Jesus Osama Christ!

The only thing surprising about this story would be if we found out that the artist were not receiving an NEA grant for his work:

[A] painting by Harlem artist "Tafa" ... depicts an upside down Christ-like figure with a face strongly resembling Osama Bin Laden. [...]

On the phone with me, the artist declined to do an on-camera interview, telling me the work speaks for itself, but adding, the resemblance to Bin Laden was no accident.

By the way, has anyone else been rolling their eyes at the recent storyline on "The L Word" that has Bette heroically protesting the cancellation of an NEA grant for a piece of anti-Bush art as "censorship"?  Should government really be in the business of supporting art in the first place – and, if so, should we be at all surprised when it decides not to support work that gnaws off the hand that feeds it?

Even if I hadn't previously worked in Congress, I still would have guffawed at the scene when the chairman of the Senate committee before which Bette was testifying lit on fire a picture of artwork he found offensive.  And I would have laughed harder still when Bette tore the burning photo from his hands and stomped it out on the floor.  Her moralistic tantrum that followed was just a pure scream:

"You ought to be ashamed of yourself!  You're just the latest reigning vigilantes, self-appointed cultural watchdogs of the moment devoting countless hours and enviable resources to this bogus mission of stifling creative expression in the name of patriotism."

The hell??  Who writes this dreck?

If I am paying you to paint a portrait of me, and you decide instead to paint a picture of me, say, sodomizing a household pet, am I supposed to just grin and bear it?  Artists should have every right to be offensive and provocative – and some of the best artists push the envelope the farthest – but to demand taxpayer money to do so is beyond blinkered pig-ignorance and petulance.

As laughable as Bette's character has become, season three of "The L Word" has devolved into pure tedium for many more reasons.  Are the dykes even still watching this lame excuse for entertainment?

Comments

[Bette]

"Are the dykes even still watching this lame excuse for entertainment?"

Apparently at least one of them is.

[Jack Malebranche]

If I am paying you to paint a portrait of me, and you decide instead to paint a picture of me, say, sodomizing a household pet, am I supposed to just grin and bear it?

No, the household pet is...

I'm suprised no one has commissioned me to do anything like this yet, actually.

If you ever decide that is something you want, just let me know, and I'll give you a deal on a velvet painting of you and Fido getting freaky. Kind of like one of those boudoir paintings, only different...

[Dan]

Yeah - totally rediculous for the gov't to spend money on art. Far better to spend it on military welfare programs like that whole 767 conversion thing.

They're not asking for much and it makes the world that much more beautiful. At a minimum it inspires debate and makes us think. I don't have a problem with that.

[JS]

As the "leaders of the free world" with the largest economy in the world, I do believe the government does have some type of responsibility to promote not just commerce, but culture as well. Great art will always be controversial. The Impressionists were considered controversial at one point, now cheap copies hang in dentists' offices throughout the country. If it appeased everyone then it's really mediocre. It's ironic that other industralized countries such as England, France, the Neatherlands, and Japan with smaller economies, spend a higher percentage of the GNP on art than we do. I think it's great that we have the capacity to contribute not just McDonald's and The Gap, but Robert Mapplethorpe and Barbara Kruger as well to the world.

[beautifulatrocities]

Note that liberals thing everything - jobs, healthcare, retirement, even art - is the govt's responsibility. There's no connection. Artists have been creating great works for hundreds of years without the NEA. Why should Americans taxes be wasted on poseurs making not just propaganda, but BAD propaganda? Struggle is good for art. And while we're at it, pull the plug on PBS, let them compete like the other stations.

[Jack Malebranche]

Yeah - totally rediculous for the gov't to spend money on art.

Actually, it is probably not the best use of public funds to actually fund the creation of works of art.

Military spending is a seperate issue, of course.

They're not asking for much and it makes the world that much more beautiful.

True. But it doesn't work in a quasi democracy. Art is elitist. It really is. In a Democracy, Joe six-pack gets an equal say, even if he is completely unqualified to register an informed opinion. Art isn't for Joe six-pack. It's for people who like art specifically, and art that makes you think is for people who like to think about art.

I'd probably have to give it up in a purely idealistic battle, but I do think it's nice for the government to fund museums. And if the museums want to display or purchase something that art experts deem to be of value, I don't think the opinion of some asswipe southern politician trying to get his name in the papers should really be of consequence. It's like funding the Smithsonian. If your culture is nothing but whatever Joe six-pack wants to buy or support, you deserve the lowest common denominator culture that you get in return. Call me crazy, but I do like knowing that in a world of Reality TV, I can still fly to NYC and visit the Met, and see Sargeants and Warhols and Rembrandts and the art of Pharoahs all under one roof. It does give one a sense of perspective beyond the world of crap entertainment, and perspective is a good thing to encourage.

[Dan]

Why does the government fund advanced theoretical research centers like Fermilab? Oh right - because of the money we'll make off of the new technologies. Screw knowledge for knowledge's sake.

[beautifulatrocities]

Great art will always be controversial

Great art is sometimes controversial, but not because someone sat down & said, Let's make something controversial. Artists don't think that way. The only 'controversy' about some lame-ass stunt like a picture of the Virgin Mary made from excrement is why the creator needs to be publicly subsidized. It's a scam. There's no wit, originality, or imagination in that kind of junk. This is the same nonsense that Tom Wolfe skewered in The Painted Word, the whole New York art fraud where poseurs judge a work not the artist's 'theory'. It's also why PC liberals can't do satire: there's too much they don't dare say, for fear of offending select groups (& why you don't see any Muslim terrorists in Hollywood movies - CAIR will get mad).

