“….. including a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened Thundercrack, “the world’s only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla.”

Seriously, …a gorilla??? I dare say that nary a peep was heard from PETA or their ilk when this travesty of a “film” was screened by this film smut house in San Francisco.

The miscreants in SFO, led by Newsom and Piglosi, have precipitously descended into the abyss. A sad fate for a once truly beautiful city.

If it’s art, and they are calling it underground porno horror film, it might be illegally exported snuff films from the South American countries, as in mutilating and killing women during rape. the addiction to porn, leads to this. Ted Bundy told Billy Graham that porn leads to violence, and scientists have found this more and more to be true. Look at the pedifiles. They become more and more murderous.

“It is as if liberals took art and watered it down to a cross between a toddler, a teen boy during puberty, and a snobby hippy. ”

Love it.

But if I did, there would be a bull whip involved……….

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

Has anybody asked Drooling Barney?

There may be a couple of exceptions, the abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock who was funded by the WPA – and the photographer Margaret Bourke White. But I don’t know their political views.

Yes, art is subjective. Everyone has their own opinion. I personally dislike work that is cheap sex, gore, or shock. It’s kind of my peeve. Can an artist be good and controversial ? Of course. It’s fine if someone else likes it or wants to fork over their own funds. I just don’t want taxpayers to be forced to subsidize it.

I’d guess the S&L community is pretty unhappy with the porn, but I’ll take the argument further. At the Art Institute of Chicago hangs a well known painting that consists of two black squares. They are separated by, and outlined by, a thin white line. It is pleasing to the eye. A plaque beneath it notes that it was donated by a wealthy family and was valued, in 1975, at $50,000. Nice tax deduction. Suddenly I found it offensive. My point is that art is subjective.

I don’t think those “art” pieces would be financially viable outside of the urban snob groups if they were not subsidized by the government. At times I wonder, why should the American taxpayers have to fund images of crucifixes in urine? Or elephant dung and porn mag cutouts on an image of the Virgin Mary? Or libtards writhing in chocolate while nude? Those are all examples of NEA funded projects.