We are, of course, amazed that our readers occasionally disagree with our brilliant and witty essays. In fact, sometimes quite a few readers think that The Outrage editors are wrong, misanthropic, idiotic, selfish, deluded, or all of the above.

Mother Outrage always told us that even the dull and the ignorant should have their say, so we've allowed space below for those dissenting opinions (and for shameless flattery).

Read the 2nd set of comments about this Outrage!

Read the 3rd set of comments about this Outrage!

Hell no, art should NEVER be subsidized!!!! Never mind the crap which we're being forced to pay for; just WHO is determining that some stuff is "art" deserving of a dip at the public trough, while other stuff is just plain unworthy? Isn't art, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? WHO GETS TO DECIDE, AND WHY DO THEY GET TO USE MY MONEY TO DO THE DECIDING?

Absolutely not!! They can do whatever they want, but not with my money!!

First off, I believe that our tax money should be used for more important things,like educating our children and helping hospitals. You know, things that are actually helpful in society. While I am a huge supporter of artists, I fail to see how offensive art such as this promotes the well being of our society. Second of all, Im glad to see that many of you are so smug about the failures of the church. Are you the same about seeing a family torn apart by divorce or world war? No, the church isn't perfect, but what should we say? "Shame on us for reaching out to feed the poor or to help keep kids off the street." Speaking for the majority of GOOD and HONEST christians in the world, you can say what you want, draw what you want, sing what you want, but dont expect the rest of us to foot the bill.

To all of the religious people that find this offensive, I have some words of wisdom. Every religion thinks it is right, Christianity, Buddhism, Catholisism, Hinduism, Muslims etc. Unfortunately, the Christian right is the most vocal and condenscending of all. They do not like anything that might tarnish their "rightous" delusions of themselves. Well, Christians of the world, look at your fine examples. Catholic pedophile priests, televangelists, that bonehead Pat Robertson. Boy, you DEFINITELY have the RIGHT to criticize art.

A good thing for these christian right a-holes to remember is that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

In my humble opinion, if the art is subsidized, it is subsidized. I think exhibits SHOULD allow pictures of Mary, Buddha, MLK, the Pope, or Howard Stern surrounded by feces in porn (although in the latter's case noone would notice.) Subsidies come from taxes and taxes often go to things we do not like. But if they also go to exhibits we do like, then we can't complain. If we get rid of the virgin mary poop, we have to get rid of all the subsidies. We either allow all or allow nothing. As far as spitting on God, He has been spit on since the beginning of time. He'll get over it.

Issue #1:

Artists should EITHER be subsidized OR charge admission, not both.

Issue #2:

I think artistic expression is great, especially when it mocks value systems which are deserving of mockery, and by extension, the half-wits who hold said value systems as sacred, in this case, Catholicism. HOWEVER, I don't believe in double-standards; if we're going to mock one religion or culture, ALL religions and cultures should be equally open to mockery. As was stated in the original article, our society gives more consideration to followers of one creed than another. While I find all spiritual religions to be idiotic cop-outs for weaklings, I don't think one set of dilusional beliefs should be given special treatment just because it's "politically correct" to do so.

Awosme

It's funny how people think they have a choice in how their tax money is spent. There are plenty of things that I find offensive in our national budget - like aid to corrupt foreign dictators and pork barrel projects - but we don't get to pick and choose based on personal taste or circumstances. I don't eat beef, yet hundreds of beef farmers get part of my tax dollars to artificially inflate prices. Should I protest that? I don't have any kids, yet some my taxes go schools. Should I not have to pay for that either? No, because this is how it works: We all pay into the same pot and you can't get upset because .0001 cents of every dollar (which is the percentage of federal budget that goes to arts funding) is going to soemthing that you find disagreable.

So to all the whiny christians who feel the need to get their panties in a wad over federal funding of art they don't like, here's a concept: GET A GRIP. If you don't like it, ignore it and go on with your lives! If only your faith were as strong as your ability to scream out in moral indignation, maybe there could be a reasonable discussion about the whole matter.

