the public that makes the decision with their support.

Clever. Get an answer you don't like and resort to calling me uncultured.Not uncultured, just opposed to paying for maintaining culture.
You're reading it the wrong way. I help support arts of my choice by paying for tickets to go to the city gallery (The High Museum) or by buying tickets to see the Atlanta Symphony. These are both sponsored by the city of Atlanta. But they are also member supported. I'd rather see a greater emphasis on "member" but, at least they're not totally supported by taxes.Of course. Totally supported by taxes would be bad. But letting the market define what art is is unacceptable, and your position is in favor of letting the market decide. I'm merely pointing out that if you hate the idea of freedom of the arts so much, you can go somewhere where you won't be bothered by it.
If you can't persuade the population that art is worth paying for, using tax revenue is not the answer. It's not the government's business to decide what art is culture and what isn't. It's the public that makes the decision with their support.Yes, actually it is. Otherwise you end up with art being defined by those that can afford to pay for it. The government sponsoring art is not necessarily a decision as to what art is, as opposed to letting the market decide.

I love how people, in the midst of idiotic pretension, feel that they can declare something to be universally 'art' or 'not art', completely ignoring the extremely subjective nature of 'art'. It'd be nice if said people qualified their statements with 'it's not art to me', rather than assume everyone else should fall in line with their subjective view on the subject.

Ditto with 'music' thanks.

Not uncultured, just opposed to paying for maintaining culture.
Of course. Totally supported by taxes would be bad. But letting the market define what art is is unacceptable, and your position is in favor of letting the market decide. I'm merely pointing out that if you hate the idea of freedom of the arts so much, you can go somewhere where you won't be bothered by it.
Yes, actually it is. Otherwise you end up with art being defined by those that can afford to pay for it. The government sponsoring art is not necessarily a decision as to what art is, as opposed to letting the market decide.
You've got way too much confidence that a government can do a better job than the people that can afford to pay for art. My favorite way to give directions to a federal building in Atlanta is to describe how to to get to the general vicinity, then tell the recipient to look for the most butt-ugly piece of sculpture he can find. That's the federal building. I've never had anyone fail to find the federal building.

I think it works in most every city.

You've got way too much confidence that a government can do a better job than the people that can afford to pay for art.I'd rather have elected officials meant to represent the entire constituency deal out sponsorship evenly than have a small group of people decide whether there should be a theater, exhibition, or monument.
My favorite way to give directions to a federal building in Atlanta is to describe how to to get to the general vicinity, then tell the recipient to look for the most butt-ugly piece of sculpture he can find. That's the federal building. I've never had anyone fail to find the federal building.

I think it works in most every city.Untrue and irrelevant. The prettiest building in the town I live on the way between the university and the train station is the federal job agency. ;)
As to the relevance, picking who designs your buildings is a bit different from sponsoring local cultural entities that wouldn't survive otherwise.

I'd rather have elected officials meant to represent the entire constituency deal out sponsorship evenly than have a small group of people decide whether there should be a theater, exhibition, or monument.

See, this is just wrong and is really biased against people that have money to spend on culture for no good reason. Why are a bunch of appointed or elected officials, spending someone else's money, able to choose better than someone who is spending money that they earned? If anything, it's the other way around. Those spending their own money would have no other motive than to buy something that pleased them.

Those spending tax revenue would be compromised by the idea that they would need to follow a certain process to determine what art/artist to patronize. Maybe equal opportunity is a more stringent requirement than the quality of the art. There are no limits to the constraints that government can put on itself.

snip

You need to appreciate though, at least half of the art galleries in my country would never be able to stay open if the government didn't subsidise them.

You need to appreciate though, at least half of the art galleries in my country would never be able to stay open if the government didn't subsidise them.
If we're going to be realistic, there are a lot of things I know I can't change. This is one of them.

Though, there is a clear line between galleries that are museums and the purchase of new art to decorate or entertain. I don't mind government stepping in to preserve and display historical artifacts -- I don't know how it would get done, otherwise.

