Who Knew This Would Offend People…?

“Can a band rightfully be called “punk” if it’s making music funded in part by government loans…?” No. End of story.

I disagree, Mike. This article doesn’t defend the album, it attacks the concept that anything can be universally unoffensive, which I agree with.

Just asking: Do Canadian religious musical groups get the same funding? If it was an evangelical album, would they have gotten the same amount?
I know nothing about church/state issues in Canada.

Hemant is confusing “punk”, the style of music, with “hey punk, stop jacking my car and get a job”.

Nothing is more “punk” than fighting “The Man” with his own money…

Seriously, if punks are about disrupting the status quo, this is a brilliant move to bring attention to the whole issue of how anti-speech factions use grants and funding programs to influence and censor art.

@Mike – speech is speech. A religiously based attack against speech is an attack and an attempt to censor and should be fought no matter how much you agree with the sentiment of those doing the censoring. A Christian band has just as much right to make an album that says “Atheists are Shit” – (ironically they don’t have the right to do it with government money because of the same 1st amendment principal – how does that work in Canada?) but any other statement, no matter how offensive, as long as it is not open sedition or “yelling fire in a crowded theatre”, is protected and should be defended as vehemently. This was the whole thing with 2 Live Crew back in the 80’s or whenever it was – the songs were LOUSY! They weren’t just in bad taste, they were just bad. But that didn’t make them *illegal*.
These guys may indeed be jackasses who make our cause harder, but like it or not, they are on our side of this, they have every right to be the jackasses that they are being and as much as we may not condone it, to avoid being hypocrites we have to stand up for them.

I guess you could argue that getting this nasty about starts bordering on hate crime. Consider the outrage if it were a Christian band making fun of the Koran. But then how much did all of us from every religion ridicule the Camping rapture-cultists?

You mean the possibility of the current Conservative gov’t cutting back on arts funding? Oh, I don’t think this ‘might’ happen, I think it’s going to happen.

Even before the purge and reformation of the party, the Tories have never been fond of arts program funding. I’m sure this will be just another excuse to use to cut down on it.

It’s a bit of a pity that none of the parties want to actually fix the problems with our arts funding programs. The Tories just want to cut them, and the Grit and NDP just return funding to them. Neither fixes the fact that Canadian art doesn’t do well inside or outside of Canada.

A government shouldn’t be involved in promoting new punk bands (or any bands, for that matter). Period. I think it’s outrageous that anyone should be forced to support art they find distasteful.

That said, I disagree, Hemant, that the government can’t place restrictions on who gets money if they’re going to promote art. I think it takes a very warped view of culture to argue, for instance, that if the New York Philharmonic is going to get money from the NEA, then we must also fund Piss Christ.

I’m not Canadian, so I don’t know what issues they have with their own art, though I do own quite a number of Rush albums…

I think the big question here is what is the process for applying (and getting accepted) for funding? If you simply need to be an artist in need of money, then they should get the money as quick as the next artist. I think the quality of their music, or the level of offensiveness may not be an issue.

The article states, however, that this was a loan. I don’t know about any of you, but I only loan money to people I think will be in a future position to pay it back. I haven’t heard the music, and the cover and titles are not something that would even tempt me to listen. If they are really expecting their money to be repaid at a later date, I would think there might be some quality control. Throwing money at anyone who calls themselves an “artist” is not what I would consider good screening.

@cousinavi: Totally! Go grab a copy!

This looks like an arts-funding model for music that hasn’t caught up with the interwebs yet.

I’m not gonna criticize these guys for going for shock value. Somewhere, in some box in my basement, I have a copy of W.A.S.P.’s “F**k Like a Beast.” On red vinyl, no less.

That said, I disagree, Hemant, that the government can’t place restrictions on who gets money if they’re going to promote art. I think it takes a very warped view of culture to argue, for instance, that if the New York Philharmonic is going to get money from the NEA, then we must also fund Piss Christ.

So “culture” is only what the majority says it is or, even more horrifyingly, what the government says it is?

Taxpayer funded culture should follow some semblance of respect.

And who decides what pays sufficient respect? Many Muslims find the depictions of pigs to be extremely vile. Some Christian sects find music and dancing to be blasphemous. Hasidic Jews believe images of women should be forbidden.

Just who decides which of these groups we should cater to?

Taxpayer funded culture should follow some semblance of respect. No person who believes in any sort of brotherhood or the golden rule would open their wallet and hand it to an artist so that he could create “piss christ.”

The hell? So a member of the Brotherhood of Bonsai Tenders couldn’t finance Piss Christ (which I suspect isn’t what you think it is)? And as wonderfully idealistic as the Golden Rule might be, it’s a fair example of the impossibility of crafting a one-size-fits-all regulation for behavior.