I do NOT think it's the people's job to fund artists. But I don't condone censorship of art of any kind however. I think that artists should be free to produce whatever works they can come up with....but not with my money. And people must STOP making terrible analogies. Like when stacy wrote something earlier about this article and drew the comparison of burning books. Taxpayers don't support writers. So why should tax payers support artists? Because they're profession doesn't pay well? Too bad. Get a real job if you want to make money. You want to create fabulous works of art? Outstanding, and good luck to you. I hope it works out. But don't come complaining to me that the public refused to give you a grant to make more paintings of the Baby Jesus covered in maple syrup being eatin by rabid wolves. I'm sorry if you feel it's "just not fair" that you should suffer for your profession. I don't care. There are people in this world who need tax dollars FAR more than artists do. (And I'm NOT referring to the wealthy or the 'upper class') That money would be much better spent by improving our education system or helping the homeless. I may be babbling at this point, but I just fail to see how these people deserve taxpayer money to do a job that they chose.

I'm 15 and I think violence today is outragous and it should be stopped. I live in a small town called Dunnville and I have never seen any violence in my town!

chirlden services have to much power to ruren faimley's in ohio I want my kid's back damnIt

I think that with that tax paying came an education, an education that was supposed to teach us to be more open-minded, and appreciate art, so maybe until you hard headed holy-rollers learn to appreciate these blasphemous images on a higher than kindergarden level religion, those tax dollars should go back to the school, to educate your children, so that they don't start shooting girls in our schools cuz of being martyrs to you self assured religion. Grow up tax payers of america, art is older than god. Nuff said.

okay lets think about this....

in order to create a virgin mary with elephant dung....

THE ARTIST HAD TO BE SURROUNDED AND WORKING WITH ELEPHANT DUNG ALL DAY!!!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!! isn't that satisfying....

Easy way to choke someone is with their own words -- e.g., see who would "censor" rendition of Jesse Jackson spitting in salads of white customers in restaurant -- of Barney Frank filling in for Monica Lewinsky w/Clinton - with rendition of training for those interested, on how to cut out tongues of the list of usual suspects for their efforts in turning Viet Nam over to commies, e.g. Jane Fonda, Clinton, Ted Kennedy, George McGovern, et al . (Ayatollah, where are you ?)

By the way, the Sunday New York Times ran an article on page one that re-inforced the less-splashy side of Giuliani's case - that the Brooklyn Museum's leaders effectively were pimps for the space on their walls, making a conscious effort to display that which would bring the most financial benefit to the show's backers.

It just confirms that art is no longer about creating a work of beauty for the ages - it's about who you know, how much money they've got, and how fabulous their friends are.

I think this is garbage; how can they call it art; desecration of holy objects and anyone who patronizes this sleeze deserves what they get.

I don't think we should have to foot the bill for this trash. Especially when it offends my religious beliefs. I also don't like the idea that the money to support this garbage is taken out of my paycheck by the feds. Art is in the eye of the beholder and in my eye it is trash pure and simple. I wouldn't support art that offended some other religious group either but it seems because it is only the catholics or christians it offends it's okay. Will I'm here to tell you it isn't okay and it makes me extremely mad that federal money out of my paycheck supports this. Everyone is entitled to his or her idea of what should be supported except where it infinges on my beliefs or the beliefs of others. Get rid of it trash needs to go to the dump!

As a rule only the priviledged have the time yo spend in art galleries, so I say put them on a pay per visit basis. If the wealthy, well offs & those time to spare can see anything they want at no coast to any one else.

