No tax dollars for smut!

Perhaps someone in the Denver area will start a campaign for that slogan after reading this:

Gov. Bill Owens is weighing in on the debate over an artist given a $5,000 state fellowship grant, after hearing about the works of art that depict sex toys on hooks.

“Obviously, this is offensive and in extremely poor taste,” said Owens, who couldn’t view the piece himself but had it described to him by staffers. The governor is in New York for an awards ceremony for the University of Northern Colorado Business School.

The artist, Tsehai Johnson of Denver, received the fellowship from the Colorado Council on the Arts in 2003.

The work, originally titled “Twelve Dildos on Hooks” and completed in 2000, was one of several pieces submitted to the CCOA by Johnson when she was applying for the fellowship grant.

Johnson changed the title of the piece to “Large Implements on Hooks” before officially submitting the work to the council.

She told 9News in an interview that she changed the title for artistic reasons.

“I wanted the title to be a little more open-ended so that it didn’t become so easily dismissed,” she said.

Johnson described the piece to 9News: “They’re meant to be sex toys, but sex toys that are talking about a lot of issues.”

Oh.

Let’s see. You have a city that is in the midst of a budget crisis right now and yet they somehow found $5K to pay for THAT?

Ah well … at least it wasn’t something described as “art” displayed in the state DOJ cafteria or anything like that.

8 Responses to "No tax dollars for smut!"

Justin says:

July 23, 2005 at 12:17 am

I’d hold comments about it until you’ve actually have seen the piece of art in question.

I think Denver also has a “1% for the Arts” program, so regardless of what gets made, there’s a part of the budget set aside for artwork.

You may also want to do some research on how much of the budget has been cut out for publically funded art, and arts in the schools.

You may also want to do some research on a historical case of Piss Christ by Andres Serrano, which is a somewhat similar case of an artist using national grant money to fund photographs that were under quite a bit of criticism because they showed Christ on the cross in a jar of urine.
Sister Toldjah says:

July 24, 2005 at 2:45 pm

Hi Justin – I have seen the ‘art’ in question (via a simple Google search) and still maintain that the city of Denver should do a bit better job in determining where their money goes, considering they are facing a fiscal crunch right now. Now of course, I don’t live in Denver but I could very well see the same thing happening here in the city I live in, which is growing more, um – ‘progressive’ every year. I guess ‘art’ is in the eye of the beholder.

I also remember the “Piss Christ” controversy as well. (it’s something I wish I could forget, frankly)
Justin says:

July 26, 2005 at 4:10 am

The whole, “fiscal crunch” is clearly a smoke screen. If that was so, the $1.5 million Dancers would never have been approved:

http://www.denverpost.com/conventioncenter/ci_0002809437

Bill Owens never saw the piece – he was only was given a description.

I live in Denver and you are right that Art is in the eye of the beholder. I do hold a BFA In Fine Arts, it is my opinion that Serrano’s work is fantastic – controversial, sure, but art doesn’t have to be pleasant to be noteworthy.
Freddie says:

July 26, 2005 at 1:33 pm

No one gave her $5,000 to pay for her to make that specific piece. She was awarded a $5,000 grant by the Colorado State Council of the Arts in 2003 because she is a talented artist with interesting ideas, which is what the council is designed to support. It’s called culture. Smut is in the eye of the beholder too, you know.
Sister Toldjah says:

July 26, 2005 at 1:40 pm

Justin: “but art doesn’t have to be pleasant to be noteworthy.”

ST: You’re right, it doesn’t, but where do *YOU* draw the line? Or is there even a line you think should be drawn? Remember, we’re talking about PUBLIC money here, not a private donation.

Freddie: “It’s called culture.”

ST: If that’s supposed to be considered “culture” then I’ll stay UNcultured, thank you very much. I can appreciate art as much as the next person, but (as I asked Justin earlier) at what point does art become something UNartistic to you? Is there a line?

Freddie: “Smut is in the eye of the beholder too, you know.”

ST: Yep – smut to some is treasure to others, I guess.
Freddie says:

July 26, 2005 at 2:03 pm

You seem to be purposefully ignoring the factual basis of any counterpoints to your basically uninformed argument. Oh well, what’s the point of trying to talk to people like you? You’ll just ignore the facts and keep trying to hammer home your personal religious beliefs. Boring! Before I leave you to it, one more try: Public = Culture. Why should YOU be the one to pick and choose what gets supported? Sure, you can say you don’t like it, it offends you, but don’t get all up in arms that other members of society want to see the interesting things that artists come up with and think about the tricky issues that they may raise. Go ahead, live with your eyes and your mind closed, but don’t bother to think that this gives you any sort of moral superiority.
Sister Toldjah says:

July 26, 2005 at 2:10 pm

Freddie: “Oh well, what’s the point of trying to talk to people like you? You’ll just ignore the facts and keep trying to hammer home your personal religious beliefs.”

ST: ‘People like me’? ‘religious beliefs’? Sorry, I don’t respond well to insults or strawmen arguments. It would have really been nice of you to address the *substance* of what I said in my last comment to you rather than go ad hominem. I don’t ask the world of people, only that they respect my POV as I would respect theirs. I guess that was too much to ask of you. Goodbye.
Sister Toldjah says:

July 27, 2005 at 8:07 am

Due to continued insults that had to be deleted in the moderation que, the comments section for this thread is now closed.

Tip to newbies: It’s generally not a good idea to come to someone’s blog and insult the blog host right out of the gate. It’s sort of like coming into someone’s home and telling them they have an ugly house.

I enjoy and respect rational debate here, but won’t tolerate flaming and insults. If you have something to say about the issue, say it in a respectful manner. Don’t make the issues personal, ad hominem attacks. Thanks.

To Justin: If you have any more comments about this issue, please email me. Thanks for taking the time to debate me rather than belittling my opinion. I wish more who shared your view were the same.

Comments are closed.