Protecting them from what? As far as I can tell, the only consistent answer is “knowing things, and thinking thoughts we don’t like.”
15 Likes
6 Likes
Ok class, this is what fanatics sound like.
4 Likes
The full quote:
[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
– Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, signed by George Washington
15 Likes
Those are pretty dangerous things, actually. It might lead into people refusing to comply with orders, and that’s what really scares them. Girls and women might figure out that they are human beings, and just anyone might decide that they love someone who wasn’t pre-approved. And then what happens? Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
Would that make you happy?
It would make me happy! 
7 Likes
Why, the indignity!!! How dare art explore religion!!! How dare art be provocative!!!
Use my tax dollars to fund a still life of some flowers, STAT!!!
10 Likes
Flowers are dangerous.
Perhaps a dog?
In fairness, that’s not meant to be a dig at the former president’s hobby. Painting is fun.
9 Likes
I bet that guy would find this wonderful joke offensive: https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/3x8jqh/jesus_walks_into_a_restaurant/
7 Likes
I wrote that in the full expectation that someone would point out how a still life of flowers could still be considered controversial given the will. I was not disappointed!
2 Likes
Loyola should create a special art gallery with paintings that offends him, and he should call it the “Degenerate Art Exhibit”, then he would be in good company with a historical figure I won’t name.
2 Likes
I don’t know much about art, but I know what God likes.
5 Likes
You mean the bigoted meglomaniac that couldn’t paint?
2 Likes
that is a fantastic piece of art.
it makes a statement and starts conversations and is very well executed combining the cute with the morbid.
i’d proudly hang it in my house anyday.
much of my favorite art makes statements counter to the popular culture they arise from, which is kinda the point.
7 Likes
Do you really think that his curatorial taste is as good as Hitler’s? If memory serves, the ‘degenerate art’ ended up(unintentionally) being a fairly impressive collection of cutting-edge-European-art-that-wasn’t-totalitarian-kitsch-enough.
Not necessarily an easy act to follow if your only qualifications are being a thin-skinned asshole with a probable taste for Precious Moments™ figurines and officially licensed Thomas Kinkade merchandise…
1 Like
I suppose that the armory show would need to be censored for him…
4 Likes
The intensely ironic pity of it is, all the Jesuits I’ve ever known could take this image and generate hours of worthwhile, piercing discussion of right & wrong, Christ & God, sacred & profane, and… damned near everything else. They were unafraid, like Il Papa. Or the recently deceased Berrigan.
Having said that, the modern “intellectual” expectation that religious Catholics ought to view this display without comment or protest of any kind is bullshit. It is knowingly transgressive, and possibly cheaply, thoughtlessly transgressive. Or not. But, every time I look at it, I feel a tired, weak old tug on a chain that I barely own anymore. The feel of it is just enough to let me know that the image had the intent of yanking that chain.
Defenders of Intellectual Freedom ™ who claim otherwise are sorry-assed bullshitters. If you are free of religious freakiness, you don’t bother to paint this kind of thing. It doesn’t even fucking occur to you.
3 Likes
Why not? Catholics literally claim to be eating the body and blood of christ. For someone who may have never even believed that christ even existed, it might be very fun to thoroughly document the absurd claim.
5 Likes
Except absolutely no one is saying that. The modern “intellectual” expectation is that this sort of art will spur thought and dialogue and that some people will hate it just as much as other people love it.
What is being frowned upon is this asshat who thinks that public money shouldn’t be spent on art just because it makes a statement about his imaginary sky friend, and claims that this isn’t okay and won’t happen on his watch. That is vastly different then saying he doesn’t care for it or even hates it.
10 Likes
You know how every artist alive thinks and goes through their individual creative process?
Neat trick, that…
5 Likes
Except the response comments immediately above and below yours are examples of the precious, officious Public Intellectual responsorial song I’m referring to. Pretentious in the extreme, in a venue where their particular pretentions will be applauded.
Loyola’s complaints were weak and silly. The artist’s defenders here are… about equally weak and silly. However they feel wonderfully “validated” in this chi-chi venue. It’s pansy-assed twits of their genre who give rise to the Bernie bros meme. And their loud, immediate responsorial was predictable. Way too predictable.
Devout Catholics totally have the right and responsibilty to point it out when they are being artfully sneered at. If the sneer is grounded in legitimate commentary their complaint will not gain traction. But, a fair exchange of thought is not what the darlings of modern anti-clerical chi-chi are really looking for.