I think we're all missing the most important point revolving around this event: Hillary Clinton's revealing position. Not only has she obliquely endorsed the exhibit, which shows what she thinks of Mary, the mother of the Son of God---i.e., she is anti-Christ(I didn't say the Anti-Christ)---and it shows that she believes that obscenity-disguised as art should be shoved down all of our throats, and we should pay for it. Gulliano's response is correct and moral (and constitutional), however Hillary is a safety and security threat to America and everything we claim we stand for. Tell me what you think. Post your views at www.delphi. com/straighttalk, or return email me. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton having the direct power to make laws? Merle Dautrey President Safe and Secure

Art should be produced on a supply-demand basis, not subsidized by taxpayers. You can be as offensive as you want-but not on my dime!!!

The United States government should only subsidize art if the American people say it should. There is no "they" there is only us. If you are outraged by governmental actions, express your views to your congressman, that's what they're there for, to be your vioce in the government of the United States. As for the outrageousness of the "art" one of the foundations of liberal democracy is the free exchange of ideas and images within society no matter how offensive or disgusting they may be. One can select those views and expressions to take seriously and value, but no person has the right to select those views which may be publicly expressed.

Henry Palmer (and others):

While great art may provoke, stimulate and agitate, it does not follow that anything hanging in a gallery that's provocative, stimulating or agitating is therefore art.

"Sensation" is nothing more than a spoiled bunch of pretentious Eurotrash striking a "help-help-I'm-being-repressed" pose, cashing huge checks as they mewl about censorship.

Damien Hirst and Chris Ofili are the hipper-than-thou art world's version of Andrew Dice Clay.

I think it's disgusting and I'm appalled to see my tax money used like this. Everett Dirksen once said "a million here and a million there and first thing you know it's real money". A lot of our politicians just don't get it.

art is subjective. why don't we start burning books too?

don't you think it's about time the people in this country either let the racism fly (and probably the bullets too) or stand up for more than just their own self-serving interests... i am sick and f***ing tired of the stale rhetoric that is served by the 'hack/politico' of the day, be it sharpton, stern, or any other neo-anything. the fact that the catholics didn't blockade this event like the african, asian, or jewish americans would have sends what kind of message? are catholics lazy or is everyone else over the edge?

I think that your problem is that you are missing the point - art is meant to stimulate, provoke and agitate (and Damien Hirst and co. have obviously done the trick), and to get you thinking on a deeper level, rather than drawing mindless criticism. Also, the point about white artists creating art based around other cultures' religions, while being generally valid, is somewhat redundant in this case, Damien Hirst being a white, English, protestant. Yours Henry Palmer

We are now subject to rule by minority, and a sick minority at that. Are we so afraid to call pornography and trash by its true name? Why do we keep rewarding the politicians who keep voting to fund the dissemination of this material?

If you elect a government that has a commitment to funding the arts thats great. If you didnt, then complain. If you are one of the many who fail to vote, shut up. If you are realy concerned about your tax contribution then wail about the gross over expenditure on the military aimed at making Americans feel good about themselves by the slaughter of innocents. Wail about the US funded military regimes suppressing third world economies. Wail about bizarre penal codes that tie up funds in the penal system. Third world America wont result from a few dollars spent on a piece of art. It will be born of apathy and ignorance.

What do you expect, when the president of USA has less morels than an alley cat. Clean up our gov`t,. Put a moraly responsible person in.

Oh, get over it.

I'm outraged by Sweeney's argument. The question is not whether or not you should subsidize Nazis propaganda if you subsidize anti-catholic art. The point lies in the fact that art is varied, and it varies from pro-catholic to anti-catholic art all over the world. Sweeney doesn't ever seem bothered by the fact that museums do contain pro-catholic works. In fact, he would rather see pro catholic paintings than anything else. Art cannot be impartial. Art is a tangible expression of the artist's emotions, it can therefore, by definition, never be free from "propaganda". And freedom of expression is exactly what this is about. We let KKK members march in the streets and we let people build churches anywhere they want because they have freedom of speech and the freedom to hold different values than you do. And even though that church across the street from my house may bother me because I don't believe in the ideals it symbolizes, I have to accept its existence because I want that church to accept my existence. As for the tax payers, they pay for both this exposition as well as the hundreds of other expositions that contain pro-catholic or even neutral content. Sweeney's argument is thus void. In fact, I think that perhaps Sweeney would prefer the government to choose the morally acceptable pieces of art to be displayed in our "Democratic Country", and burn the unacceptable ones. Perhaps, Sweeney is proposing that we pay for Nazi propaganda so that we can help spread his ideals.

