Um, and you're saying that we should go back to that?:think:
toldailytopic: Should anything that is considered art be covered under free speech?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Um, and you're saying that we should go back to that?:think:
and you criticize conservatives for wanting to turn back the clock?
BigBoof1959
New member
In our degenerating society, there is not a snowball's chance that many people will accept the testimony of history and the wise men of the past who learned from observing the mistakes of others instead of doing their own experiments . One of those wise men would be Polybius, the ancient Greek historian who wrote about the astounding success of the Romans, and who also pointed out their errors. The following link is part of his writing that is pertinent to the topic. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/9*.html The following excerpt is from part III on the affairs of Sicily and the plundering of Syracuse.
10 1 A city is not adorned by external splendours, but by the virtue of its inhabitants. . . .
2 The Romans, then, decided for this reason to transfer all these objects to their own city and leave nothing behind. 3 As to whether in doing so they acted rightly and in their own interest or the reverse, there is much to be said on both sides, but the more weighty arguments are in favour of their conduct having been wrong then and still being wrong. 4 For if they had originally relied on such things for the advancement of their country, they would evidently have been right in bringing to their home the kind of things which had contributed to their aggrandizement. 5 But if, on the contrary, while leading the simplest of lives, very far removed from all such superfluous magnificence, they were constantly victorious over those who possessed the greatest number and finest examples of such works, must we not consider that they committed a mistake? 6 To abandon the habits of the victors and to imitate those of the conquered, not only appropriating the objects, but at the same time attracting that envy which is inseparable from their possession, which is the one thing most to be p27dreaded by superiors in power, is surely an incontestable error. 7 For in no case is one who contemplates such works of art moved so much by admiration of the good fortune of those who have possessed themselves of the property of others, as by pity as well as envy for the original owners.
Polybius is pointing out one aspect of leaving a simple lifestyle and surrounding oneself with art, that being the arousal of envy over a lavish lifestyle and pity for those who were despoiled of their expensive and fancy works of art. There is also an understated theme of the strength to be found in simple living versus surrounding oneself with art. Stimulating the senses with visual images, either for enjoyment or as a form of communication, has a strong link to a decreased ability to think in abstract terms. Some people can overcome this tendency by purposely developing their intellect, but the vast majority of a society will either not have the time or ability to do this, and will give themselves over to the passion of feelings aroused by their appreciation of "art", which eventually devolves into vulgarity. The founding fathers of our country were all very familiar with the writings of Polybius, and I doubt very much that they had "art" in mind when they set up protections for free speech in the constitution.
There is also negative biblical testimony on the "arts", but it is not explicit and must be inferred, which leaves open the possibility of turning a blind eye towards it, which most people gladly do. The three main meanings of the Hebrew word denoting the "serpent" in the garden of Eden hint at this. "Hissing", (use of sound in music) "shining", (the use of sight) and "enchanter" (the source and goal behind the use of sight and sound) are all meanings behind the word 'nachash', with "enchanter" being the primitive root word meaning. These 3 themes are also evident in the description of "the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 (hissing timbrels, shining gemstones and mounting sockets, and an overall description of grandeur making a very strong impression on others). Lamech's 4 kids also personify a system that can be used to enslave people through the arts and entertainment.
10 1 A city is not adorned by external splendours, but by the virtue of its inhabitants. . . .
2 The Romans, then, decided for this reason to transfer all these objects to their own city and leave nothing behind. 3 As to whether in doing so they acted rightly and in their own interest or the reverse, there is much to be said on both sides, but the more weighty arguments are in favour of their conduct having been wrong then and still being wrong. 4 For if they had originally relied on such things for the advancement of their country, they would evidently have been right in bringing to their home the kind of things which had contributed to their aggrandizement. 5 But if, on the contrary, while leading the simplest of lives, very far removed from all such superfluous magnificence, they were constantly victorious over those who possessed the greatest number and finest examples of such works, must we not consider that they committed a mistake? 6 To abandon the habits of the victors and to imitate those of the conquered, not only appropriating the objects, but at the same time attracting that envy which is inseparable from their possession, which is the one thing most to be p27dreaded by superiors in power, is surely an incontestable error. 7 For in no case is one who contemplates such works of art moved so much by admiration of the good fortune of those who have possessed themselves of the property of others, as by pity as well as envy for the original owners.
