moonbattery.gif


« Moonbat Screeches That Obama Loves Typical White People | Main | How Reckless Overspending Might Lead to Treason »


July 31, 2009

Stimulus Loot Funds Avant-Garde Pornography

We know that the vast fortune our liberal rulers have been flinging to the four winds hasn't created jobs, so where has it all gone? Fox News managed to track down $80 million:

The National Endowment for the Arts may be spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco. …
A few of their more risque choices have some taxpayer advocates hot under the collar, including a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened Thundercrack, "the world's only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla."

While the economy swirls down the drain because investors can't get cash, $25,000 of our money went to

help fund the weekly production of "Perverts Put Out" at San Francisco's CounterPULSE, whose "long-running pansexual performance series" invites guests to "join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun."

NEA spokeswoman Victoria Hutter crows with pride:

Our review process is very comprehensive — we take great care with applicants and with grantees. It's a thorough, rigorous process that they all go through, and we're proud of the projects that we've been able to support.

Degenerate bureauweenies must take particular pride in having shoveled $25,000 at "The Symmetry Project," a dance show that depicts "the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience."

In the flesh — and there's a lot of it — it amounts to two people writhing naked on the floor, a government-funded tango in the altogether.

According to Luis R. Cancel, director of cultural affairs for the San Francisco Arts Council, this perverted garbage will "generate revenue while enriching people's lives."

If it really did generate revenue, it wouldn't require a bailout. In a culture that has been plunging headlong into degeneracy, you would think porn would be one industry that could turn a profit. But of course, Big Government only subsidizes porn so pretentious and weird that no one wants to look at it.

symmetry-project.jpg
The Symmetry Project: Your stimulus dollar at work.

On tips from Gregory of Yardale , Scaramouche, J, and BURNING HOT; hat tip: 2.0 blogmocracy.com.

Posted by Van Helsing at July 31, 2009 7:19 AM

Comments

Looks like a primer of yoga positions for tax payers.

Posted by: JustAl at July 31, 2009 7:46 AM

That looks like Keith Olbermann all lubed up waiting for his leader and teacher Obama to walk by in hopes of having his bunghole stuffed by his big black....

Posted by: Worst of Gallstone at July 31, 2009 7:47 AM

So thats where tje stimulus gose to fund offensive smut art and from the same bunch of slimeball demacrats who want to cut funding for the F-22

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at July 31, 2009 8:03 AM

endowing the arts is worth any amount of money. some people don't get it (i can't say im delighted with this particular 'art') but the point is thatthe arts in general are important. that is what 'culture' means. and crying about it as if it is the worst possible outcome just marks the philistines in the crowd, rather than anything more meaningful than that.

why do i think that no matter what 'arts' were endowed i would still be reading complaints?

many operas are risque (and some are downright lewd) but that does not decrease their relative merit. ditto staged theatre (equus, anyone? and that was the harry potter kid!).

try ENJOYING art for the sake of art and you might just expand your minds. all goes back the the central anti-conservative thesis: the mindset that "I dont get it, therefore NOBODY can get it". extrapolating your own beliefs/mindset onto the rest of the world smacks of both hubris and puritanical archaism.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2009 8:05 AM

Spurwing, they might reconsider if the Pentagon designed a 'smart-dildo' that can be dropped by an F-22 over San Fran Freakshow.

Posted by: Worst of Gallstone at July 31, 2009 8:06 AM

you don't 'smack of hubris' you REEK OF HUBRIS, anonypussy.

Why don't you just say it "let them eat cake" you communist apparatchik.

Posted by: Worst of Gallstone at July 31, 2009 8:09 AM

"the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience."

A bunch of narcissistic yet talentless tools reduced to resorting to juvenile shock value for attention and using pseudo intellectual jibberish in an unconvincing attempt to pretend otherwise. It must really suck being a moonbat.

Posted by: Smorfia48 at July 31, 2009 8:13 AM

that makes very little sense, "Worst of Gallstone" ...

you are flawlessly supporting my contention. "I dont get it, therefore NOBODY can get it". the rallying cry of those who hear only what they want to hear, and know only what they've heard.

do you have soome specific issue with funding the arts? would you prefer if america was entirely berefit of cultural advancement? maybe we can all go back to living in caves, trying desprately to decide whether or not rocks are edible - and making fun of that progressive guy in the nexy cave over and his new 'fire' invention. (that'll never catch on...)

Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2009 8:14 AM

Hmmm..., I might pay to watch someone shave the fur off that ninny's back. But..., then..., maybe not.

Posted by: Duke at July 31, 2009 8:15 AM

I have no problem with the funding of arts, but This shit is not ART!.

Posted by: Stephana at July 31, 2009 8:17 AM

hey DIPSHIT, I am a professional artist. I know what I am talking about. What the hell do you do beside play video games in your mother's basement?

Posted by: Worst of Gallstone at July 31, 2009 8:17 AM

Art and culture existed in this country long before the NEA was around. The problem with the NEA is you end up with elites snobs in control who think they understand art.

Posted by: son of a preacher man at July 31, 2009 8:18 AM

Yes, and Stephana is absolutely correct, this is not ART, it is self-indulgent BULLSHIT.

Art elevates the spirit, it DOES NOT celebrate banality and perverted sexual activity.

Posted by: Worst of Gallstone at July 31, 2009 8:19 AM

you do realize this story is a joke right!? the NEA got 50M not 80M. The money they issued was PROHIBITED from being spent on ANY project and can ONLY be spent on job retention...

this has nothing to do with art or the NEA... by the way... every single one of those orgs was funded by the BUSH administration... (from media matters)

COUNTERPULSE

2009: $10,000 (Announced December 4, 2008) "To support the Artist Residency and Commissioning Program for local emerging and mid-career choreographers."

2008: $10,000 "To support the Artist in Residence Program for local emerging choreographers."

2007: $10,000 "To support the Artist in Residence program for local emerging choreographers."

FRAMELINE

2006: $20,000 "To support a conference. Persistent Vision will concentrate on strategies relating to exhibition, distribution, and support for filmmakers."

2005: $15,000 "To support a curated film and video series."

2004: $20,000 "To support the presentation of a lecture series."

2002: $16,000 "To support the presentation of a film series."

JESS CURTIS/Gravity, Inc.

2009: $10,000 (Announced December 2, 2008) "To support the creation and presentation of culminating events as part of The Symmetry Project."

2007: $10,000 "To support the creation and presentation of a new work by choreographer Jess Curtis."

2005: $10,000 "To support the creation and presentation of a new work by choreographer Jess Curtis."

SAN FRANSCISCO CINEMATHEQUE

2007: $15,000 "To support a curated film and video series."

2006: $14,000 "To support a curated film and video series."

2005: $15,000 "To support a curated film and video series."

2004: $15,000 "To support a curated film and video series."

2003: $15,000 "To support a curated film/video series."

2002: $15,000 "To support On The Edge, a series of residencies for artists, scholars and curators focusing on experimental cinema."

Posted by: soulfuego at July 31, 2009 8:20 AM

Pornography is not art. It's just porn. Not that I think porn should be illegal, but it is what it is, Anon. Porn is only "art" to the left because they've redefined "art" as that which offends and upsets people so much that they cry out in revulsion. That is a 60's hippie take on art - pushing the envelope until people are sickened and disgusted, and then telling them their disgust is a lack of tolerance. What a cheap and useless formula. Another take on "art" would include Mozart, Rembrandt, Beethoven, etc. Art that involves beauty and bringing out the best in peoples' emotions and lives. Shrieking about how conservatives believe "I don't get it, therefore nobody can get it" is disinguous - the stale and false argument of the left as it outrages and repulses people and then demands accolades for doing so.

Posted by: mega at July 31, 2009 8:25 AM

all of these people who are so certain that they know what is and isnt art... for the love of god recognize that this is exactly what i am talking about!

"I dont get it, therefore nobody gets it".

where is that line drawn (i can tell many of you think you are 'art critics' or what have you... but what about equus? what about medea eating hewr children? waht about, for that matter, shostakovich or mahler or especially wagner... heady politics underlying those!)

quit pretending that somehow you get to be the arbiter of truth. you aren't. in fact, since 'social conservatives' are clearly the 'most-offended' group in american society... i would posit that you are indeed the very last group that would get such a job as defining art...

do you ever get tired of taking unbrage at literally everything you ever interact with?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2009 8:33 AM

Anon - I think I hear the bloggers at HuffPo asking for you.