This is not the first time that our money has been used for something that is not worth showing at an xxxx rated

the virgin mary, no matter what surrounds her, is always protected by her son. i don't think we need to worry about her, but about the poor souls who's minds work that way. they scare me.

Only the wealthy can afford expensive, outrageous art. They pay incrediblly high prices to the artists who, in the course of time and IF their "art" really IS art, become quite well-to-do. Having made it into the big leagues, they buy large homes and studios, epensive cars and the art of other tax-funded artists closing the cycle. In the meantime they pay income tax supporting, among other things, armies and navies, schools and sewer systems and artists whose work they think is crap.

Any federal tax subsidies of art is a violation of our Constitution. I'm vehemently opposed to the NIH, NEA, DOE (both of them) and all other fereral agencies which are not explicitly required by this document that is supposed to be "the law of the land".

Why is it that the Christian community is the only one that is crapped on and does not stand up for itself. Is it because they know we are so diversified that we'll only fight amoungst ourselves before any real action can take place? I think it is. Why must we take the jibes and insults of these people. If we actually stood up for our beliefs instead of cowering in some secluded hole, hoping that it will just pass us by, then our religion and belief in God the Almighty will be outlawed by these "free-thinking" liberals. It is time we stood up and voiced ourselves to OUR government. It is time we make a stand for what we believe in. In the Old Testament, wars were fought for the belief in God. It is time we thought like that again and stand up for him! His Son died for us, We can stand for him!

The question I have is this, if the art work has merit, why not display the work with private funding? That is, let the market determine the value of the art.

Also, I think someone should create a painting of Hillary and Bill surrounded by elephant dung. Or maybe that would be an outrage, I don't know!!

I think this is a totally disgusting statement about what the world has come to today. I am the mother of two young children, and have been increasingly dismayed about the state of our government and society. I dread to think what will be subsidized by our tax dollars when my kids are adults. There is not a single reason on earth why our tax dollars should be subsidizing such trash! Of course Hillary supports this, wonder if she has brought her darling Chelsea to see the exhibit when she was in NY last week? Why would I not be surprised?

It is not art, whatever it may be, though. It is, perhaps, just what its name implies, meant to sensationalize and shock -- not different from P.T. Barnum's reason for displaying freaks. "A fool and his money are soon parted." ("A sucker...., etc.") No God would be God if he were offended by mortals' pranks. Neither Catholics nor the Virgin Mary have been desecrated by vandals in this sense that has not happened before. Life goes on... and God's in his Heaven. Christianity and Americans have suffered too long being easy to take advantage of as they do not retaliate in modern times for insults to the truths they hold to be self-evident and dear to them. I would not waste a penny on such exhibitionism and waste of human endeavor.

The Government has no busuiness in the art business. Our tax dollars were never meant to subsidize any thing of the sort. Where and when did all that nonsense start in the first place? During the enlightening and awakening 1960's? We all complain about how our tax money is squandered and wasted and this lastest controversy is a perfect example of why the government needs to stay out of supporting the "arts". Private donations should only be accepted.I'm more outraged about my money being used to fund such frivolous and unimportant programs such as the arts than of the subject matter. Pornography is all over in our society now. It's all in the open. It was just a matter of time until our own government would be supporting it and calling it "art". After all, Bill Clinton has mainstreamed Larry Flynt. What's next?Subsidising "Husler" magazine at our expense? Or, how about gangster rap concerts? Th possibilities are endless. Oh well, are we at all surprised? Just another example of how our money is used for frivolous and nonessential programs at our expense and the saddest part of all is that most people don't even know nor do they care. Seems odd, we can't have religious diplays on school grounds that may promote any sort of religion but the government can defend any sort of sick or disgusting diplay of religous or even non-religious art and expect us to pay for it.

