Sunday, July 31, 2005

"More On" Fine art exhibit

There seems to be a bit of confusion on the part of some liberal commenters as to the sincerity of my praise of the outstanding display of artistic talent at the request of the California State Attorney Generals Office. Some unfortunate, anonymous individual, who apparently was denied a name at birth, doesn't seem to think that my praise of the work by Stephen Pearcy was sincere or that my facts were accurate. Well, just to make this poor no named soul feel better, here are some facts.

1. The art exhibit is co-sponsored by the California Arts Council, a taxpayer supported state agency, and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Democrat.

2. While Lockyer and the Arts Council have tried to distance themselves from responsibility concerning the content of the exhibit, a news release by Lockyer shows his support. In the release, Attorney General Lockyer says it is “an honor to co-host this powerful exhibit.” Lockyer goes on to say, “the collected fine works of these artists – and lawyers – achieve these worthwhile objectives with style and beauty.” In the same news release, Muriel Johnson, Chairman of the California Arts Council, says she was “impressed” by the work, describing it as “wonderful.”

The fact that there is an art exhibit at all within the state government means that it is government sponsored. Therefore essentially, as taxpayers, the residents of that state have a right to know what their resources are being used for and to object.

As an artist myself, I have been in many art exhibits. Even in the simplest show, for any legitimate event the works have been juried before being allowed to hang. Therefore either this was juried and supported by the government officials overseeing the display, or it was simply another example of incompetence where democrat lefties saw another opportunity to shock and offend the sensibilities of mainstream America. Either way, the losers will be Democrats as they continue to distance themselves from the sane majority of this country.

11 comments:

Ashlee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeff said...

disingenuousguy strikes again!

This is how he introduced the Pearcy piece: "Another brilliant creative genius displayed his talent recently at the California State Department at the request of Democrats." Since disingenuousguy is disingenuous, we have to scan other sources to learn the Pearcy piece was one of many in an art exhibit comprised of works by law professionals.

In a duplicitous attempt to tie the Pearcy piece to his claim that it was "requested by" democrats, disingenuousguy notes the exhibit was sponsored by a tax payer supported state agency and California's Democratic Attorney General. Would you like some cream with that red herring? This "evidence" provides nothing to back an assertion that the Pearcy piece was requested by Democrats. From the press release, we learn the exhibition was also sponsored by Sacramento County Public Law Library and California Lawyers for the Arts. Pieces were selected from a field of entries NOT by Democrats, but Charles Miller, curator and former owner of the Himovitz Gallery.

Bullet point two provides insight into disingenuousguy's squabble with an art exhibit located 1510 miles from his house. While the sponsors have "distanced" themselves from the show's content, none have specifically trashed the Pearcy piece. (BTW: This Stephen Pearcy is NOT the former lead singer of Ratt). Instead, they've diplomatically praised the entire exhibit. This hardly sounds like the actions of those who "requested" a piece in which Bush flushes the country down the toilet.

Finally, we should note that not one dime from Minnesota's tax coffers was used to finance this display. While he may rant from 1510 miles away, disingenuousguy has lost nothing from this exhibit except his credibility.

Anne Nonymous said...

The exhibit was also co-sponsored by the California Arts Council. The director of which is one Muriel Johnson, a republican appointed to the post by republican Governor Arnold Swartzenegger.

Jeff said...

Interesting. Not only was she appointed by a Republican, she is a Republican. She was awarded her BA from the fly-over University of Nebraska. Why does the Republican party continue to promote this type of anti-American trash?

EVH said...

California Lawyers for the Arts. What a joke. Just another example of how badly the Gene Pool needs to be cleansed in this country. I suggest that Stephen should stick to practicing law and give up his artistic ambitions. A lawyer, a liberal, and a democrat: is there a lower form of plant life in the universe?

Big Dick Hurtzer said...

Hey EVH managed to post a comment without mentioning the "Liberals dreaming about a world without God", or a paranoid homosexual reference. Good for you, however.........

