Do you shut off your cell phone???

[ThomasDodd]

Would a vibrating pager not be just as effective?

How is that different from a vibrating cell phone?

It's not, if the phone is on vibrate, and not ring.
The trouble is, more often than not the ringer stays on.

We complain that cell phone users are so wrapped up in their personal reality that they are oblivious to others, but I find that many who complain about cell phones users (including those who use them legitimately and courteously) are offended because their personal reality was invaded. I think the solution is not a ban (however localized) on cell phones, but rather that people stop being so selfish.

Rick "who suspects nobody was annoyed 60 years ago when volunteer firefighters left the summer band concert--from both audience and band--when the sirens went off" Denney

If I though 25% of the cell calls taken during a performance/rehersal/meeting were emergencies it'd be different. But after years of constant phone ringing during times when they should have been silent, I convinced that you don't really notice the users who really need them. They are the courteous users who never have the ringer on loud or answer the phone when quiet is called for.

And 60 years ago, when the fire bell rang, everyone knew why people were leaving, and that it was a resonable distrubance. But joe schmoe answering his buddys call during that performance, and yapping loudly for 10 minutes is not reasonable.

I work with volunteer firmen. There pager/radio never interrups a meeting. They might a the get up and leave, but it's short, and minor. They tend to sit near the exit to minimize that.

But how do you deal with the bad apples?
Especially when they outnumber the good ones 10:1 ?

[ThomasDodd]

Which galleries did you say had these on display? NY, Houston, LA...?Which art house is handling these?

Not many yet, but like so many things today, the individuals do it themselves.

This guy has had work displayed at the Denver Art Museum and the Berkshire Museum (in MA).

I'm sure other have had disoplayes too. There's one kid that been on most of the morning shown for his portrait work. He stuff sells in the $5000 range. Sure it's not Rembrandt, but then how many artis are truely appreciated in their time?

I still would give you $10 fo most of Jackson Pollack's work. And Picasso's "blue" period is much, and "cubisim" only inspires me to vomit.

go figure...

[funkcicle]

Those kind of people are to morals, ethics, and values like Etch-A-Sketch is to art.

Take it easy on the Etch-A-Sketch now. While I cannot draw with them (or a pencil) some can...



More

Which galleries did you say had these on display? NY, Houston, LA...?Which art house is handling these? I'm sure Van Gogh and Rembrandt are shaking in their shoes.

Doc

uh oh... we're not judging art based on public opinion rather than individual merit, are we? So then, what type of people would be to morals as paint-and-canvas is to art?


(ready with a list of which galleries had "Piss Christ" on display)

that etch-a-sketch-art is pretty damn amazing!

[Lew]

This guy has had work displayed at the Denver Art Museum and the Berkshire Museum (in MA).

I'm guessing that these artworks are displayed in places far, far away from earthquake zones..

(Imagine the curator walking into the Etch-A-Sketch hall in the Los Angeles museum this morning. "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!")

Now that's funny.

(I believe that in reality those who do this type of "art" drill a hole and remove any of the stuff, whatever it is, in the etch-a-sketch after they are done.)

[ThomasDodd]

This guy has had work displayed at the Denver Art Museum and the Berkshire Museum (in MA).

I'm guessing that these artworks are displayed in places far, far away from earthquake zones.. :wink:

(Imagine the curator walking into the Etch-A-Sketch hall in the Los Angeles museum this morning. "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!")

(I believe that in reality those who do this type of "art" drill a hole and remove any of the stuff, whatever it is, in the etch-a-sketch after they are done.)

Normally, the back is removed, and the whole ting is made no functuional. The strings and stylus are removed along with the "stuff" (Al oxide I think). It can them be coated, to make it water resistant too.

[windshieldbug]

My problem with "Piss Christ" is not so much that it's personally offensive (it IS, but a lot of things piss me off)

You thought we were just gunna let that slip by? BTW, it got a strong reaction from you; maybe that's what the 'perpetrator' intended...