So are you trying to subtly substitute offense for culture, or are you going to explicitly tie it all together?

A proper response would be, “Do what you want, it’s a free country, but make your own money to spend on it.”

That’s fine and consistent and all, and had you left it there in your original comment there would be no discussion. But you very deliberately went on to make your bed by opining about culture. So now you can lie in it.

OK, first issue; i think it is WAY punk to use government funding to piss people off. Hack the system.

Issue two; i am glad someone brought up Piss Christ because i immediately thought of that myself when i read this post. Controversy over government funded art that made Christians angry nearly 25 years ago.

Issue 3 and perhaps a tangent; this part of Andrew Morgan’s response is the tip of a larger iceberg

A government shouldn’t be involved in promoting new punk bands (or any bands, for that matter). Period. I think it’s outrageous that anyone should be forced to support art they find distasteful.

I personally fine the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan distasteful, but as an American citizen my tax dollars helped fund those wars. I would rather my money funded art that i don’t like or disagree with than military operations and torture of people denied due process or basic human rights.

And who decides what pays sufficient respect?

if you’re smart and respectful of others you’ll do a pretty good job of it. There are things we all have in common, things that are universal.
An example like the one in this post is an easy one.

(Not arguing whether or not he has a right to do the art, which of course he does. I just don’t want to give money that I worked for to create it. Much better to give it to the poor, for example. Why can’t the artist pay for it?

Funding won’t be cut over this; the decision to cut funding to the arts was made long ago. It’s all that is left after cutting funding to Status of Women, the Court Challenges program, infrastructure development, manpower and training initiatives, environmental protections, etc, etc.

That being said, it seems that the conservatives have been much more about keeping an iron grip on power and control of the media than about any actual ideological bent. Harper already said he wouldn’t visit the cornerstones of his Christian doombringers; abortion and gay marriage. If he refuses to make them illegal while he has a majority, will they blindly keep voting for him and his cronies? I’ll bet yes.

don’t feed the trolls

Larry,

Are you one of those who labels dissenting voices as trolls?

I love how supposed open-mindedness breaks down in the face of honest debate.

Actually, Philo already pointed out that:

And as wonderfully idealistic as the Golden Rule might be, it’s a fair example of the impossibility of crafting a one-size-fits-all regulation for behavior.

It seems as though he may view it to be, at the least, incomplete. And I’d agree, there should probably be a “subject to informed consent…” clause. and even then I’d probably choose the more Kantian statement:

“Act with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another) so that it is an end in itself in your maxim”

that captures the spirit of the edict so as to not be as subject to naive literalism. Don’t want the extreme masochists and warmongers thinking this gives them a free pass etc etc.

Also, there was a really good thread at pharyngula about the piss christ issue earlier this year. I’ll leave you with a few thought provoking remarks because I think the claim that:

No person who believes in any sort of brotherhood or the golden rule would open their wallet and hand their personal cash it to an artist so that he could create “piss christ.”

is incorrect.

Cuttlefish:

Piss Christ is (was?) one of my favorite works of modern art. The juxtaposition of what is truly a beautiful image with the knowledge of how that image was achieved, has taken an image that is so ubiquitous as to be unseen and un-thought of and forces viewers to think about it. It is art that touches both emotion and thought, and sets them at war with one another.

dsichel:

When I first heard of “Piss Christ”, I felt that he was just trying too hard. But the photo is really quite pretty, and it’s the idea that makes it significant.
Hm. You know what could have been interesting? Instead of calling it “Piss Christ”…
he could have called it “Piss Christ?”, and provided some mutually-exclusive descriptions. Is it actually a crucifix in a jar of urine? Or is it a crucifix in a jar of colored polymer resin? Or perhaps it’s a crucifix photographed through a jar of urine? Or a composite photograph – a doubled exposure or some such?
I feel that this would have reinforced the notion that blasphemy is entirely within one’s perceptions — not to mention that, under such circumstances, I feel it much less likely that the artwork would have met the same fate.
Art is all about meaning. I’ve seen works which seemed simplistic and pointless until I read the description card explaining the idea, at which point I experienced significant perceptual shifts and realized the genius on display.

Quodliet:

Ing….digo Montoya: You Killed My Father, Prepare to Die @ 53

Also now that I think about the Crucifix is itself grotesque! It’s an image of an emaciated man nailed to a fucking cross and driven to exhaustion by torture with his scalp pierced by a crown of thorns. A) Completely Metal and B) How does adding “In piss” really make it that more grotesque!? The subject itself is already (by design) a hideous image…the addition of “in piss” really is dwarfed by the original uglyness.