The NEA should be abolished. It's a useless program that sucks money out of the public trough for any tom dick or harry who wants to promote his bullshit.

If you're THAT great of an artist, you can stand on your own and have your own gallery opening. If you're a loser artist like the idiot posing above then not only should you have taxpayer you're an oxygen thief.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2009 8:49 AM

I get it, anon. The NEA is passing off porn as art. I can tell the difference between some dude standing on his head with his naked ass in the air and the beauty of the nudes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. One work appeals to the prurient interests of the left, which confuses them into thinking its art, because they equate sexual arousal with an elevation of the spirit. The other reveals the exquisite beauty of the human form with magnificent technical aptitude but with no salaciousness, so the left thinks its old-fashioned and not art. I get it and I think you're wrong.

Posted by: Judith M. at July 31, 2009 8:50 AM

Anonypussy is a raw immature adolescent that thinks shock value, especially of the sexual type, is elevating to the human spirit and qualifies as art. I have news for you, human beings have existed for thousands of years and in general came to a far different conclusion than you, PUNK. The world did not begin when you were born you pathetic child.

Posted by: Worst of Gallstone at July 31, 2009 8:56 AM

Art or not, what business does the government have funding it with Chinese debt in the age of $2 Trillion deficits?

BTW, Dear Abby now approves of smut.

Posted by: V the K at July 31, 2009 9:06 AM

Judith - i appreciate the clarity of your statement; although I do disagree that there is some clearly delineated line between crap and art. nobody thinks michaengelo is not art. and i mentioned that no matter how controversial they were at the time, the works of shostakovich and wagner are certainly considered 'art' in the modern era. (i did mention that i think this in particular is junk; it is the idea of public support of the arts in general that i find important). as with anything at all, from cutting edge music to new and different software interfaces, when you take risks you will seomtimes get crap. it is only by repeatedly trying new things that any great truth is found.

WoG - ouch. you are exactly what I am talking about. way to clearly delineate what it is you are standing for. calling names? i will take that as a compliment; you are clearly unable to discuss my thesis on its mertis and have devolved to 'nanny-nanny-boo-boo'... i'm sure that the other bloggers here are proud of your elegant and powerful defense of your train of thought.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2009 9:07 AM

Right on, V the K! Government-funded art has always reeked, so that is reason enough not to fund it, but given our economic woes, diverting money to such worthless pursuits is downright evil.

Posted by: Judith M. at July 31, 2009 9:10 AM

The National Nndoment for the Arts(NEA) should to totaly abolished

Posted by: Flu-Bird at July 31, 2009 9:13 AM

The National Nndoment for the Arts(NEA) should to totaly abolished

Posted by: Flu-Bird at July 31, 2009 9:14 AM

i have an answer for V the K (that may or may not make sense to those on the other side of this little debate):

It is rounding error versus the deficit (literally in the hundred thousandths of a single percentage point), and art is one small, simple thing that improves the general quality of life for the public at large. this is something that gives an excellent return on its tiny investment.

Forgoing art/music/etc weakens our culture, and generally just makes life less fun to live. I would suggest that you spend more time enjoying to the fullest every form of art you come across, and see if your life seems i little less bitter. it certainly works for me.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2009 9:17 AM

Anon, it amazes me that you can think public funding of the arts is essential when the most glorious artistic eras always funded art through private patrons. Public funding has done nothing but create a market for shock artists. If people want to express themselves in such a repulsive way, let them do it on their dime or their patron's dime, don't make working slobs like us pay for their self-indulgence.

Posted by: Judith M. at July 31, 2009 9:17 AM

Agree Judith, "public" might as well be a euphemism for inferior: Public school, public housing, public transportation, public restroom, public art.

Arts and Entertainment are a multi-billion dollar industry. There is absolutely no threat that we will run out of art if the Federal Government isn't taking out massive debt to pay people to make "art."

Posted by: V the K at July 31, 2009 9:23 AM

I dont get it, therefore NOBODY can get it.

What a moron. I don't give a shit what anyone does with their free time or what art they create. I have gigantic problem with my tax money being given to people for this sort of nonsense.

