2007-06-28 09:06:47 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So if we seperate art and government like church and state should we permit art but only with tight sensorship?
2007-06-28 09:24:04 · update #1
Read the questions folks. The questions does not make assumptions
2007-06-28 09:27:51 · update #2
Why do you think I want to burn books?
2007-06-28 09:23:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
No, I'm not fascist though.
Degenerate Art. Read about it.
My second link shows how John Ashcroft spend $8,000 of government money to cover the breasts of a classical statue. Was that a good use of government money in regards to art?
What about when Rudy Giuliani shut down an art show in NY because he didn't approve of the type of art there? Why does the government need to be involved in that? You don't like it? Don't go!
Government has ZERO place telling me what are I can and can't look at; so no, I don't think they should censor anything. If you don't know how to appriciate art then fine, just stay out of it then.
2007-06-28 09:27:07 · answer #2 · answered by shelly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is art? Is soaking a crucifix in a jar of urine art? If so, yeah, ban it and destroy it!
Its a taxpayer bottomless pit that has within the last few years turned more vile and partisian. Cow dung on the Virgin Mary isn't art! And standing by and allowing this crude attack on Catholism is not freedom of speech, or art. The libs backed and sided with these "artists" (loosely used by the way) as an organized attack on Christianity.
Look, if someone actually paints something (with a certain degree of skill) or carves something, maybe, but the crap that is presented today is not art! It is vile and crude psuedo art that any 2 yr old could do!
2007-06-28 09:18:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I guess you mean the NEA. No, it's not a liberal ideal. If you believe all art should be destroyed and banned, I encourage you to put down Mein Kampf and go to an art museum. Art isn't bad - it is one of the key elements to defining a society.
2007-06-28 09:26:10 · answer #4 · answered by El Duderino 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Art is paintings. Art is sculpture. Art is music. Art is film. Art is literature. Art is photography. Art is theatre.
Sure, let's ban and destroy all expressions of culture and humanity, which would include all of the above!
Dumbest suggestion I've heard all week, and there's already a hell of a top ten list.
2007-06-28 10:59:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it brings creativity out in students. it stimulates the sense, makes you think helps you learn. It makes you think harder and makes you smarter. It brings out peoples creative style. If we didnt teach art we may not find the next Michaelanglo
What was the creator trying to symbolize? what are they getting across?
Art can also be described as music. Without music people would be sad. Music makes people feel better.
Basicly you're saying destroy all creavity in the world because you're different from liberals?? that's horrible and if you people believe to not teach it then all kids will be boring and not creative.
2007-06-28 09:30:06 · answer #6 · answered by Joshrules 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Art is the very essence of being human. We are the only species that creates to beautify, inform, express, soothe, inspire, and, yes, inflame. Everything in your everyday life is a product of an artist. The music on your iPod, the sleek design of your iPod, your clothes, your car, your movies, your plays, your books, your paintings, sculptures, etc.
So go ahead, ban art, and live in a desolate world with nothing to remind you that you are human.
2007-06-28 09:27:56 · answer #7 · answered by jehen 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree, art should not be funded using tax dollars. If the artsy fartsy crowd wants art, let them pay for it. Just like stadiums, and arenas, let the sports fan (me) pay for it.
50% of what is created today is disgusting, 40% my 4 year old could, and 10% is true art.
I also agree that art should not be taught in school. How is something as subjective as art taught and graded? What use does one get out of art? Look at me, I can make something out of toothpicks!
2007-06-28 09:27:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Strictly speaking, the Statue of Liberty is art.
2007-06-28 09:19:13 · answer #9 · answered by BOOM 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Don't understand where you're going with that question, bud.
The arts have always been supported by both major political parties/philosophies.
2007-06-28 09:26:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
some art should. like child porn. some of your hippy friends say that is art. SO yes some art should be banned and some should be distroyed.
2007-06-28 09:23:30 · answer #11 · answered by John Galt 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