I love how people, in the midst of idiotic pretension, feel that they can declare something to be universally 'art' or 'not art', completely ignoring the extremely subjective nature of 'art'. It'd be nice if said people qualified their statements with 'it's not art to me', rather than assume everyone else should fall in line with their subjective view on the subject.

Anything affected by Bill C-10 is hereby declared "not art". ;)

You said "I do not want the government to fund art that I do not like, which is a perfectly reasonable request, as it's my tax money and I may vote on how it is used."

The idea that you should get to choose where your tax dollars get spent is not only unhelpful and impractical, but also insulting, kinda dumb... and discriminatory.

Actually that's kind of the point of democracy. Way to be a fascist.

If people choose who gets their tax dollars, the expenditure of tax incomes becomes intrinsically political and unfair.

Then who does get to decide where the tax dollars go? Certainly not you.

People are feeling anti-immigrant under Bush's undeclared fascism? Cool - just don't spend any tax dollars on immigrants. See?

No, not really, no. Because not spending money on immigrants doesn't really do anything...

Nope. Let the greater good decide - not the pretensions of some self-appointed armchair critics.

Yeah...that's kind of my point...Way to miss it.

Actually that's kind of the point of democracy. Way to be a fascist.
I thought the point of democracy was to elect a government based on the will of the people, not to allocate tax revenue according to the will of the people.



Then who does get to decide where the tax dollars go? Certainly not you.
That would be some kind of finance department or ministry of the government.

I thought the point of democracy was to elect a government based on the will of the people, not to allocate tax revenue according to the will of the people.
To elect a government which does things to your liking. That DOES include how to spend tax money...
The problem with governments is that they are lying about what they will do once voted before the elections.

I thought the point of democracy was to elect a government based on the will of the people, not to allocate tax revenue according to the will of the people.

The will of the people is accomplished in part by the government's budget. If the will of the people is that so-and-so artist is crap, then I would imagine it would be the responsibility of the government representing those people to choose not to subsidize said artist in favor of subsidizing what's-his-name artist that the people appreciate.

That would be some kind of finance department or ministry of the government.

Which is run by individuals elected or selected by people who have been elected by...........the people. Who (hopefully) elect people that they believe will do what they want with the government's budget.


Hopefully.







And hopefully the people they elect actually do it.

To elect a government which does things to your liking. That DOES include how to spend tax money...

But that's not really deciding how your tax euro/dollars/whatever are spent.

But that's not really deciding how your tax euro/dollars/whatever are spent.

Not mine specifically, no. But that's not really the point. Tax money is owned by the government which is theoretically owned by the people, so technically all tax money is under ownership of everyone in a given (democratic) country.

The lastest:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351730,00.html

Yes, actually it is. Otherwise you end up with art being defined by those that can afford to pay for it. The government sponsoring art is not necessarily a decision as to what art is, as opposed to letting the market decide.

It is also interesting to note that much of the "great art" we know and love today was helped by the patronage of government (in myriad forms).

You need to appreciate though, at least half of the art galleries in my country would never be able to stay open if the government didn't subsidise them.

*spots Hydesland location*

One of the things I liked about Liverpool were the galleries and such.

I recently (actually I think it was a year ago) went to see a Josh Kirby (RIP) installation. Which was nice.

Also, since we are currently engaging in impotent posturing and hollow rhetoric.

I'd rather have the government make art than make laws ;)

The lastest:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351730,00.html

Obviously this thread has become redundant without pictures...

I should make a sculpture of a toilet resting on a pedestal of asses and see if people consider that art too.

Why shouldn't people consider that art?

Obviously this thread has become redundant without pictures...

Using my awesome powers as a god (of spam) I have indeed procured a pic (http://www.yaledailynews.com/photos/view/11387).






Also there was a link near the bottom of the second article.

Pic (http://www.yaledailynews.com/photos/view/11387)

Obviously I should retract my earlier statement.

(Since I rather not get involved in an arguement about the likelyness of the blood bags being fake)

Doesn't look like much though does it?

EDIT

Also there was a link near the bottom of the second article.