[funkcicle]

uh oh... we're not judging art based on public opinion rather than individual merit, are we? So then, what type of people would be to morals as paint-and-canvas is to art?


(ready with a list of which galleries had "Piss Christ" on display)

that etch-a-sketch-art is pretty damn amazing!

OH NO! I PISSED OFF A LIBERAL!

SAY IT AIN'T SO, FUNK. SAY IT AIN'T SO!

What factors determine what is art and what is not? Public opinion. If everybody thought it was crap, no one would buy it, and the artist would not be successful.

[...]

I see a lot more talent with the etch-a-sketch folk.

Doc

I dunno doc, seems to me the only one you've pissed off(oh dear, no pun intended!) in this thread is yourself and in the end we're in complete agreement(you're just more angry about it then i am
)

funk, who never understood the american pastime of angry-beratement, and who doesn't consider himself to be "a liberal"(but recognizes that it's not customary for people in any demographic to assign the label to themselves).. all in all, glad you liked the bait!

[adam0408]

Doc, I think your view of art is a little bit different than mine. I agree with much of the other stuff that has been said though no hard feelings....

Public opinion does not define art. Majority rarely if ever decides what is truly good or revolutionary in the case of art. Art is in the eye of the person looking at, or listening to, the art. Art can be made to make people think, challenge beliefs, and stir all sorts of emotions. Is terry Redlin art? Is Thomas Kinkade art? Mass produced piece of junk paintings.... these are on the outskirts of what is considered art. They are more like glorified decorations, yet the public eats them up. I would say, although VERY offensive to a lot of people (liberals and conservatives alike) the piss christ is much more art than those commercialized painting factories. (IN MY OPINION) The most important thing is how do you feel when you see something like this? I think thats a big portion of what this, and many other artists with him/her, was going for.

I remeber an oil painting I saw once at an uptown art show in Minneapolis... It really was simplicity at its best. It was a picture of a blue sky with a little bit of cloud in it. The lady had a lot of these paintings of sky, but the least complex impacted me the most because of the mental images it brought forward. Art can be very powerful and very personal, even if it is not commercially accepted.

When was the last time you heard Mahler or Strauss or Beethoven played on anything other than a classical station? That is art, but there are only a select few that really truly still enjoy it.... Does that make it 'not art?'

Oh and for your information, the bulk of visual artists are not succesful. Those paintings are high priced because they represent both intellectual property and an incredible amount of time.

Bottom line, the point of this whole post: Art is what you say it is for you, but please don't shove your idea of art down someone else's throat.

Cellphones to art. Interesting. Yeah, I dont usually bring my cell with, and if I do and I am somewhere I dont want to make noise, I shut it off.

[ThomasDodd]

who doesn't consider himself to be "a liberal"(but recognizes that it's not customary for people in any demographic to assign the label to themselves)..

Liberals don't assign the label to themselves nor do that accepct it when assigned by somone else.

Conservitive, like a few of us in the thread, readilly apply it to ourselves and would challange those who would attempt to remove our label.

The biggest problem with urine covered images is the government funding for their production or display. If som wealthy benifactor (Soros?) wants to support them fin, but don't use public fund for something the vast majority of the public find tasteless or offensive. It's like the government funding the Klan, or the Black Panthers.

[TubaRay]

The biggest problem with urine covered images is the government funding for their production or display.

Exactly!

[kegmcnabb]

What factors determine what is art and what is not? Public opinion.

If you believe this to be true...then be prepared to accept the fact that Michael Jackson is a far greater artist (according to public opinion) than Arnold Jacobs, or Gene Pokorny (to choose just two examples).

The biggest problem with urine covered images is the government funding for their production or display.

While I can understand some folks feeling that way, it should be pointed out that in the year that "Piss Christ" was funded, less than 1% of displays funded by the National Endowment for the Arts generated any significant controversy. That seems pretty reasonable by any measure. Art will always create controversy. The fact that we live in a free nation where the government does not dictate what is good, right, ethical, or moral in art seems to me to be a good thing. Witness the poor quality and lack of moral, spiritual, and intellectual content in Soviet era artwork. The government there was incredibly interested in controlling "immoral" art...utlimately substituting "amoral" art. That can hardly be considered better. Or take Spain...Picasso's "Guernica," a powerful anti-fascist work, was never displayed under Franco's regime.

