Help the NEA

Jay Watterworth watterwo@SOBEK.COLORADO.EDU
Wed Jun 24 22:18:50 EDT 1998


Good thoughts, Sal.  I agree.  The few outragous artistic pieces that
were funded by the government are first, a real exception to the rule --
if I was going to object to "questionable" taste, I would pick the
uninspired, mundane rather than something over the edge; second,
someone's idea of art may not be mine, but so what?  And three, to
discourage any type of art is shortsighted and foolish -- almost every
"great" artist, those on the cutting edge defining what art is *now* from an
historical standpoint has been subjected to this.  This includes Picasso,
Davinci, Maplethorp, Beethoven, Bach, Muddy Waters, and (dare I) Stevie Ray
Vaughn.

If it offends you, don't look or listen.

Jay Watterworth

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Sally Stevens wrote:

> In a message dated 6/22/98 7:31:41 PM, stevehoffman@erols.com wrote:
>
> <<Surely, no artist has a constitutional right to have
> his or her art project subsidized by the federal government. The NEA has
> a finite amount of money that it can award to a finite number of
> artists. The world will survive even if some guy who wants to float a
> crucifix in a jar of urine has to do so using his own funds and without
> a government grant.>>
>
>         But as taxpayers we all have a constitutional right to have some say in where
> our money goes.......I'd rather my taxes went to support art & music, even if
> it is a crucifix in a jar of urine.....than the CIA...which I find much more
> offensive than anything Mapplethorp ever created......
>         Sal
>



More information about the Blues-l mailing list