More religious insanity

Mon, 28 Jan 2002 10:57:49 -0800

> I'm not even sure it is a matter of insecurity. If having a tit in the
> background distracts people from "the message" then it is bad PR to have
> a tit in the background. It may not matter how you personally feel about
> it.

Well by that, why have art in the background at all ?  If we have to
relegate it to the least distracting, or the least offensive, or the lowest
common denominator, lets just paint the walls white and say to hell with
art.  Everyone gets distracted by something.  I find it hard to believe that
somehow tits (aluminum ones at that) are so distracting that people aren't
paying attention to whatever Ashcroft has to say.

And who is to say that a covered tit is going to be somehow LESS
distracting?  If it was me, i'd be remarking on the fact that Ashcroft, et
al., are prudish folks who need to lighten up. I'd be less inclined to
listen to the message, instead staring oddly at the covering that is out of
place on an otherwise 'done' piece of art.

So you don't want to call it religiously based, that's fine. I'm more than
happy to bash the conservative-close mindedness of the Ashcroft crowd.  I
don't even need to mention Jesus.

Prudishness and censorship go hand in hand.


>  Paul Prescod