Do you see the difference?

"The arts should always be supported." Sure, by the people that want to support them. Or maybe even by *gasp* the artists creating their work.

Posted by: cowlove at July 31, 2009 9:26 AM

Judith - "the most glorious artistic eras always funded art through private patrons" - that would not be correct. who funded Michaengelo and all his contemporaries? Who funded DaVinci? The church, the Medici family... in short, the people running the countries and indeed the world. It was 'patronage' in its literal textbook definition; it was those with political power that paid out that money. it was the closest analog to what we would today call 'public' money. and i notice that churches don't seem to be doing that anymore, and the Medicis are long gone... who is it that you think is going to step up and support art for the sake of art?

you volunteering?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 31, 2009 9:30 AM

Anonypussy also thinks what fatass Roseanne did in the above thread is high art on par with Michelangelo.

She also thinks that Jesus was a communist.

Posted by: Worst of Gallstone at July 31, 2009 9:32 AM

who is it that you think is going to step up and support art for the sake of art?

Why don't you do it? Why don't your friends who agree with you do it? Why don't the people who enjoy the art do it? Why don't the artists themselves do it?

Why do you need the barrel of a gun to take money from other people to support something you claim to be vital to our nation and overall well-being? Apparently a dude with his anus in the air is not that vital if no one is willingly donating to his art, no?

Posted by: cowlove at July 31, 2009 9:37 AM

Okay, anon, let's go back to the "public" financing of the arts that existed when Michaelangelo was painting, i.e., funding through rich patrons and the Church, rather than through general revenues. That's something I can support, and I have a funny feeling that the quality of art would be greatly enhanced under such a financing program.

Posted by: Judith M. at July 31, 2009 9:49 AM

Hmm, when there was patronage by these individuals, it was somebody, most especially those with elevated taste, whom the artist looked to please, and look at the wonders that ensued. Now, however, we have whatever riff-raff can weasel their way into the galleries, sucking each others' asses.

Remember also, one of the checkoff points in a communist takeover is to destroy the basis of "art" in a society, replacing it with meaningless and ugly things to drag down the culture and spirit of the people.

Here it is:

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at July 31, 2009 10:49 AM

You've hit on the main reasons government-sponsored art is so inferior to patron-sponsored art, I think, Evilwrench. First, with patron sponsored art, the patron is using his or her own money and they want something beautiful for their patronage. Second, what do government bureaucrats know about art? They have no love for art, they only see it as a propaganda tool, and let's face it, even when propaganda is done well, it leaves you with the feeling that you are being manipulated, not enlightened.

Posted by: Judith M. at July 31, 2009 11:14 AM

What galls me is that we're told we're incompetent to understand, let alone decide what even constitutes art, nevermind what OUR money should be funding. Yeah, there's the avant garde, the new stuff that can be challenging, but why is it we can't look at what we're funding and draw a line? That we should just shovel money at whatever these freaks tell us is art? It's the usual slippery slope. They get us on the hook for something ugly, and keep chipping away, asking who we are to judge. They push something more objectionable every year, always shutting us down with the same argument. It's time to stop allowing this argument to have any weight with us, just like the "racism" or "McCarthyism" argument. These words have power over us only with our permission.

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at July 31, 2009 12:18 PM

"Anonymous at July 31, 2009 8:05 AM"

Are you saying that I could get an federal grant for pissing on a koran, shouting "death to muslims" and calling it "performace art"?

Posted by: KHarn at July 31, 2009 12:31 PM

Why the hell should I support "art" through my taxes? Let the "artists" get a sponcer, or a day job like in the old days. Do you think Van Gough, Wood, Hooper, or Varga got money from the federal government? If they DID, it was for PRODUCING something for the public.

By the "logic" of you Liberals, I should get a federal stipend for maintaining a golf course since it's a "green" area with plants, water and wildlife.

Posted by: KHarn at July 31, 2009 12:40 PM

Art is how we learn about those who came before us. We look at medieval art and see strong Biblical yearnings. Ancient Greek and Roman statues reflect the similar, yet slightly different values of those cultures. The Japanese and Chinese have ancient art that teaches them about the beautiful things their ancestors treasures.

