Things that make you go.......WTF?

[David]

It may seem like 'shock for the sake of it' if you consider the only possible purpose of representing defecation or menstruatiom is shock value. That's part of it, perhaps, but what if the artworks make people think about these processes? About our bodies' roles as machines for converting matter from one state to another, for instance?

[1061]

It may seem like 'shock for the sake of it' if you consider the only possible purpose of representing defecation or menstruatiom is shock value. That's part of it, perhaps, but what if the artworks make people think about these processes? About our bodies' roles as machines for converting matter from one state to another, for instance?

No it's not shock it is disgusting and frankly perverted.

These types need to have their funding reversed until they can prove that they are capable of creating art the community isn't going to throw up when they are looking at.

[stui magpie]

An easy target, but once again: how can such a universal human experience be considered off-limits for art?

I think some people (Bolt in particular) have a very limited appreciation of what art can be. For them, it's beautiful sunsets and classical paintings. What they don't get is that art doesn't have to be beautiful and doesn't have to be tasteful either (or, needless to say, the sort of thing readers of The Herald Sun would enjoy).

Having said that, I do think grants should be reserved for proposals with serious merit. Whether or not all grant-funded works qualify under that criterion. I wouldn't be confident enough to say (but in some cases, the answer intuitively seems to be 'no').

hmm yes us herald sun readers (I read it during footy season anyway, well when the pies are on the cover!!) like to see what our art is!!

ps snob

and also ps, I hope they don't give any of my tax dollars to a woman to put balls of wool in her fanny, if so let me know, ill express her a box of tampons

Send her a small white fluffy dog.

Insert it back end first and she could clip the hair off and use it.

Would also mean there would be a use for small white fluffy dogs.



{starts running}

[Tannin]

^ One of the truly great posts of all time*.

I nominate Stui Magpie (formerly known as God), to the Nick's Collingwood BBS Hall-of-Fame.

* Or certainly since Wednesday.

[David]

It may seem like 'shock for the sake of it' if you consider the only possible purpose of representing defecation or menstruatiom is shock value. That's part of it, perhaps, but what if the artworks make people think about these processes? About our bodies' roles as machines for converting matter from one state to another, for instance?

No it's not shock it is disgusting and frankly perverted.

These types need to have their funding reversed until they can prove that they are capable of creating art the community isn't going to throw up when they are looking at.

Perversity is underrated!

Remember, no-one said you have to watch it.

[Wokko]

Remember, no-one said you have to watch it.

Then why am I forced to pay for it? (that was too easy).

[think positive]

An easy target, but once again: how can such a universal human experience be considered off-limits for art?

I think some people (Bolt in particular) have a very limited appreciation of what art can be. For them, it's beautiful sunsets and classical paintings. What they don't get is that art doesn't have to be beautiful and doesn't have to be tasteful either (or, needless to say, the sort of thing readers of The Herald Sun would enjoy).

Having said that, I do think grants should be reserved for proposals with serious merit. Whether or not all grant-funded works qualify under that criterion. I wouldn't be confident enough to say (but in some cases, the answer intuitively seems to be 'no').

hmm yes us herald sun readers (I read it during footy season anyway, well when the pies are on the cover!!) like to see what our art is!!

ps snob

and also ps, I hope they don't give any of my tax dollars to a woman to put balls of wool in her fanny, if so let me know, ill express her a box of tampons

Send her a small white fluffy dog.

Insert it back end first and she could clip the hair off and use it.

Would also mean there would be a use for small white fluffy dogs.



{starts running}

Dislike

You better do an Andrew

[HAL]

What kind of people?

[David]

Remember, no-one said you have to watch it.

Then why am I forced to pay for it? (that was too easy).

I'm happy to have that conversation. What would you say is the purpose of arts funding? Is it to make something that as many taxpayers as possible will appreciate? If not, who is art for and why should it be supported at all?

[think positive]

It shouldn't, give it to the hungry, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or Collingwood

[stui magpie]

^ One of the truly great posts of all time*.

I nominate Stui Magpie (formerly known as God), to the Nick's Collingwood BBS Hall-of-Fame.

* Or certainly since Wednesday.

Thank you sir. I'll take "since Wednesday". It is off season after all.

[David]

It shouldn't, give it to the hungry, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, or Collingwood

Speaking of which, what do people think of a massively lucrative, for-profit sporting competition like the AFL being government funded?

And what percentage of the budget goes into arts funding? Anyone want to take a guess? By comparison, what percentage goes into sports funding, particularly for stuff like the Olympics?

[Wokko]

If governments are going to support the arts then it should be something of value to 'The People' either by being enjoyed, uplifting, beautifying a public space etc. It should be something that people would want to pay to see/experience but the artist can't afford to do it. We should not miss out on brilliant artwork because someone can't afford to make it. If an artist wants to do something a bit whacky and can't make a case for a public grant then that's one they do off their own bat. Let them make a profit from grant work then if they want put that money into personal projects. A bit like Johnny Depp doing an arthouse movie, he makes his money from the 'blockbuster' then makes an unpopular art piece for love.

If you're taking money from people they deserve some kind of return and self indulgence shouldn't be paid for by society.

(Just realised with a bit of formatting and a quick edit for the medium and this could be an Andrew Bolt piece. Up next: White people pretending to be aboriginal)

[stui magpie]

Speaking of which, what do people think of a massively lucrative, for-profit sporting competition like the AFL being government funded?

[HAL]

Can we get back to business?