Oh, great. Now I have a blog! Now I have to take care of it every day! Writing as if everybody in the world will read it when probably nobody in the world will.
This is another example of why our forefathers (Thomas Jefferson, for example) espoused limited government.
In much the same way as public funding for "art" (remember Serrano's "Piss Christ"?) is misguided, so we have the same problem when doling public dollars for science. In a nutshell, the merit of the work becomes subordinated to politics.
Neither the best art nor science emerges when it's subsidized based on the political leanings of bureaucrats. So, bully for Dr. Gray, even if he's a lone voice in the wilderness.
Speaking of "Piss Christ" -- as I understand it, Serrano was trying to make a point about the way Christ has been commercialized in modern society. I agree. We have media/pop culture whores (female and male) providing the worst possible examples for living (certainly not patterned from Christ's life), wearing Christian iconography in their performances (probably as a Trojan horse to get parental buy-in when purchasing CDs, DVDs, clothing, etc.). But, his method of expression does not really strike me as art, nor should I be compelled to pay for it.
Am I recommending censorship? Absolutely not! Mr. Serrano in the art field, and the numerous global warming aficionados in the science field may continue to express, freely, as their consciences direct them. I just don't want to pay for it!
3 comments:
This is another example of why our forefathers (Thomas Jefferson, for example) espoused limited government.
In much the same way as public funding for "art" (remember Serrano's "Piss Christ"?) is misguided, so we have the same problem when doling public dollars for science. In a nutshell, the merit of the work becomes subordinated to politics.
Neither the best art nor science emerges when it's subsidized based on the political leanings of bureaucrats. So, bully for Dr. Gray, even if he's a lone voice in the wilderness.
Speaking of "Piss Christ" -- as I understand it, Serrano was trying to make a point about the way Christ has been commercialized in modern society. I agree. We have media/pop culture whores (female and male) providing the worst possible examples for living (certainly not patterned from Christ's life), wearing Christian iconography in their performances (probably as a Trojan horse to get parental buy-in when purchasing CDs, DVDs, clothing, etc.). But, his method of expression does not really strike me as art, nor should I be compelled to pay for it.
Am I recommending censorship? Absolutely not! Mr. Serrano in the art field, and the numerous global warming aficionados in the science field may continue to express, freely, as their consciences direct them. I just don't want to pay for it!
I used to want to be with Dr. Quinn...
Weather Channel Founder John Coleman agrees as well.
Post a Comment