That’s interesting. From the first time I learned about “Piss Christ,” I thought that was the whole idea: That no matter how distatesful or disgusting one might think urine is, the torture and murder of a man is far, far worse; and that we are falsely disgusted by urine (and here, distracted by it) when we should focus our disgust appalled by torture and murder, and we should condemn a religion that cherishes this murder as a Special Event to be contemplated with holy bliss. Eew.

Yes, the album cover in this article is easy because punk music has always been about offending and upsetting status quos. However, I was attempting to point out that ‘the devil is in the details’, and you conveniently chose to ignore this, so you could take more pot shots at the easy target.

I don’t think I responded to anything you wrote – so how is it that you can say that I “chose to ignore what you were attempting to point out?”

As far as easy targets, why do you think hemant chose this album, because it was subtle?

Love of music is not universal (there are a number of Christian sects that hate it, and some with a dyslexia-like condition can hear nothing but noise). So all music funding is right out? Some religions teach all paintings and sculptures as a form of idolotry and ban the production of likenesses. Since this is clearly not universal either, all paintings and sculptures are out, too?

I’m basing my argument on common decency and reason. Ruling out all music and all art is a silly, reactionary argument. You know what is good, decent, and respectful generally speaking. We’re talking about taxpayer funded projects, not the freedom to do as one chooses, which should always be protected provided it doesn’t harm others.

Colin wrote:

Harper already said he wouldn’t visit the cornerstones of his Christian doombringers; abortion and gay marriage. If he refuses to make them illegal while he has a majority, will they blindly keep voting for him and his cronies? I’ll bet yes.

As someone on another message board said: “they could run a donkey for the Conservatives in Alberta and it would get elected”

To which another commenter said (about a particular candidate): “they already did!”

@Blacksheep

What I know for a fact is that sometimes people just want to push buttons simply because they know it it causes people to flip their shit. They may not even have a problem with things like religion, but they specifically mock it for no other reason than to be offensive. This doesn’t just happen with religion. Sometimes you know that particular people or a person gets particularly upset about certain things, so trolls will purposely do or say those particular things to watch the people/person get pissed off. It’s entertaining for them. This is trolling. This is especially an act that has become increasingly popular online. It’s become so popular some even consider it an art form now. To be as offensive as possible, to say things in just such a way that it really ticks off a lot of people or ticks off a certain person to a high degree.

The only way to battle a troll is to not give it attention. Trolls want attention, they want outrage, they want to make a big fuss. If they aren’t getting the attention, they’ll get bored and stop.

Larry,

Good definition.

My post was mainly because I have been accused of being a troll, simply becasue I have a differing viewpoint. I try most of the time to not push buttons on purpose, which I admit is sometimes hard if I’m responding to someone who has gone out of their way to push my buttons, which is common on this forum – yet I don’t consider them trolls!
I honestly believe that many people on this forum have a very rigid system of thought and really do want a place to just agree on everything. And some get genuinely irritated if anyone has a different opinion than theirs.

@Blacksheep

Well I haven’t listened to this album, but from the way it it looks and what people are saying about it, it’s almost certainly a troll. The thing about good trolling though is that you can’t tell it’s a troll.

Like it or not, trolling has become somewhat of a form of art. A really good troll can be really offensive for the sake of being offensive, while still sounding genuine. The whole point is to cause a really big rage. It’s entertaining because some people say really ridiculous and incoherent things in a blind angry rage (See: Jessie Slaughter). If you’re too offensive without any clear reason, then it’s too obvious and people won’t take it seriously. The art is in striking the balance. Making it offensive but not too obvious that you’re just looking for a reaction. This can be really annoying though because good trolls become hard to differentiate from the people who are serious about their offensive opinion.

If all art was respectful of others, and stuck only to the majorities perception of what is “good” it wouldn’t be providing much of a service to anyone.

While tepid music and paintings of happy trees have their place, the art that truly matters is that which draws a strong reaction from the viewer or listener.

Manet’s “Olympia” was condemned by conservatives at the time as being vulgar and immoral. The premiere of Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring” degenerated into a full blown riot. Yet it was efforts like these (not the long forgotten “safe” contributions by their contemporaries) which meaningfully advanced the development of music, art, and expression of the individual.

Art by it’s very nature should have no boundaries. A governments degree of support for the arts – with no strings attached – is a direct indicator of the importance it places on freedom of expression.

As an atheist/skeptic I am ready (and actively encourage) opportunities to have my perceptions challenged. It’s a shame that the majority of our religious community place no value on this.

Gee.. Wonder why that would be?