I have read the constitution several times. The first amendment to the constitution guarantees the right of freedom of speech and press. It does not say I have to pay someone to say or right something. The goverment as usual has over stepped it's bounds in telling us how we will spend our money. The goverment should not censor what we see. But the goverment should not controle what we see by paying people to show things we don't want to see. If you want to see it pay for it yourself.

now you've done it !!!!! don't you realize that it is only by the grace of the elite left that they allow us to keep 1/2 of what we earn?!! and when we complain about how they spend " their " money, it only shows how ungrateful we are for their benevolence. they are soooooo morally superior to any of us..... how can you even question their choice of "art"?!! their spiritual leader in our white house exemplifies the length, breadth, and depth of their morallity ( scatch length and breadth)

Religions contain no value at all except as stimulants for contemptuous laughter. OOOH! the bad ol artists mocked catholicism? SHAH!That pretty mild compared to what Cortezs' boys did to the Indians or the Spanish Inquisition. Only fools defend religion ,or be live in god for that matter. Unprescribed me from this piece of papist poop!

I think everyone should support the arts, what would this country be without art? Wasn't the entire basis of this country supposed to be freedom of speech, the right to express yourself? I think that particular artist had just as much right to express himself with that "work of art" as you have to critisize it. Don't be so stupid and close-minded. Besides, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

The government should help with art. Simply because you see it as something awful does not mean it is not art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

When you argue that tax payers should not be forced to support art forms that you in particular find offensive you also argue against art programs in public schools. Would you deny a child an art education for the sake of one exhibit that offended you? If the answer is yes, you need help. This is clearly a censorship issue. What one person calls art another calls trash, and what one person could the populas agree on to define what art is, no one. If you dicredit a single artist's work as trash you are censoring. A single artist who's expression contains images a Catholic may find offensive is no reason to put restraints on an entire community of artists. Oh and if you want my opinion: God asked for it :)

The author of Spitting on God shows extreme lack of objectivity both in the title and piece. YOUR personal prejudices are evident in your attack on this singular event. The issue of tax dollars being spent for Art exhibits that offend is second to the Author's obvious contempt for any opinion that is not like his or hers, whichever is the case. My snap judgement is no tax money should be spent on these art exhibits that possibly offend the more sensitive member of our society. On closer examination one must ask "how can everyone be satisfied"? what good is produced by funding these artist? Does it give unknown artist a platform to express their ideas (even radical ones.) Perhaps even exposure for an artist who may otherwise continue unknown. If it were art that showed the blessed mary walking in the park, Would you complain then?

No.

I agree that using taxpayer money to fund art is ludicrous. Art that is pleasing to me may or may not be pleasing to another. Its disgusting enough that we have to pay such high taxes for social welfare and other services that allow people to sit on their rumps, but at LEAST I have heard some lucid and intelligent arguments as to why this is necessary. ART is a luxury and NOT a necessity. Sure, I want to expose my kids to it, but I don't want YOU to have to fund that if I cannot afford to expose them to "great art". I also agree that if someone took a Koran and mounted it on canvas and then splattered it with dung and pornography, the artist would promptly and swiftly receive death threats and maybe even be killed by militant groups of various (I'm sure one can imagine) backgrounds. After all, Rushdie, author of Satanic Verses had a "hit" out on him put there by Muslim fanatic groups. His free speech was enormously compromised. Furthermore, I doubt the museum would display any such art that desecrated symbols from other religions (other than Christianity). They would be too afraid of the consequences.

