Yo Mama's Last Supper

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Giuliani angered by nude female Jesus

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/16/museum.flap.ap/index.html

This is a tough one I guess. The only thing I can say is that it never ceases to amaze me what some people will consider "art". This may be art, but the "Elephant Dung Virgin Mary" thing is stupid.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 16, 2001

Answers

Buddy, you have to ask the question concerning this overt ‘slap-in- the-face’ to the Catholic Church:

“If a similar exhibit that mocked black religious leaders went on display ANYWHERE, what do you think the reaction would be?”

Add into the mix the fact that the Brooklyn Museum of Art is supported with PUBLIC FUNDS and what do you think the reaction would be?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 16, 2001.


Agreed Barry. This is why I am opposed to the National Endowment for the Arts. As for public funding for art galleries in particular, I think they should be restricted to funds to maintain the facility with no public funds going to acquiring art or putting on shows.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 16, 2001.

Giuliani needs to get a grip on himself. Whether he's merely pandering to Christians or truly upset with the idea of an unclad woman seated with the 12 guys in the photo, he's going way too far yet again. To sick the courts on an artist and/or museum because you don't like the work exhibited is just plain pitiful. Don't attend! Close your eyes tightly while you walk by the place. Hold your nose even! No one's forcing people to view the pieces in question as far as I know.

Dear Rudy, this is shallow, heavy-handed, reeks of power madness and a substantial lack of understanding of creativity and freedom of expression.

Haven't we learned by now that declaring outrage in the media regarding obscure art works serves to publicize the works and provides for a broader exposure for the artist and the work? This serves the artist's best interests and makes those who raise the stink look foolish, IMO.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 16, 2001.


I like your idea, Buddy. Let artists finance themselves or find funding privately.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 16, 2001.

"Let artists finance themselves or find funding privately."

I agree. Although, I rather like the idea of the public buying (or commissioning) artworks to adorn public places. But direct subsidies to artists in the name of "encouraging" art? Nah. And the committees that select public artworks need to have fewer art teachers, gallery owners, artists and critics - and start to reflect the actual public who is meant to enjoy the art.

But on the whole this is small potatos. Now, if we could just get Fortune 500 companies off the government tit, I'd be ecstatic. And the savings would be a lot bigger than going after the NEA.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 16, 2001.



Rudy Giuliani is one sick mother-fucking Nazi.

-- (art@for.art's.sake), February 16, 2001.

"Rudy Giuliani is one sick m**-f** Nazi."

Now, how does that statement make you any better than what you say he is?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 16, 2001.


I am better than the fucking Nazi because I don't try to take control over other people's right to express themselves. If the idiot was capable of understanding art he would know that placing restrictions on it is destructive to its very nature, it defeats the whole purpose.

Does he honestly think that fucking another woman behind his wife's back, betraying his marriage vows, is acceptable, but portraying Jesus as a naked female is not?? He must be under the direct influence of Satan to have such a twisted value system and not be able to see how wrong it is.

-- (art@for.art's.sake), February 16, 2001.


No restrictions on art is fine with me, as long as my tax dollars aren't used for any of it.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 16, 2001.

If I were a female I would be shocked that a government official appointed by the people considers the idea that Jesus is female "disgusting". In fact, even though I'm a male I'm still shocked. A chauvinist pig like that should not be allowed to hold a public office, he should be impeached.

-- (art@for.art's sake), February 16, 2001.


Why is it acceptable among the PC crowd to mock Catholics, southern whites (code name "trailer trash") and Christians in general? Doing this with the support of public monies is even more offensive.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 16, 2001.

Aren't Catholics Christians, Lars?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 16, 2001.

Rich, I can only wonder what your reaction would be if it were the Jewish religion that was being trashed here?

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 16, 2001.

We're talking art here Lars.

What happened, you miss your noon nap? And to whom do you refer with that PC comment? Hmm? :)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 16, 2001.


art, you miss the point about funding. You have every right to say and draw anything your heart desires. Art is in the eye of the beholder. But don't force me, as a taxpayer, to pay for the display and support of these stupid pieces of "art". If you want to fund it, knock yourself out. But don't send my tax $ in that direction.

Further, no tax $ were spent on Rudy's extramarital activites... unlike Jesse.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 16, 2001.



As always, well said Maria!

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 16, 2001.

How exactly does depicting Christ as a woman "trash" the Catholic religion? Do you feel that depicting a man as female automatically denigrates him?

And what on earth do the sex lives of politicians have to do with the debate over the funding of art?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), February 16, 2001.


Rich, nooner-nap is over now. Wunnerfully refreshing; Wanda enjoyed it too! I think most know who the "PC crowd" is. They don't accept independent thinkers such as yourself.

Tarzan I said "Christians in general". I think that includes RCs, altho sometimes I am not too sure about them-thar papists.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), February 16, 2001.


Barry, I do not hold the Jewish religion near and dear to my heart. I don't wear a yamulka or tefilin. I eat pork and shellfish. I lost my dreidel years ago. I think the god of the Old Testament is a loser, somebody I wouldn't hang out with much less worship.

