Originally posted by banana
Miko, all artists aren't as bankrupt as the person who made that so called piece of art like the one you describe. You seem to be using that one example to label all artists as "worthless" or vulgar. I beg to differ. The female figure has been a subject of artists for hundreds of centuries. I don't see anything offensive in that bronze statue.
And I agree with you about that perticular statue - because like you I was raised in modern christian tradition as influenced by classical greece, even being an atheist.
But there are people in US whose tradition/religion considers it sacrilege to display images of animals/people. There are people who consider nudity very inappropriate.
Their money went to pay for that act and they did not have any choice in the matter. Paying taxes and chosing what how are spent is not voluntary in US.
The government was created for specific purposes and it was given power to use coersion to extract money.
People agreed to those functions of governemt and the majority who did not was forced to comply - to pay for defence, borders, banking system, etc.
Now they are in a culture business among other things that no one can opt out from. That is called bait and switch tactics.
If they need statues, let them ask for donations. French donated us that huge Lady Liberty statue and then citizens chipped in to pay for the pedestal - becasue they liked the statue.
Government should stay out of such subjective things like art - not because there is something wrong with art (even with "bancrupt" art), but because government has that unique power of coersion.
miko
