Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Which exhibit? You do know he's done more than one don't you.Nothing, that's what I thoughtI see what you know about the arts can fit on the head of a pin.Yeah, without government handouts, there would be no art. DERP!
The arts needs financial assistance to bring it to as many people as want to experience it.
And no it's just not Art It's the arts as a whole.
Talking to you about culture is like talking to-trump about intelligence briefs.
culture, you prob support performce art, aka orgy on a stage
dont tell me about culture, if its good people will pay, if not, get your sick jollies off on some elses dime
so what did you think of the maplethorpe exihibit?
Knowing your mindset I can tell which one you're referring to.
But if you knew ANYTHING about art you would have chosen an exhibit from less than 30 years ago.
Robert Mapplethorpe was an extraordinary artist and the husband of rock's Patti Smith.
The exhibit you're obviously referring was meant to provoke and that it did.
Your culture free right wing media was provoked to outrage. I'm sure Mapplethorpe thanked them for bringing more attention to his work and making him more money.
Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
It gives failures a chance to express themselves. It's for people no one wants to pay to see. It gives money to artists who are so bad no one will buy their art.Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
The Epa is a victim of its own success .
Only reason Cons hate them is because they stand in the way of Big biz from literally destroying our country .
The Epa is a victim of its own success .
Exactly! They've successfully damaged our economy long enough.
They’ve cleaned up the enviornment . Dramatically over the last 40 years .
I donate a lot more than that to the PhiladelphiaOrchestra and other endeavors in Philadelphia.Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.
Sounds awesome. Maybe you should donate your tax savings to them, eh?
The Epa is a victim of its own success .
Only reason Cons hate them is because they stand in the way of Big biz from literally destroying our country .
What you call a failure others would call immensely enjoyable. There are great artists in all genres that don't get the chance they deserve.It gives failures a chance to express themselves. It's for people no one wants to pay to see. It gives money to artists who are so bad no one will buy their art.Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
So you think the EPA cracking down on polluters from poisoning people is " literally the worst thing that ever happened."The Epa is a victim of its own success .
Only reason Cons hate them is because they stand in the way of Big biz from literally destroying our country .
It’s literally the worst thing that’s ever happened ever.
I can only hope you get some toxic chemical imbedded in your body
Chocolate isn't toxic dumbass. But your other comment could be the craziest thing I ever heard. Not surprised something so vile would come from a deplorable.I can only hope you get some toxic chemical imbedded in your body
I hope it’s chocolate.
We need an ecological arm of the government,
Chocolate isn't toxic dumbass.
Whoever finds the artistic expression enjoyable can pay for it. It's those who are so bad no one will pay them that get support from the government.What you call a failure others would call immensely enjoyable. There are great artists in all genres that don't get the chance they deserve.It gives failures a chance to express themselves. It's for people no one wants to pay to see. It gives money to artists who are so bad no one will buy their art.Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
Let the people decide what's great or not. That's called having a choice but obviously you're against choice in general.
Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
You just proved my point you wouldn't know a blue collar worker if your life dependent on it...no blue collar worker would go to a damn orchestra...
Actually it's just the opposite. The NationalEndowment of the Arts gives more artists, performers etc. the chance to express themselves and permit more people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy it.Wouldn't that have been the crown supporting the arts?A little history lesson for that imbecile Buckeye who wants to cut the Endowment for the Arts....
When Winston Churchill was asked to cut funding to the arts in order to support the war effort in World War II, he responded “Then what would we be fighting for?”
There should never have been a national endowment for the arts. All it does is support that which should fail. The arts have always been supported by those who appreciate an artistic talent. It should have stayed that way.
The only thing better than one orchestra in a city is two orchestras... or more performances of that one orchestra people can enjoy.
You just proved my point you wouldn't know a blue collar worker if your life dependent on it...no blue collar worker would go to a damn orchestra...
Not true at all. Appreciation of fine music cuts across all social strata.
Chocolate isn't toxic dumbass.
Anything can be toxic in sufficient quantities.