Yeah, didn't get that far.

The first article was so interminable I just half skimmed the second

There is absolutely no requirement for government to be an art patron. It has nothing to do with whatever you consider greed, but everything to do with stewardship of our resources. Because some people like art and think that it's a "good" idea for government to patronize artists doesn't make it reasonable or even desirable for government to do just that. Government should stay out of areas where taste and decorum are in the vocabulary.

I didn't say it was required, I said they should.

If you have a society that doesn't need government, and which can firmly and fairly regulate itself without government, and where the greater good is prime, and some effort is taken to educate and enrich... well, then you don't need government to be involved in such things as... incentivising farming, or encouraging creation and patronage of the arts.

We don't live in that society.

So - basically - I could disagree with you more.. I'm just not sure how.

Obviously I should retract my earlier statement.

(Since I rather not get involved in an arguement about the likelyness of the blood bags being fake)

I think that would be an irrelevant argument anyways.

I think that would be an irrelevant argument anyways.

Most likely yes

(Isn't it nice when we agree)

Well, I buy into the idea that goverment is to protect man's inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". No where in that concept is there room for the provision of cultural outlets for the citizens. Citizens can and should provide that for themselves.

There are no 'inalienable rights'.

If there is a need for government, it is simply that people without government are animals.

Yeah, didn't get that far.

The first article was so interminable I just half skimmed the second

Understandable. I haven't actually read all the way through either one, as they are long and I have a short attention spam...er...span.

You've got way too much confidence that a government can do a better job than the people that can afford to pay for art.

Of course it can - if for no other reason than that it can be without vested interest. Or... because it can be more democratic. Or.. because it doesn't have to have preferences, prejudices and an agenda....

Most likely yes

(Isn't it nice when we agree)

We two specifically or NSG?



Either way.

We two specifically or NSG?



Either way.

Both I suppose

Actually that's kind of the point of democracy. Way to be a fascist.


The point of democracy is not to allow prejudices. Nor to allow the majority to overwhelm the minority, nor the other way around.

The point of democracy is to allow each person to (theoretically) have their voice heard.


Then who does get to decide where the tax dollars go? Certainly not you.


Democracy, remember? But - why shouldn't a government agency dedicated to the preservation of culture, decide where 'culture' earmarked dollars go?


No, not really, no. Because not spending money on immigrants doesn't really do anything...


Oh really?


Yeah...that's kind of my point...Way to miss it.

...

The point of democracy is not to allow prejudices. Nor to allow the majority to overwhelm the minority, nor the other way around.

The point of democracy is to allow each person to (theoretically) have their voice heard.

It accomplishes nothing if the voice is heard and then subsequently discarded. A voice heard does nothing. A voice acted upon actually accomplishes something.

Democracy, remember? But - why shouldn't a government agency dedicated to the preservation of culture, decide where 'culture' earmarked dollars go?

...Yes...that's what I said. Democracies are governed by individuals elected by the people. So when the people have a common ideal of what "art" is they will generally elect someone who agrees with that ideal (assuming they care enough about that particular point of a party's platform). Thus I, through my active participation in the functioning of the government, influence its decision to either subsidize or not subsidize a given artist. Way to not know how a democracy works.

Oh really?

http://xcj9352.k12.sd.us/ya%20rly.jpg

...

Way to contribute nothing useful.

Of course it can - if for no other reason than that it can be without vested interest. Or... because it can be more democratic. Or.. because it doesn't have to have preferences, prejudices and an agenda....
Nonsense. As I went on to say, the individual has nothing but his own satisfaction at stake. Are you seriously suggesting that governments don't have agendae? Tell that to the Democrats. Then tell it to the Republicans. Be ready to be laughed at. A government has every agenda from equal opportunity to occupational health and safety... Can you imagine a government not selecting a piece of stained glass because it used leaded solder? I can.

It accomplishes nothing if the voice is heard and then subsequently discarded. A voice heard does nothing. A voice acted upon actually accomplishes something.