There millions of children in this country who are potential victims of the drug trade, street violence and premature parenthood (to name a few). Healthy mental pre-occupation with perfomance and graphic art could literally save some of these youngsters live. Simply because these activities challenge, for example, their (our) concerns for humanity and concepts of beauty. The sad truth, however, is that the children most in need of these virtuos diversions will hear from the Public School District in which they are sentenced, that there is no money for drama teachers, dance masters, (real) graphic art instructors or the physical space and facilities needed. With these disheartening facts staring us in the face and a realized end result of such neglect (much earlier than Collumbine), the well bred, well fed whose children will learn about Street Life on TV or film can afford to sit on their liberal rumps and shout "Anything goes!". The caveat is "Chicken will come home to roost!".

Any government funding of art is theft from the taxpayer. It is not constitutionally mandated. If people want to support ort, then let them, regardless of the content, but do not force me, nor any other taxpayer, to support what we detest against our will. We should end all government subsidies to art. Again, it is not the constitutional function of government to support art.

MY ONLY COMMENT IS; A SOCIETY GETS WHAT IT DESERVES. WE ARE A NATION OF CHEATS,LIARS LAZY PEOPLE. ALSO ANY SPECIES THAT FEEDS UPON ITS YOUNG IS DOOMED."GOD BLESS AMERICA" LAND THAT WE LOST. I HOPE THE NEXT GENERATION WILL BEHAVE MORE RATIONALLY.

I have always felt the Arts endowments were a waste of money. If you can't make a living with your particular form of artistic impression, or garbage in this case, then your "art" should be considered a hobby and not be subsidized by the taxpayers of America. If there is a demand for such filth, then let the consumers support it! Keep up the great work!

The government should not be subsidizing any grotesque art with feces or such. But I am sick and tired of people defending religon. If it weren't for the government subsidizing it, what the hell is the problem? OH yeah, the tax-free shelter, that is the religous crutch, should decide what this country thinks. My ass!

eat me

If we paid taxes on only what we support would this not exclude for some people parts of the defense budget, immigration, sports stadiums, corporate tax shelters, welfare etc. etc. The list goes on. What a system. Develope a formula and let us withold taxes on what we do not support.

If you take away government funding of the arts, does that not also include arts programs in schools like the all-American high school band? Or choral concerts? Or how about finger painting for kindergarteners? OF COURSE IT DOES! Before you start attacking the arts and questioning the need for taxpayer money, look at all this really does to enrich our lives. This exhibition is just a small piece of a larger picture that really does help us to express ourselves and be creative. It's not the artists or the people who display the art who are hampering our ability to grow, learn, and create... it's the people who are too closed minded to ever' look at something and themselves in a new light and discover that maybe things aren't always the way they should be. Regardless, just think of a high school football game without the half-time band and THEN you might get more of an idea of what you're thinking about killing.

(God it's late...)

It really is so sad what this country has come to. We really have become a disgraceful country. I pray that God will not turn away.

I personally have not seen the exhibit in question, but I think it should be funded. Those of you who say that art should support itself in the open market. If we did that then this country, would fall even further into the dismal abyss, we Americans are on average, already some of the most uncultured people in the world, we wouldn't pay for art if we didn't have to, and so art would simply disappear, to be replaced probably by a big photograph of a mcdonalds hamburger. Without things like the NEA there would be no art, no theatre, nothing even the slightest bit sophisticated, at least not for anyone who isn't rich.

I do not think that taxpayerws should subsidize art or acting. If people want to see the exhibit, advertise and let those that like the show pay. Just like going to a movie.

Kudos for a terse and intelligent examination of the real issue- government involvement in areas where it has no business being. If these so-called artists are really convinced of the value of their 'art' let them test themselves in the marketplace. Or perhaps they could find private patrons who will support their indulgences. After all, Michaelangelo and DaVinci did fine in the private sector.

NO! John Q., should not pay for such. Those that miss use or create bad art should replace the money they waste.