Polybius is pointing out one aspect of leaving a simple lifestyle and surrounding oneself with art, that being the arousal of envy over a lavish lifestyle and pity for those who were despoiled of their expensive and fancy works of art. There is also an understated theme of the strength to be found in simple living versus surrounding oneself with art. Stimulating the senses with visual images, either for enjoyment or as a form of communication, has a strong link to a decreased ability to think in abstract terms. Some people can overcome this tendency by purposely developing their intellect, but the vast majority of a society will either not have the time or ability to do this, and will give themselves over to the passion of feelings aroused by their appreciation of "art", which eventually devolves into vulgarity. The founding fathers of our country were all very familiar with the writings of Polybius, and I doubt very much that they had "art" in mind when they set up protections for free speech in the constitution.
There is also negative biblical testimony on the "arts", but it is not explicit and must be inferred, which leaves open the possibility of turning a blind eye towards it, which most people gladly do. The three main meanings of the Hebrew word denoting the "serpent" in the garden of Eden hint at this. "Hissing", (use of sound in music) "shining", (the use of sight) and "enchanter" (the source and goal behind the use of sight and sound) are all meanings behind the word 'nachash', with "enchanter" being the primitive root word meaning. These 3 themes are also evident in the description of "the king of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 (hissing timbrels, shining gemstones and mounting sockets, and an overall description of grandeur making a very strong impression on others). Lamech's 4 kids also personify a system that can be used to enslave people through the arts and entertainment.
Lon
Well-known member
It was more commission than subsidized. They were given specific projects. After that, we can discuss the difference between the church hiring then, and the United States government today, etc.
Lon
Well-known member
Me? It is likely different than most: "welfare while the individual creates whatever he/she wants."
I have no problem with contracting an artist for specific assignments or retaining an artist for future specific assignments. If he/she happens to create questionable art in the meantime, it falls back (for me) to the definition of art that if somebody buys it, it's somebody's idea of art. It wouldn't really matter that he/she was surviving off of government funds, it is like a contracted side-job, as long as there is no conflict of interest between two projects, I'm okay with that and not too shook up but that's not exactly subsidized but rather 'retained.'
It appears that all art is questionable to somebody!
When the Impressionists first tried to show their art they were rejected out of hand. Yet, to me and many others, they created some of the most exquisite art ever shared with the public.
I am opposed to public displays of so called art that egregiously offends community standards. Yet, I would not ban it. I would simply avoid it.
At our modern art warehouse a huge leather plugin hung on display for several years. It took me a while to discover that it wasn't a cows udder!:rotfl:
Definitely.
Again, subjective (each community has its own standards; the Castro district in San Francisco isn't exactly Mayberry) but I'm glad you're opposed to outright censorship.
:shocked: :jawdrop:
Of course, I would have to be warned about the Castro District...just in case I happened to walk that way.
When my husband returned from the military he wanted to take his parents out as a treat for their anniversary.
He chose what he thought was a nice supper club. They ordered a cocktail and put in their dinner order while waiting in aticipation for the promised entertainment.
The lights went out and a spot light appearred on a young woman clad in tights with glowing hands clutching assorted body parts.
She proceeded to bump and grind much to the mortification of my husband! His parents were good sports and teased him for years over the cultural event!
Since we're speaking of art I assume you're not really into abstract; like Picasso?
Lon
Well-known member
"Something I wouldn't buy" (a car without wheels might be his idea of a "concrete rose"). In other words, if I retained a guy/gal, let's say to make busts of all the presidents, as long as he/she doesn't lose my paid time (like an 8 hour day), he can make what he wants to after hours (depends on the understood contract). His rate of pay as a retainer would probably because I don't want to lose him ("keep him/her in state for a Mt. Rushmore," retainer).
As a congressmen or other official, it is my job to ensure I've spent the public's money wisely. Hopefully they aren't turning around and smashing the nativity scene I bought behind my back while shaking my hand in the front.
No, I don't think so.
A picture of an ugly chair that isn't comfortable. Yep, worthless is certainly one characteristic of ar.
You get all that from Mona Lisa?
View attachment 17618
Or this?
View attachment 17619
Kind of like your posts.
Did the government subsidize that?
Whatever one's stance on erotic "art" I assume we can all at least agree it should not be made public.
Bybee writes:
Well said.
Well said.
Nick grumbles:
A hundred and fifty years ago, Shakers probably had smaller behinds than you're carrying around. They liked to make things beautiful and simple, and they succeeded very well.
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
A hundred and fifty years ago, Shakers probably had smaller behinds than you're carrying around. They liked to make things beautiful and simple, and they succeeded very well.
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.