Helmut Newton Has Died

Kibo informs me that "Francis A. Miniter"
stated that:

[snip]
It is after all
the role of an artist to compel the audience to respond. It seems that
Helmut Newton succeeded in getting you to respond. Is it the series of
sexual-political nudes to which you object? If so, is it the political
message or the sexual message that bothers you? And what do you
understand those messages to be?


By the way, what is an NEA type? Is there something wrong with it? Is
it contagious? What type are you?

*applauds loudly*

Well said, Francis.

IMO, there are few things as sad as an 'artist'[0] with a closed mind.

[0] Well, someone working in an artistic medium, at least.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Randall Ainsworth stated
that:

By the way, what is an NEA type? Is there something wrong with it? Is
it contagious? What type are you?

Why is it any of the government's business to fund "art"?

Because it helps make the world a better place for its citizens. If I
recall correctly, that is the theoretical purpose of government.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Unnhhh, actually not.... As I remember it from grade school a loooong time
ago, the exact language creating this government includes things such as,
providing for the common defense, the securing of borders, life, liberty,
and the right for YOU to persue happiness - which could include art...
Nowhere, is there any mention of extorting tax dollars from your neighbors
to fund your personal persuit of happiness/art... I'm with the camp that
believes that starving artists need to starve, as far as tax dollars go, in
order to be creative...
Notice what having to produce art someone will actually pay for, has
produced - Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel, Titan's paintings, Rodin's
sculptures, Modigliani, etc...
Notice what slop from the public trough has produced - jars of urine...
denny

"Lionel" wrote in message Why is it any of the government's
business to fund "art"?

Because it helps make the world a better place for its citizens. If I
recall correctly, that is the theoretical purpose of government.

Kibo informs me that stated that:

"ColdCanuck" wrote:

It has been interesting to be watch how "newsgroup discussion" has evolved
since the early 80's

There have always been kooks online. In the earlier days, there just
weren't as many.

There should be an additional hierarchy of newsgroups. Criteria for posting
would be knowledge of what an acoustical modem is. When high speed access
became prevalent and more and more people were connecting at 2400, usenet
took a turn for the worse.

You need to subscribe to alt.folklore.computers, a newsgroup devoted to
computer-related ancient history. Most of us there have used 300 baud[0]
acoustic couplers.

[0] *nostalgic sigh* Those were the days when BPS/baud were identical
for any given modem.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Kibo informs me that Randall Ainsworth stated
that:

So it might be said that to speak ill of the famous artist while living is
jealously, and when they are dead is .......

Helmut Newton produced perverted and disgusting photography throughout
his career.

We heard you the first time, bible-boy.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, so you're *that* kind of "Christian": not really so Bible-thumpin'
sex-negatin' censorious, as you led us to believe, but just another
red-blooded misogynist.

No, just a smart-aleck.

The are always going to be some that abuse a given system, &
although in principle I believe you to be correct that easy handouts
to artists are bad policy. I do believe it is societies responsibilty
to fund public galleries and museums from which art can be shown.

There are just as many social programs that are abused or perhaps
mismanaged as perhaps art funding programs,
many of those social programs directly or indirectly affect you
whether you realize it or not, and you surely benefit and would
miss them if nonexistant.

In article ,
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote:

Unnhhh, actually not.... As I remember it from grade school a loooong time
ago, the exact language creating this government includes things such as,
providing for the common defense, the securing of borders, life, liberty,
and the right for YOU to persue happiness - which could include art...
Nowhere, is there any mention of extorting tax dollars from your neighbors
to fund your personal persuit of happiness/art... I'm with the camp that
believes that starving artists need to starve, as far as tax dollars go, in
order to be creative...
Notice what having to produce art someone will actually pay for, has
produced - Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel, Titan's paintings, Rodin's
sculptures, Modigliani, etc...
Notice what slop from the public trough has produced - jars of urine...
denny
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

"Paolo Pizzi" wrote in message
om...
TenKMan wrote:

You're right. It would take a lot of imagination, creative
thought, and perhaps hallucinagens such that voting
Democrat would make sense.

No, just a little education,
very little education

tolerance,
very little tolerance (unless it is your narrow group)
intellectual curiosity,
you have to have intellect before you can have intellectual curiousity

an open mind for diversity and availability to listen to others,
no matter their race or nationality.

That sounds like a Republican.

All things you and Bush clearly lack.

Yes, and come November, we can remember posts such as this one and
laugh.

Kibo informs me that "Dennis O'Connor" stated
that:

"Lionel" wrote in message Why is it any of the government's
business to fund "art"?

Because it helps make the world a better place for its citizens. If I
recall correctly, that is the theoretical purpose of government.

Unnhhh, actually not.... As I remember it from grade school a loooong time
ago, the exact language creating this government includes things such as,
providing for the common defense, the securing of borders, life, liberty,
and the right for YOU to persue happiness - which could include art...
Nowhere, is there any mention of extorting tax dollars from your neighbors
to fund your personal persuit of happiness/art...

How about government funding for Olympic sports teams? Or subsidies for
farms that are too inefficient to compete in a free world market? Or
religious schools? (I don't know if that last happens in the USA, but it
does here). What about for large projects that just happen to benefit
businesses that have connections with the right politician? Or invasion
of foreign countries that couldn't possibly threaten one's own? Not to
mention the truly astounding practice of discouraging birth control &
sex education, coupled with the subsidising of the resulting unwanted
children.
It seems to me that the arts are at least as worthy of government money
as any item on the above list, & have the bonus of not actually harming
anyone, except perhaps causing some indigestion in some viewers of the
more controversial works. If I had the power to cut off funding to all
of the above items but one, the arts would be the one I would keep.

I'm with the camp that
believes that starving artists need to starve, as far as tax dollars go, in
order to be creative...
Notice what having to produce art someone will actually pay for, has
produced - Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel, Titan's paintings, Rodin's
sculptures, Modigliani, etc...
Notice what slop from the public trough has produced - jars of urine...

It's true that public funding has produced some crap works (although
'**** Christ'[0] isn't one of them, IMO), but it's only the offensive
stuff that you hear about in the media. The inoffensive work doesn't get
reported in the mainstream media.

[0] To use an example mentioned by someone earlier in the thread.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

I never posted a thought to this original discussion, but for what
it's worth, here's my take on it. The medium does not determine
whether or not something is or isn't art.Art is what an artist does.
What becomes difficult and subjective is determining who actually
qualifies as an artist, but honestly one shouldn't trouble over
whether one kind of material or another is used. At least that is what
the 20th century decided about it all. The 19th seemed more adamantly
materialistic and rational about the subject. Photography was an
affront to the handmade. Which is ironic since art involves so much
more than physical perfection, or imperfection, as your taste goes.
What is also ironic is that while exalting the handmade, the same
group will disparage "craft". I think it's a far more interesting
struggle to determine how to do something really well, in fact so well
that something inexplicable seems to emit a light that touches us all
deeply. Anyone who can do that is an artist regardless of what they
use to do it. Otherwise photography is simply burning silver, and
painting is only smearing around colored dirt.