Hell no to any funding ofany group by tax dollars. Pray for the distruction of God's and OUR enimies.Psalem 83:

I think that mrs.clinton should be forced to pay to have someone take a picture of someone defecating on Chelsea while she is naked. This photo should then be enlarged to life size and put in the brooklyn museum. If Clinton should oppose this, then we should press charges for infringing on our first amendment rights.

There's a positive side to all this, you know.

All those communities who wanted to put Christmas nativity scenes in front of town hall can now do so without fear of ACLU retribution. Simply scatter some dung around the animals in the manger -- what's more natural than that? -- and you'll have a constitutionally-protected work of art.

--

Last I checked, private funding for the arts came to about $9 billion a year, while the National Endowment for the Arts' budget hovered around $100 million.

And since leftists have diligently pointed out how much richer the rich have been getting, surely it'll be no sweat at all for rich folks to pony up an extra .01 percent to cover a zeroed-out NEA budget.

A committment was made and all attempts, no matter how distasteful, should be made to honor that committment. Freedom of speech is NOT about what is said, but IS about who gets to decide what can and cannot be said. I agree with the right of freedom of speech. I also agree with my right not to view a piece of art that I consider objectionable. The difference is that I am making the decision for me. As for the tax dollars, a financial committment was made to the museum and should be honored. It has been pointed out to the government many times that they should get out of the art business. Perhaps after their committments are honored, they will finally listen and act appropriatly.

I think this misuse of our tax money should be stopped. If a person wants to create a piece of art then that is their own business. But not with my tax money. To have dung even in the area with Mary is rediculous, not to mention unholy. I have always flushed my dung down the sewer. That is where this crap should be also. There are better ways for us to spend our money than on someone's demented mind. I would no more enjoy seeing this displayed openly than I would any murders evidence of their crime. Some things are to be kept sacred and private. Our love of God and dung are on the opposite ends of common sense. Time for us as citizens to do what is "right" and stop this kind of outrageous mess.

how can a society support one form of art and oppose another? its all art. and besids, how much in tax dollars are you acctualy paying? compared to, oh, say WELFARE?

Contrary to the 'outraged' opinions of many, I have a strong belief in our personal liberties. That is one of the strongest liberties we here in America have. In China, Cuba, and many other countries, artists do NOT have freedom to BE artists. They must "conform" to what the State's idea of appropriate art is. For most of this century, Artists behind the Iron Curtain were not *Allowed* to show art that did not meet the 'party line.' Clearly, many individuals are confusing their own *Dislike* (which is perfectly acceptable) with Legal and Morally Reprehensible...and worse. When we here, as Americans, reach the point, where we can NOT say what we WANT, paint what we WANT to....then, where are we? I might not like what you say, but...I'll defend to the death your *unalienable right to SAY IT!!* It's a very scary world to be living in where one must listen to a politician tell us what we MUST like or not like in art....then, why not music or literature, or how we dress, or where we live, what we eat, where we go or where we work...where is the End of it? What really IS FREEDOM if you can't paint a picture that YOU want? Art is Art, not photocopying or mindless submission to the wills of those who CannotSee, therefore Know Not. This is after all, .............AMERICA!!! And I say, God Bless America, and Long May She Reign. Love it or leave it for a country where they WILL tell you what 'art' to like.

If we didn't have funding for the arts, then all the art you find "legitimate" wouldn't get any funding either. The "starving artist" image is way played out. And as previously pointed out, the work itself doesn't receive the funding. BUT, specific artists can get grants, LEGITIMATELY, after a screening process. Granted, some weird things get through, but that shouldn't mess it up for the others.

last one, i swear. :)