California lawyers for the Arts is a nonprofit organization founded in 1974 which provides artists, and art organizations with a wide range of legal services at more affordable fees. Amoung these services are copyright, contract review, business partnerships and nonprofit incorporation. They run an Arts Arbitration and Mediation Service which provides an efficient, economical and confidential alternative to litigation. As well as other services which tend to lessen a burden which would otherwise be dealt with in the public sphere, and with public money.

Sounds like the kind of "plant life" that does a society a great deal of good. I wonder how much service EVH is providing?????

scud said...

Kids, kids, kids! No need for bickering. Jeff and other whiney lefties, while I am not a California resident, I am a native Californian, and this kind of trash and absurdity can and should be addressed by anyone with commonsense anywhere throughout the country. Or are you one of those "duplicitous" liberals who are all for the first amendment except in cases where the message isn't what you like? Regardless of party affiliation, the pinheads that held this exhibition are obviously challenged when it comes to determining suitability and talent. Pearcy is the same guy who hung a soldier mannequin from his garage roof with some lame sign about dying for nothing or something and called it art. Come on, I and the majority of Americans certainly have every right to voice our opinions as to the stupidity and complete inappropriateness of a piece like this. I would hope that you, as an intelligent lefty would not deny us that right. You have every right to think this is beautiful art. I would say that you're an idiot for thinking so, but won't deny you that freedom. All I am saying is that in my world as a creative professional and as an artist, this is not anywhere near art. And the fact that it has been displayed in a government building with other art, has legitimized it as such and by inclusion, has been sanctioned by the government, albeit, California.

Crap as art happens to be a pet peeve of mine. I see it a lot and it drives me nuts. People like Pearcy are not artists. They are contrarians who seek to shock and offend. That is not art. If he wants to make political statements with finger painted posters, he should do it and hang it on the front window of his Berkley law office. I'm sure it would be appreciated there. NO! IT'S NOT ART!

Jeff said...

Okay, so the Republican head of the California Arts Council is "challenged when it comes to determining suitability and talent." (Since all I've seen was a jpeg image, I'll take your word for it) EVH already informed us that art history is the exclusive domain of liberals so I expect the Republican chairwoman is lacking a suitable background but such are the nature of political appointments. Maybe next year they could sponsor a Thomas Kincaid exhibit just to keep Minnesota happy.

Now would you mind sharing the source of your contention that this piece was requested by Democrats? The head of the California Arts Council is a Republican appointed by a Republican. The entries were juried by Charles Miller, curator and former owner of the Himovitz Gallery with NO political office. You mentioned that the shows sponsors in the Attorney Generals Office "distanced" themselves from the its content. The only source that I can find that asserts this "brilliant creative genius" was commissioned "at the request of Democrats" is disingenuousguy.

Prudence Goodwife said...

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff - you don't want that piece of information. The source is obvious: scud's ass. Now do you really want to touch that? I didn't think so.

scud said...

Wow, you guys are funny. Look, apparently the left not only has trouble with discernment as it pertains to art appreciation, but apparently you have trouble with humor and sarcasm as well. I first used the "requested" term in my original sarcastic post. If you didn't get it, sorry, I can't help you. I next used the term in response to somebody's comment, and admittedly used the term "liberally", for impact. But basically if an agency of the government is hosting an art exhibit, it essentially is requesting, or inviting the pieces that show. The fact that until Schwarzenegger, California was a Democratic monolith in it's control of the state, gave the rest of the country a real life example of the quality of leadership and decision making abilities of the Democrats. Unfortunately for the Dems, they subsequently ran California into the ground financially and proved their lunacy. Hosting an art exhibit displaying horrible and offensive psuedo-art is icing on the tax-funded cake. So please get over it, The Pearcy piece sucks and shouldn't be there! It should be replaced with a Kincaid sunset! or maybe a duck stamp winner, or how about a paint by number, little white church on a hillside; or my favorite, a Precious Moments figurine image as a giant jigsaw puzzle, glued together and framed in knotty pine! Now that's art!

Jeff said...

Actually this comment is the only thing that made me chuckle. It was funny to watch you squirm away from your original talking point. It's also funny to see you react with anger over an arrangment of oil on canvas. When I see a Kincaid cottage, I just move on as though nothing happened rather than consider the fortune he's made selling simple work to simpletons.