Imagine what future generations of our descendants will think of 20th-21st Century Westerners. Lovely.

Posted by: mandy at July 31, 2009 1:04 PM

That is so true, Evilwrench. It always galls me a little when liberals accuse me of being a bumpkin for preferring Caravaggio to "ass art".

Posted by: Judith M. at July 31, 2009 1:27 PM

endowing the arts is worth any amount of money. some people don't get it (i can't say im delighted with this particular 'art') but the point is thatthe arts in general are important. that is what 'culture' means. and crying about it as if it is the worst possible outcome just marks the philistines in the crowd, rather than anything more meaningful than that.

do you have soome specific issue with funding the arts? would you prefer if america was entirely berefit of cultural advancement?

No problem with funding the arts – if it's private benefactors doing it. Otherwise you get socialist realism in art. Sturdy peasants on tractors, that sort of thing. The greatest artists of history were supported by ...patrons, not government grants. Artists who live off of government grants are hacks, by definition.

? maybe we can all go back to living in caves, trying desprately to decide whether or not rocks are edible - and making fun of that progressive guy in the nexy cave over and his new 'fire' invention.

A remarkably stupid comment. The "progressive" guy you mention was developing technology, not art. Surely the distinction is obvious. Furthermore, he didn't need a government grant to do it, did he? And please stop trying to arrogate to "progressives" (aka communists) all (or indeed any) human progress.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 31, 2009 2:06 PM

Oops, reading down the thread I just realized that others made the same points I made above. Sorry - that'll teach me to read the whole thread before responding.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 31, 2009 2:09 PM

I just read the linked article, and something finally snapped.

Thank God for AIDS.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 31, 2009 2:14 PM

Judith;
You are one sharp woman.
Anonymous;
I read your observations in my University student newspaper. Now, don't tell me you thought it up yourself.

Posted by: Jim at July 31, 2009 2:51 PM

Fuck funding art. Fix the damn economy first and worry about art later. Some stupid libtards got their priorities backwards.

Posted by: Dave at July 31, 2009 2:51 PM

"What the hell do you do beside play video games in your mother's basement?"

Well every Friday without fail he comes here spewing his bitterness and frustration and generally making a fool of himself.

Posted by: Smorfia48 at July 31, 2009 3:19 PM

Funny, I made great art and wasn't funded by the government.

Posted by: Van Gogh at July 31, 2009 4:10 PM

Funny, I made great art too(according to anonypussy) and wasn't funded by the government.

Posted by: A Pile of Steaming Dog Shit at July 31, 2009 7:04 PM

http://perfunction.typepad.com/perfunction/2009/07/obamas-stimulus-nea-gets-tax-bucks-for-thundercrack.html

Posted by: J at August 1, 2009 2:05 AM

endowing the arts is worth any amount of money.

I can't argue with you here. I lay down untold singles down at Art's Performing Center.

When is Obama going to give me a stimulus so I can continue to get chicks for cash?

We all have to support single moms after all...

Posted by: J at August 1, 2009 2:09 AM

annon you suck faced pussypants are you saying that showing a cross or a picture of jesus submurged in piss is art? YOU MUST BE A MINDLESS BLABBERING WACKO LIBERAL STUPIDHEADED JACKASS

Posted by: EON THE TERRIBLE at August 1, 2009 6:58 AM

Posted by: Van Gogh at July 31, 2009 4:10 PM

Yeah, me, too!

Posted by: Edvard Munch at August 1, 2009 8:57 AM

Posted by: Van Gogh at July 31, 2009 4:10 PM

As did I and my friends.

Posted by: Claude Monet at August 1, 2009 9:01 AM

By The Way, ANONYMOUS and other Liberal NEA supporters; my family ESTABLISHED a museum, so I think we're fully paid up to American culture and can be excused from contributing to TRASH.

Posted by: KHarn at August 1, 2009 9:26 AM

We all have to support single moms after all...

No, no, J, they're all college students. They told me so.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 1, 2009 11:38 AM

Full Moon productions?

Posted by: Oaio at August 1, 2009 5:59 PM

Anon if you want to fund this shit go ahead, but don't touch one red cent of my money.

Posted by: Steve at August 1, 2009 6:34 PM