The framers of the constitution never meant it to become the sacred document that it is. You learn this in college government, i've never been to college and I know this. They re-wrote it a few times. as far as I know, the one that we harold as the "holy bible" of our government was enacted in 1778, two years after our original one in 1776. You know what that means? Yes, they changed it to suit the needs of the country for the period of time they were written in. Had to mention that since people were complaining about constitutional rights being violated. They kept their non-working constitution for 2 years before scrapping it, and we keep our "working" constitution for 200+ years. Kinda funny, yes? If it worked there would be less problems, wouldn't there? When something works there are usually very few problems. When something doesn't work there are problems everywhere. What do we have, almost no problems or quite a lot of problems? Besides, if what the constitution says on it are taken as inalienable human rights in this country, why are there people in prison? Some of these inalienable human rights would have to be violated. Inalienable human rights means that no one can take them away, but they are taken. So why do convicts have rights at all? Because they are people, yes? If they are people, why are they locked in cages, seems kinda cruel and inhuman. On the other hand, if they are animals, as so many people say they are, then why do they have rights at all? Indesiciveness is fun! Especially when it messes over someone else's life. No sympathy for the devil.

Also, all art is in bad taste because I have no speacial fondness for Van Gogh or most well accepted artists, so that wouldmean that the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. People still like orange plaid bellbottoms. I find them horrendous and in bad taste, but they find my jeans and t-shirt in bad taste. Who is right? Or are the bellbottoms inherently evil and wrong. Or is it the jeans or the t-shirt. Or maybe we have a difference of opinion so it is best just left alone. I wear my clothes, they wear theirs. Semms so simple, yet so hard since it DOES NOT HAPPEN. Anyways, since I don't like most "art" that is generally accepted as art, you know what I do about it? DON'T GO! That's right, I don't go to the art museum or I just avoid the stuff I don't want to see. Yet again, so simple.

No, we should not subsidize art at all. But since we are doing that now, the feces caked Mary can be subsidized also. I am of the opinion that if you don't want to see it, don't pay your $10 to get in the door or stop going to that art museum at all, then they will have to take it down because they are losing business, Or they will get more subsidations (or something like that). I think it's funny that people want freedom of speech unless they don't like what they hear, or in this case, see. I think people should think of what they are about to say before doing so, but it is painfully obvious that they don't. Kinda like the news article about the 300 protestors surrounding the 41 KKK members at a rally in Ohio and then they complained that it wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars. Of course, if no one had gone to protest the KKK probably would not have had very much of an audience, unless they were already KKK members, but then it is preaching to the choir. I mean, come on! I thought we were supposed to be getting BETTER as a society, not worse. I've done the same kind of thing, then I started to really think about what I was doing instead of drowning myself in the everyday hum-drum of life and I am finding that I don't do that any more (as in, create a problem then complain that there is a problem, even though, if i had thought about it, the problem could have been avoided with a few moments of thought.) Doh! Someone once said to Voltaire, "Life is hard." And he said, "Compared to what?" Life is only hard because we make it this way, so don't go whining to mommy that life is hard.

NO.....if the museum wants to show exhibits of that nature, tell them to find private funds (i can think of better places for that 5 million to be spent, ie: schools,child welfare...) thanks for the outrage!

Just more effort to demoralize our country.

To be honest, there's nothing I'd rather do than to go see a Picasso, or a Degas, or some other form of real art. Unless, of course, that would be paying for an artist's right. Are we that arrogant and unthinking that we don't want to sponsor any modern art due to a few sickening pieces? There's much more going on out there than just the Mother in crap. There are inspiring, thought provoking pieces of art that no one pays attention to, because all eyes are on the shocking. America's attentino is perversely drawn to the shocking. And who's to say that shocking art isn't thought-provoking? I want to sponsor all of it, not just the stuff I like. As Voltaire once said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die fighting for your right to say it."

Taxpayers should not subsidize this garbage. Leberal Democrats are to blame and its high time Americans of all walks of life send them a resounding message. Stop wasting out tax dollars. By the way, how about a Tax Cut?

For shame!! Enough is Enough! Father forgive them for they know not what they do!