A ridiculous argument. A democracy is forced to listen to only a section of its populace at any one time, and to act upon their desires. Because the whole populace is never in agreement, logically under your system, anyone who disagrees with whichever course of action the government takes is not being heard. This is clearly an absolute absurdity. It is entirely consistent with a democratic government's position to listen to an opinion and then discard or act against it, even if that opinion is a majority opinion. Because EVERY government ought to act in the best interests of those it governs, and people don't necessarily know what's best for them...

A ridiculous argument. A democracy is forced to listen to only a section of its populace at any one time, and to act upon their desires. Because the whole populace is never in agreement, logically under your system, anyone who disagrees with whichever course of action the government takes is not being heard. This is clearly an absolute absurdity. It is entirely consistent with a democratic government's position to listen to an opinion and then discard or act against it, even if that opinion is a majority opinion. Because EVERY government ought to act in the best interests of those it governs, and people don't necessarily know what's best for them...

You're completely misunderstanding what I mean by "acted upon". I was disagreeing with GnI who seemed to be making the point that I'm allowed to have my voice heard, but I'm also not allowed to actually affect what the government does. Everyone should have influence, but that does not mean each individual person has complete control. I'm advocating the right of an individual to contribute to gov't proceedings, that's all.

Incidentally, reductio ad absurdum rarely works.







Also, I win the argument because I used Latin and made it all italics-y.

Take that.

Also, I win the argument because I used Latin and made it all italics-y.

Take that.

Tu est furcifer, amicus

You're completely misunderstanding what I mean by "acted upon". I was disagreeing with GnI who seemed to be making the point that I'm allowed to have my voice heard, but I'm also not allowed to actually affect what the government does. Everyone should have influence, but that does not mean each individual person has complete control. I'm advocating the right of an individual to contribute to gov't proceedings, that's all.

Incidentally, reductio ad absurdum rarely works.

Also, I win the argument because I used Latin and made it all italics-y.

Take that.

Mate, I study philosophy, I know how reductio ad absurdum works. That is not it. If you want to get semantic about it, we can draw out a logical schema, but I really CBA.

"The point of democracy is to allow each person to (theoretically) have their voice heard."

"It accomplishes nothing if the voice is heard and then subsequently discarded. A voice heard does nothing. A voice acted upon actually accomplishes something."

The point of democracy is that anyone theoretically can have a say. Your counter is just as I stated, that a "voice heard" and "discarded" accomplishes nothing. Firstly, not all opinions are worth consideration, even in a democracy, and a government is under no obligation to consider an opinion which is clearly against the best interests of the people. Secondly, as I said, due to conflicting opinions, not every voice can be acted upon. If by acted upon, you mean considered, then you are misusing English. If by heard, you mean considered, then you are misusing English. To be sensible, and perhaps Utilitarian about it, the government should listen to any relevant and worthwhile opinions, and then choose the course of action which will bring about the greatest possible good for its people.

"I'm advocating the right of an individual to contribute to gov't proceedings, that's all."

This might be what you meant, but it is not what the above formulation amounts to. Furthermore, I don't know where you live, but it's pretty much irrelevant - the vast majority of democracies in the world, and so probably the one you live under, are representative, and hence your vote is your say. Barring a referendum, that's all the guaranteed power you really get in affecting the government. There's your contribution to government proceedings. You elect an official/party who is supposed to act in your best interests. Your say becomes pretty much irrelevant, after that, certainly in practice.

<Blah semantics yes yes that's what I meant blah>

This might be what you meant, but it is not what the above formulation amounts to. Furthermore, I don't know where you live, but it's pretty much irrelevant - the vast majority of democracies in the world, and so probably the one you live under, are representative, and hence your vote is your say. Barring a referendum, that's all the guaranteed power you really get in affecting the government. There's your contribution to government proceedings. You elect an official/party who is supposed to act in your best interests. Your say becomes pretty much irrelevant, after that, certainly in practice.

