Talk:Art

Liberalism and art

Temp moved here, but really should be incorporated as a section on the use of art as propaganda , or in a propaganda article. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 13:06, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'll make the same protests I made before it was moved. The section is in poor form for an encyclopedia. There's no attribution for the opinion, and no citations for the facts. HelpJazz 16:05, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

As usual I'll try to point out the obvious. <Sigh> ALL art is to bring across the artists message. The great religious painters were inspired by their faith (and I don't care what Dan Brown says).

hoping to gain extra protection for their political speech Just asking, but extra protection from what? Public outrage? Claiming it's art rarely overrides others personal tastes. The Law? First Amendment covers all revolting things, as it well should. (I once heard an intresting thought: Free speech is for <expletive>, nice people usually don't need it's protection)

Were you maybe trying to hint at NEA grants? If so please be more clear. (BTW, I also think the NEA shouldn't give money to these hacks). ד.לערנער 10:45, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm saying one thing fifteen times to make it clear. Citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations, citations. There. It needs to be cited. Rellik 20:25, 20 April 2008 (EDT)