So there. :P

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), February 16, 2001.


‘Pork and shellfish’…now there’s a risky combo:>)

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 16, 2001.

Aren't there any pictures of this thing on the net yet? Without the dumbass reporter censoring it by standing in front of the nude female?

-- censorship (hard@to.believe), February 16, 2001.

NYC Mayor's Proposed Museum "Decency Panel" is Misguided and Unconstitutional, ACLU Says

Statement of Donna Lieberman, Acting Executive Director, NYCLU and Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director, ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, February 16, 2001

NEW YORK--Mayor Giuliani has once again cast himself as the City's chief censor by proposing a decency panel in response to his latest dispute with the Brooklyn Museum over its selection of art.

This time, the Mayor objects to a photograph depicting the Last Supper in which the Christ figure is portrayed as a nude black woman. Apparently without having ever seen the photo in its museum context, the Mayor had no trouble describing it as "outrageous" and "anti-Catholic."

The Mayor's reaction and his terminology are familiar, of course. Two years ago, the Mayor used similar language to justify his ill-fated effort to effectively shut down the Brooklyn Museum -- by withdrawing all City funding and terminating its lease -- because the Mayor was offended by what he regarded as certain sacrilegious images in the controversial "Sensations" exhibition.

That effort was quickly and decisively declared unconstitutional by a federal court in New York, which reminded the Mayor that his executive powers did not include the authority to overrule the First Amendment, or to impose his personal tastes on New York City's museum visitors.

The notion of a decency panel is equally misguided and equally unconstitutional, especially when its unambiguous purpose is to impose an official orthodoxy on New York's cultural institutions. In floating the idea, the Mayor suggested that the concept had been endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in a 1998 case brought by Karen Finley and several other artists against the National Endowment of the Arts.

He is wrong on multiple counts. While it is true that the NEA's decency standards were upheld in the Finley case, the Court's decision contained two important caveats. First, the Court noted that the decency standards were never intended to be a litmus test for government funding; instead, they were merely one consideration among many that the government could take into account in deciding whether to award a grant.

Second, the Court clearly indicated in the Finley case that the government could not use the decency standards as an excuse to withhold funding because it disagreed with the views expressed by a particular artist or a particular work of art. Whether accurate or not, describing a work as "anti-Catholic" is precisely the sort of ideological judgment that cannot be the basis for funding decisions under the Finley case.

Finally, although the Mayor's proposal for a decency panel was short on details, there is every reason to believe based on the past record that his ultimate goal is to deny all public funding to any museum that displays "indecent" art, even if the art in question is not actually supported by public funds. The constitutional rule prohibiting such retaliation was well-established long before the Finley case ever reached the Supreme Court.

In 1984, for example, the Supreme Court held that public broadcasting stations could not be penalized with the loss of public funds because they engaged in political editorializing with private money. More generally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the First Amendment imposes the most severe limits on the government's ability to interfere with institutions that are dedicated to free speech. like museums and universities.

The Mayor is too good a lawyer not to know all of this, and not to know that the Constitution draws a sharp dividing line between matters of private faith and matters of public policy.

Mayor Giuliani is plainly free to use his bully pulpit to preach in favor of racial and religious tolerance. Indeed, the City might have been a very different place if he had used that pulpit more often during the past seven years. What he may not do is abandon the pulpit and just act like a bully, leaving the First Amendment as a casualty in his wake.

NOTE: To read more about the ACLU's involvement in the Brooklyn Museum "Sensation" case, go to http://www.aclu.org/features/censorship_arts.html

To read the ACLU's news release issued about the Supreme Court decision in NEA v. Finley, go to http://www.aclu.org/news/n062598b.html

-- (giuliani@nazi.idiot), February 17, 2001.


It must be here where we draw the line between liberals and conservatives, as I support the National Endowment for the Arts. I'd admit that I think a lot of it goofy [to ME], but I seem to remember previous generations "reacting" to the art of their time, as well.

I miss YOUR point completely, Barry. It seems to me that if there was truly a Jesus figure, he/she would have originated in Ethiopia, and I haven't seen any white folks originate there.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


HUH??????

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 17, 2001.

I thought we all originated in Africa, Anita?

-- (lars@shaka.zulu), February 17, 2001.

Evolutionarily speaking [is there even such a word as evolutionarily?] we all came from Africa. My apologies to the creationists amongst us, but I don't believe in creationism. I don't think melanin changes occurred for HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of years as migrations took place to northern climates. It doesn't even matter whether we're talking about hundreds or thousands of years in this case, as the Jesus figure never engaged in the migration, and was 2000 years closer to the appearance of his ancestors than the Jerusalem child born today.

Therefore, I find it quite plausible to think of the Jesus figure as a dark-skinned man [okay...I admit the woman thing is a stretch as the story goes], and find the pictures that I've seen since childhood of the white man with the long, light-brown hair a stretch beyond demonstrable historical facts.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.


Valadimir

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), February 17, 2001.

‘Demonstrable historical facts’

No argument here. This is one of those three word statements that has an open ended proposition, that being the highly interpretative word ‘demonstrable’.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 17, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