Alex said:
______________________________________________________
"Honestly, themilum, I don't see your point about government legislating art. How is that part of the argument? The issue is not the aesthetics of the artwork, and it isn't being legislated anyway. It was artwork commissioned by the city. The complaint about government imposing weird art that appeals to snobs only doesn't fly either. As far as art goes, it is a quite conventional, representative sort of artwork that depicts historical figures for the purpose of edifying viewers. That's not exactly avante garde stuff."
_____________________________________________________
Quite true, Alex, but I assumed that the thoughts exchanged here would go beyond assigning blame and lamenting the misspellings; discussing root cause of such hokey doings is what grown men and women do rather than laugh and whine.
To be clear - I like some of Maria's art and I consider myself a bit of a pretentious art snob, but go yourself and walk around any city of any size worthy of its two Wal-marts and check out the
objets d' art scattered around and about the public buildings and then come back and tell me of your enthusiasm.
Yes, Alex, Maria's artwork wasn't legislated but rather it was commissioned by the city. "Commissioned" of course means "given the approval to undertake a particular act of art". Paid for, of course, by the hardworking taxpayers of the city.
Sadly, much of the art of today is a con game, and when that art is commissioned by the committees of our government, everyone's money supports the scam.