Personally, I am quite happy with the system of governent funding for the arts and think it works remarkably well, but perhaps we should just let "public opinion" dictate what is great art...More Michael Jackson and Britney for everyone...Whoo hoo!

[ThomasDodd]

The biggest problem with urine covered images is the government funding for their production or display.

While I can understand some folks feeling that way, it should be pointed out that in the year that "Piss Christ" was funded, less than 1% of displays funded by the National Endowment for the Arts generated any significant controversy. That seems pretty reasonable by any measure. Art will always create controversy. The fact that we live in a free nation where the government does not dictate what is good, right, ethical, or moral in art seems to me to be a good thing.

I'm not particurally fond of government funding of the arts at all. Just less fond of this type of funding. Since the government should not dictae what is good, etc., they should fund the writing and publication of books supporting the Klan and the Panthers too?

The line has to be drawn somwhere. Public funding should be for the public. Fund shows the public wants to see but cannot affort. Not stuff that the public doesn't want to see.

[rascaljim]

hmm... ok.... I didn't realize that not everyone out there had as good and upbringing as I did about what is acceptable in a public situation.

I was at my day job yesterday (I sell cars for CarMax) and a young woman (somewhere around 30) came in to look at some cars for her husband. After talking to her for a minute, her phone rang and she answered it. I didn't mind much because I figured she'd me on for a minute and excuse herself and we could continue. She was at my store for probably 20 minute and was on the phone probably 18 of those minutes. I showed her a car or two then I just started leading her towards the front door of my store because I wasn't about to waste my time accompaning her phone conversation. I was very frusterated when she left because being a commissioned sales person, not being able to talk to someone pretty much guarantees that I'm not going to get them to buy anything.

I use my phone all the time, even in some situations that some of youall probably would complain about if you knew, but the cell phone never takes priority over someone trying to speak to me in person.

Whadda loser
Jim

[kegmcnabb]

The line has to be drawn somwhere. Public funding should be for the public. Fund shows the public wants to see but cannot affort. Not stuff that the public doesn't want to see.

I understand your feeling, but as I pointed out...99% of what was funded met your criteria...only 1% generated complaint. That would seem to meeting "what the public wants to see" pretty darned effectively.

As far as being against public funding for the arts in general, I would point out that you cannot find a healthy, civilized democracy that doesn't. The arts have alway been funded that way, be it by monarchy, dictatorship, parliment, or democracy. If there is a better model, let me know, but as I pointed out, if it is left to "popular" vote you will have no symphony orchestras, no museums of art (at least none featuring anything but "realism"), nothing that doesn't appeal to the "least common denominator." I don't know about you, but I know that there is better art out there than Jessica Simpson, Garth Brooks, Michael Jackson or any of the other "artists" the "public" have deemed great.

When Americans visit Europe they always come back marveling at the art museums, at the orchestras and choirs. These are all funded by taxpayers. Citizens of Berlin pay approximately $250 apiece per year in taxes that go directly to the arts. Amercians pay about 65 cents. I think we can afford two-thirds of a dollar a year without too much discomfort. Do I think we should emulate West Germany in everything they do? Certainly not, but there is something to be learned by examining their way of treasuring the arts.

As far as publishing books by the Klan or the Panther...that is a straw man...it isn't happening and is not the type of thing covered or subsidized by the NEA.

Just my thoughts...I appreciate and thank you for yours.

[Joe Baker]

I've read my Constitution over and over again, and just can't find anywhere in there where the Federal government is authorized to tax the populace to fund art of any type. So for me, the whole discussion should end right there.