[beautifulatrocities]

typo: the New York art scene, where works are judged by the artist's 'theory'

[Queer Conservative]

Dan,

Science and Art = Apples and Oranges. I agree with Jack - let government fund the institutions: the Smithsonian, the National Gallery, the theaters, the libraries; but not the artists.

[Dan]

Historically, yes, art has been for the elite. It doesn't have to be that way. For a town that's largely lacking in culture, one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen is the National Gallery of Art here in DC. Not just for the artwork, but for the peoplewatching as well. You see so many people, from all walks of life, getting a chance to see upfront some of the most beautiful work ever generated by man. Yeah, that old florida retiree with the "robertson 88" trucker hat probably isn't gonna get it, but somebody else will. And it doesn't cost a dime to see it - it's there for everybody.

I dunno - something about that just seems fundamentally right to me.

[Malcontent]

Dan: I've noticed a tendency toward disingenuousness in your debate tactics. Virtually every time you disagree with something I write, you have to resort to The Great Diversion.

I write about "Jews for Hitler"? You write about my Photoshop skills. I write about publicly funded art? You want to talk about pork-barrel defense projects. The disingenuousness is found in the implication that I somehow support pork-barrel spending, which is false.

It's like trying to argue with Jell-O.

[Queer Conservative]

Dan - that seems right to me too. I don't mind my tax dollars support the National Gallery. However, the government shouldn't be paying artists to create works to go into the National Gallery. Big difference.

[Patrick]

The government should be funding the cultural arts, and should be doing it blindly.

[Dan]

OK, for starters, that was a crappy photoshop job. Second, it was a joke. Lighten up. Third - it's not off the topic at all. It's about giving you an example of spending prorities. If we can spend umpteen billion dollars on clearly questionable military projects (something I doubt I'll see you criticizing anytime soon), is it gonna kill us to spare a (relatively) measley hundred mill on some artwork?

[Dan]

And if you wanna kill off government sponsored art, I guess we shouldn't have this. Or this. Or these guys.

And yeah, I know PS1 gets money from donations. But if weren't for the extensive tax breaks (the taxpayer foots the bill for) do you think they'd still be around?

[Robbie]

The crucial difference being that military expenditure is one of the fundamental responsibilities of the federal government - it's explicitly stated in the Constitution and everything - and art is, well, optional.

Of course, people can niggle over how money is spent on the military, but no one disputes the federal government must set aside funds to raise any army.

Not so with art. People can very much question if it's the federal government's job to fund art to begin with.

I'm with the others. I have no issue with the government funding museums and things. I think preservation of cultural history is a legitimate function of government. However. Do I want the government to float $15,000 or so to an individual artist to ingeniously think up a Piss Christ? No, no I don't.

[Dan]

Well then you get to the wonderful question of "what is art?" You know, when they put up the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, there were howls from the traditionalists. Plenty of people, primarily from the right, clearly weren't expecting something so austere and stark.

Thank god we grew up and came to recognize this monument for the truly brilliant piece of art it is.

[Queer Conservative]

"The wonderful question of 'what is art?'" is precisely why the government shouldn't be funding individual artists.

[Jeff]

Dan, Dan, DAN! Young man, YOU are giving liberals a bad name. For the love of Lenin, ease up. WE NEED to spend Umpteen Billion, trillion dollars on our military, lest we get creamed right in our Prada panties whilst reading Pravda. Its HOW we spend it that we take issue with. AND my good man, we don't need to fund every crybaby with a paintbrush just to fulfill some crappy interpretation of the first amendment. I'm as liberal as the next commie pinko fag, but I would much rather see NEA dollars spent on the institutions rather than elitist grants to a select few. I would rather see NEA money poured into Rural and Inner city schools to teach art to the next generation of Commie, hippie, fags. I would rather they teach some kids in Arkansas about Joan Miro, than give handouts to snotty political cartoonists. And, I would love to see our military dollars spent more wisely. I'm all for Umpteen Billion Quadrillion dollars if it includes body armor and oh, say maybe a plan or exit strategy. But what oh what does that have to do with art???. Even Cindy Sheehan isn't wearing tee shirts to the Smithsonian now is she?

[Queer Conservative]

Oh, and the Vietnam Memorial was privately funded, then donated to the National Park Service.

[Malcontent]

I cannot think of a lot of posts I have done about pork-barrel spending per se, but I can think about at least one post I did off the top of my head criticizing Republicans for reckless use of the appropriations process.

The fact is, while there is a lot of wasteful "pork-barrel" spending, it is exceptionally hard to define. Even the McCain and CAGW definitions are lacking. And there is a lot of worthy government spending that is the result of earmarks.

What really gets me exercised in terms of the federal budget is entitlement spending, because that is where the real train wreck is going to come (and where mainly Democrats have done our nation an incredible disservice).

And your very use of the phrase "a (relatively) measley hundred mill" is illustrative of why Democrats are no more serious about controlling the deficit than Republicans have been in the past several years. Everett Dirksen would be spinning in his grave.

[Malcontent]

So what would you propose, Jeff? That the next time terrorists attack my city, I should throw "Piss Christ" at them?

[Dan]

Hey, I'm all for spending more money on public education (or the military, for that matter) than on paintings of a 'piss christ'.

Seriously - the money we spend on public art amounts to a rounding error in the pentagon's monthly budget. I think we can spare that much.

[Dan]

Yes, QC, but it was placed on land donated by the federal government and is maintained by the taxpayer-funded National Park Service. Federal money is going to support that piece of art. Damn shame, huh?