SCREEN-L Archives

December 1993


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
William Elliott <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
William Elliott <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 15 Dec 1993 14:09:21 -0500
text/plain (20 lines)
On Wed, 15 Dec 1993, Daniel B. Case wrote:
> I do not know what troubles me more:  the National Endowment of the
> Arts denying funds to artists like Karen Finley and Annie Sprinkle
> because their work is "obscene," or undergraduate students rebelling
> at being "forced to watch" artworks which offend them.  In my view,
> to shock and disturb an audience is one of the most important effects
> that an artwork can achieve.  The idea of 18-23-year-olds putting
> forth a "right" to be protected from such artworks and insisting that
> they only be exposed to artworks which provide pleasant experiences
> strikes me as one of the most disturbing trends in our culture.
Daniel (and whomever else may be interested):
I agree with you.  This is a most disturbing aspect of this culture;
and it is not limited to young people.  We live in a "Coca Cola
culture" (sickly sweet, over-bubbly, and artificially stimulated).  Why
else do movies have to have sickly sweet "endings (with relatively few
exceptions) in order to be considered viable at the box office?