Yes. Very yes. This is my point. The point that I have been trying to make repeatedly. The point that I have made repeatedly. The thing that I agree with entirely. The thing that I meant to say. The message that I was attempting to get across several times. What I was supposed to be saying but apparently wasn't. The point that has been made by other people presumably disagreeing with me but in fact are making the point that I want to make.

It accomplishes nothing if the voice is heard and then subsequently discarded. A voice heard does nothing. A voice acted upon actually accomplishes something.


And? What do you think that has to do with anything?

American 'democracy' is fairly typical of real-world democracy. That means that it basically exists as two (or more) parties effectively each blocking the excesses of one another.


...Yes...that's what I said. Democracies are governed by individuals elected by the people. So when the people have a common ideal of what "art" is they will generally elect someone who agrees with that ideal (assuming they care enough about that particular point of a party's platform). Thus I, through my active participation in the functioning of the government, influence its decision to either subsidize or not subsidize a given artist. Way to not know how a democracy works.


That's not how it 'works'. That's like a second-grade primer of 'democracy'.

And, irrelevent anyway, unless you've ever literally voted for a candidate based on their aesthetic principles.


Way to contribute nothing useful.

That's funny - considering it was a response to your incredibly useful "Yeah...that's kind of my point...Way to miss it."

Nonsense. As I went on to say, the individual has nothing but his own satisfaction at stake. Are you seriously suggesting that governments don't have agendae? Tell that to the Democrats. Then tell it to the Republicans. Be ready to be laughed at. A government has every agenda from equal opportunity to occupational health and safety... Can you imagine a government not selecting a piece of stained glass because it used leaded solder? I can.


No.

I can imagine them not putting a leaded window in a school, but I'm not instantly convinced that a government agency established to promote 'art' would oppose the idea of leaded-glass art completely.

Do I think parties have agendas? Obviously. That doesn't mean a culture-tsar agency would automatically have agendas. Especially if it was non-partisan.

You're completely misunderstanding what I mean by "acted upon". I was disagreeing with GnI who seemed to be making the point that I'm allowed to have my voice heard, but I'm also not allowed to actually affect what the government does. Everyone should have influence,


Nope. Everyone has influence. One person has none. That's how democarcy works.


...but that does not mean each individual person has complete control. I'm advocating the right of an individual to contribute to gov't proceedings, that's all.


You do contribute. You pay taxes, and you help elect the people making the decisions.


Incidentally, reductio ad absurdum rarely works.


It wasn't really an 'ad absurdum' argument. To point out that one voice against the mass is effectively ignored isn't fallacious.

And? What do you think that has to do with anything?

The relevance is that if I don't like an artist I can do something about it.

American 'democracy' is fairly typical of real-world democracy. That means that it basically exists as two (or more) parties effectively each blocking the excesses of one another.

Which has what to do with crazy artists?

That's not how it 'works'. That's like a second-grade primer of 'democracy'.

I love oversimplifying things. It's something of a hobby.

And, irrelevent anyway, unless you've ever literally voted for a candidate based on their aesthetic principles.

Why not? Especially considering that half the people on NSG haven't ever voted on anything anyways so there's no reason why we can't speak in hypotheticals.

That's funny - considering it was a response to your incredibly useful "Yeah...that's kind of my point...Way to miss it."

Eh, I thought it contributed something...it contributed both that what you posted was something that I agreed with and also that you apparently missed the fact that I agree with it.

Nope. Everyone has influence. One person has none. That's how democarcy works.

Wait, what? Democracies are made of many one persons. Thus, one person does have a very small amount of influence, and many one persons have a larger amount of influence. How the hell can no one and everyone have influence at the same time?

You do contribute. You pay taxes, and you help elect the people making the decisions.

Yes.


That's my point.


That I've been making.


Repeatedly.




That's what I have said.




What I am saying.









I agree entirely.












Stop trying to argue it like I disagree.















I don't disagree.



It wasn't really an 'ad absurdum' argument. To point out that one voice against the mass is effectively ignored isn't fallacious.

That's not what I was arguing, though. Effectively ignored and actively ignored are two different things. Besides, I used Latin...that means I win.

But I just lost the game.