Today’s letters include:
Less civilized without public art
Of politics, money and myths
Who among us would do this?
Obama presidency is worrisome
Read The Full Story

Somehow, comparing the Sistene Chapel ceiling with a bunch of scrap metal welded together is a bit of a stretch even though some who claim knowledge of “art” want to call those weldings “art”.  Spending two hundred grand on that pile of junk in Burlington is simply insane.

retnfo - 23 November 2008 04:14 AM

Somehow, comparing the Sistene Chapel ceiling with a bunch of scrap metal welded together is a bit of a stretch even though some who claim knowledge of “art” want to call those weldings “art”.  Spending two hundred grand on that pile of junk in Burlington is simply insane.

Nan wasn’t comparing the Sistine Chapel with the new pieces, she was comparing Michaelangelo’s artistic expression in the chapel with the artistic expression of the two pieces.

Art is an expression - no matter who agrees or disagrees with how it is expressed.

Expression is admirable, Nan (my old friend)). But to pay $200K for something my neighbor and I (both metal workers) could have done for $20k - well - it doesn’t make much sense.

I realize that art has its place in society but spending $200,000 on art when our economy is failing is very poor judgment.

Jo Roark - 26 November 2008 08:46 PM

I realize that art has its place in society but spending $200,000 on art when our economy is failing is very poor judgment.

Pretty sure it was grant money specifically for art…

LUP - where do you think “grant” money comes from? The tooth fairy? This was TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!! Geez.

sod buster - 26 November 2008 10:07 PM

LUP - where do you think “grant” money comes from? The tooth fairy? This was TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!! Geez.

Did I say otherwise?  (talk about ad hominem)

“Pretty sure it was grant money specifically for art…”

You asked for it, you got it, LUPPY.

Happy thanksgiving.

sod buster - 27 November 2008 01:05 AM

“Pretty sure it was grant money specifically for art…”

Yep - my comment was qualifying that the grant money was specifically set aside for art.  If that’s the case, then it wouldn’t be put spent on anything else, would it?

Grants are usually a use it or lose it deal.  If the piece was commissioned or even purchased before the official recent collapse of the economy (which I’m pretty certain it would have been), then exactly how do you propose the money could have been rechanneled elsewhere even if the City of Burlington *wanted* to do that? 

sod buster - 27 November 2008 01:05 AM

You asked for it, you got it, LUPPY.

I asked for nothing and got exactly that in return from you, Sod.

In the words of your icon, Gov Palin,"about that bridge to nowhere, I told the congress thanks but no thanks”, then she moved that money, designated for a specific project to the state of alaska general fund.It was used on other projects. Same could have been done here, or at least recognize the folly of spending like drunken sailors just because “the money was there” and just say no thanks. The notion that money has to be spent to ensure preservation of historical budgets is institutional insanity and is rampant. ALL levels of gvmt and public institutions should be required to build zero-based budgets with full disclosure.

sod buster - 27 November 2008 12:21 PM

In the words of your icon, Gov Palin,"about that bridge to nowhere, I told the congress thanks but no thanks”, then she moved that money, designated for a specific project to the state of alaska general fund.It was used on other projects. Same could have been done here, or at least recognize the folly of spending like drunken sailors just because “the money was there” and just say no thanks. The notion that money has to be spent to ensure preservation of historical budgets is institutional insanity and is rampant. ALL levels of gvmt and public institutions should be required to build zero-based budgets with full disclosure.

I didn’t say I agreed the money should have been spent that way, did I?  (hint: no, I did not)

[I’m continually amazed by the high number of people in here who read into others’ posts, make assumptions and accusations, and draw conclusions that have no basis in truth - it’s probably one of the biggest reasons for disagreements in these forums]

You condoned the spending, justifying it as a use it or lose it proposition after implying that it was ok because it was a grant. Admitting an error must be difficult for one who goes to great lengths in these threads to try to demonstrate moral and mental superiority (another ad hominem?). But go ahead and enjoy yourself in that pursuit. I am off to enjoy the day with family and football. Have a happy thanksgiving.

sod buster - 27 November 2008 03:39 PM

You condoned the spending, justifying it as a use it or lose it proposition after implying that it was ok because it was a grant.

<sigh> No, I didn’t “condone” anything - I was making an objective, non-biased statement about how grants work.  Not once did I say whether I was in favor of how they work or if I wasn’t in favor of how they work.  All I did was say “this is how they work”. 

Here’s an example of how you are twisting my words:  Someone asks me “how does a guillotine chop off someone’s head?” and I answer, “the condemned person puts their head through here and lays down with their neck in line with the suspended guillotine blade.  The executioner releases the rope holding up the blade and the blade chops the condemned person’s head off.” Then you decide to get in on the conversation and proclaim “Oh, so you condone the use of the guillotine, I see!” Of course, not once during my explanation did I say anything of the sort, yet, for some unknown reason, you heard me say something I did not say. 

What you’ve done is create a classic “strawman argument”.  Now, *why* you would create this strawman only you truly know, but it *does* seem to defy all logic and reason.  It’s really quite obvious that I never even came close to saying I condone how taxpayer monies are used to fund grants. <shrug>

sod buster - 27 November 2008 03:39 PM

Admitting an error must be difficult for one who goes to great lengths in these threads to try to demonstrate moral and mental superiority (another ad hominem?)

Yep, most definitely another ad hominem.  Why exert so much energy in that fashion?

sod buster - 27 November 2008 03:39 PM

But go ahead and enjoy yourself in that pursuit.

Well, there really isn’t any pursuit involved for me, but you certainly seem to be chasing your tail.  You see, I would admit error here, *if* there was any error for me to admit to.  You are reading into what I said rather than reading what I actually wrote.  Apparently, that behavior could now be considered habitual, since you have done it to me (and others) on several occasions in other threads.

sod buster - 27 November 2008 03:39 PM

I am off to enjoy the day with family and football.

How very nice for you.