But given the reality that our government has chosen to ignore the Constitution as a matter of policy (while still taking an oath to uphold and defend it ), lets consider some alternatives to 'Piss Christ', and how the government and the artistic types would respond to them:

• Piss Franklin D. Roosevelt
  Piss John F. Kennedy
  Piss Martin Luther King, Jr.
  Piss Hillary Clinton
  Piss John Lennon
  Piss Ghandi
  Piss Buddha
  Piss Vishnu
  Piss Quran

What do you think? Would the government pay for any of those? Would the art community embrace the ensuing controversy as evidence that they are surely true art?

They wouldn't, of course. Those wouldn't be art, any more that "Piss Christ" is art. We can disagree about whether a given thing is art, but I don't see how anyone could EVER consider any of the above art. They would be merely some spoiled, hateful person trying to hurt other people for the sake of hurting them.

For my part, I'm not so much angry as sad for the so-called "artist", to have such a bitter, hate-filled heart.

BTW, Kevin, you made an interesting comment when you said "Witness the poor quality and lack of moral, spiritual, and intellectual content in Soviet era artwork." I have to say that I cannot fathom anything poorer in quality, or more lacking in moral, spiritual or intellectual content than "Piss Christ". Maybe it's just government involvement of ANY sort that causes this degradation.
_______________________________
Joe Baker, who thinks art may offend, but it can't be just gussied up hatred for fellowman.

[Joe Baker]

As far as publishing books by the Klan or the Panther...that is a straw man...it isn't happening and is not the type of thing covered or subsidized by the NEA.

That's true. It is mostly hatred for Christians that will garner government funding.
___________________________
Joe Baker, whose point IS NOT that the government should fund other forms of hatred.

[kegmcnabb]

Please,

As far as "Piss Christ" is concerned, I would agree...this is a poor, poor excuse for art made by a half-assed artist whose only way of generating a buzz for himself is with "shock" value. BUT I REPEAT...this is a very small portion of what is funded.

BTW, Kevin, you made an interesting comment when you said "Witness the poor quality and lack of moral, spiritual, and intellectual content in Soviet era artwork." I have to say that I cannot fathom anything poorer in quality, or more lacking in moral, spiritual or intellectual content than "Piss Christ".

Absolutely... but again the vast majority of works funded rose well above this in quality and integrity.

And quit calling me "Kevin"

Personally, I have made my statements and I value yours, but will probably contribute no more to this thread unless it's actually about cell phones.

[Joe Baker]

AAGGHH!! Craig Craig Craig Craig Craig.

I am so sorry, man. I don't know why I have that stuck in my head; must have known a Kevin McNabb (which I know is also not your last name...) sometime or another, and seeing the "Ke" at the beginning of your handle is just messing me up. I'm really not doing that on purpose. :shy:
__________________________
Joe Baker, among whose biggest flaws is a STUNNINGLY bad way with names.

[Chuck(G)]

The Federal Government has no place in advancing any kind of art. Doing so leads to unspeakable abominations like this:


Actually, private non-governmental folks have questionable tastes, too. I can think of one artist who has a thing about urinals who gets very substantial private support.

Some folks have too little taste and too much money.

[Joe Baker]

That's true. It is mostly hatred for Christians that will garner government funding.

Actually, I can think of several examples of publically-funded groups recieving funds to promote "Christian themes" - most specifically, orchestral Christmas concerts and displays of Christian-inspired works at publically funded museums.

Touche. But there are positive expressions, recognition and exhibitions of other religions as well. If there's going to be any of it, that sort of equal treatment is appropriate, even to the point that other-than-Christian religious recognition is disproportionately represented compared to the numbers of practitioners of each religion.

But Christianity ALONE is fair game for hatred. Not only will you NOT see a government-funded insult to any other religion, the government turns itself wrongside out at the thought of anyone accidentally insulting someone of any other faith. Just look at the current hysterics over Koran mistreatment (and just what CONSTITUTES Koran mistreatment) to see what I mean.

Again, that's not to defend hateful acts against other faiths; merely to point up that there is a double standard that makes hatred of Christianity fair game, while all other faiths are treated with consistent respect.
________________________________
Joe Baker, who supports a policy of equal respect for people of all faiths or no faith at all.