@Blacksheep

Not just the album cover, but the content of the album. From what I’ve read the album doesn’t really make any compelling statement. If this is true, it’s likely the authors just wanted to be offensive for the sake of being offensive.

This has only been brought to light because the socialist NDP, which is the newly minted official opposition (second largest party) in Canada, recently made a public call to increase arts funding.

Unfortunately, Canadian politics will descend deeper and deeper into this ideological back and forth.

Canadian government arts funds, be it the National Film Board or Canadian Heritage, have a history of funding Canadian projects without much censorship.

To give a good idea: Ginger Snaps (the film) was funded in part by gov’t funding, as have all of Cronenberg’s films. And those are definitely not mainstream cinema.

It’s more like gov’t loans and grants for small businesses, with the added benefit of promoting Canadian artists. This includes punk groups. It costs money to produce an album, and if you can get a couple extra bucks to do it, why not?

And yeah, per the other Canadians above. I predict a lot of pearl-clutching and arts defunding by the current government, despite the best of Canadian art being subversive in nature. Hell, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation shows risky or satirical stuff all the time, and they’re a Crown Corporation.

@CanadianNihilist

I’m with you on that… Canadian musicians and artists aren’t any good. Even the few that are always jump for the border and become Americans to find their fame.

Since no Canadian’s have answered Hemant’s question…

Arts funding in Canada is done by arms-length organizations; meaning that the gov provides funds to these organizations, but the decision on who gets access to that money is made by the organizations themselves. As Sivi mentioned, this money has generally been distributed with little censorship.

In addition, arts “funding” occurs in several ways – there are loans and grants, such as the one Living With Lions received. These are usually accessed via an application process. But there are also tax credits, and all you need to get that is to have your work qualify as “Canadian content”, which in plain-speak means a certain percentage of the production process has to be done in Canada by Canadian companies.

Because of the setup the gov cannot cut funding specifically to one band/artist/genre, but they can cut arts funding in general. Since we have a conservative gov this will most likely occur. But I don’t think this “incident” will feed into that – our cons generally don’t like anything that is tainted with higher education, expertise, or higher culture…

Surprising Update:

Living with lions recalls album, will return FACTOR grant.

@ Larry Meredith: Because of course, in a country of 31 million people, no one anywhere is a decent artist or has any hope of being one. And the solution to this is clearly to simply cut off all arts funding, because the very best thing for our nation’s culture is to force even more of our most talented individuals to the States and make our artistic landscape even duller.
Have you been to the theatre lately? Art galleries, museums? Film or music festivals? Taken in some local bands, maybe? Do you even watch or listen to CBC for anything except the news and the playoffs? (Not that I’ve got anything against hockey – go ‘Nucks – but there’s more going on.) Quick – name ten Canadian novelists, poets, playwrights or screenwriters alive and writing today.
In my experience, the only people who complain about how “Canadian art sucks” are the ones who make absolutely no effort at all to engage with it, look for it or even be aware of it. If you don’t support the arts, not just with your taxes but with your presence, you can hardly complain about the lacklustre results.

and I can honestly say I don’t like any of them. So it wasn’t ignorance.

Whether or not you like them is in no way indicative of whether or not they are good.

It is, indeed, ignorant to say KD Lang and Neil Young lack talent (And I even loathe the latter, but I gotta give credit where it’s due). I am unfamiliar with the other artists AxeGrrl mentioned, so I cannot comment on them.

I don’t know if we just lack artistic ability or if our laws are too censoring of the good stuff, but we just don’t do very well.

My guess is that it has to do with the fact that Canada’s population is roughly 1/10 the size of the US’s (33M vs. 303M). That’s a vastly smaller pool of talent.

On their facebook it says:
“Living With Lions
TO CLARIFY: “Holy Shit” is getting re-released ASAP, not entirely recalled. This album and the original artwork are here to stay.
Wednesday at 12:43pm”

They’re just returning the loan and releasing it themselves.
And it shouldn’t be considered “selling out” to take money from the Canadian government because that’s just what happens here in Canada: we encourage Canadians to make tv shows, music, movies, etc. by fronting the money. Why? Because we’re trying to become independent from the US and rely on 60% of our stuff and only 40% of the US’. But as you know most bands, tv shows, etc are from the states. But we want this to change.
For example, if you turn on the tv here in Ontario and it’s a Canadian channel, the programs will say “funded by the government of canada” in the credits. I don’t think there are any media sources that don’t do this, for the most part. It’s part of the governments plan to encourage artists, and to make Canada more known on the world stage. I think this is done with video games and video game companies as well. It’s just to kick-stat the market.