From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #697 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Wednesday, May 1 2002 Volume 01 : Number 697 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:42:04 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art - ---Original Message From: Paris Anderson > > What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of > the arts is that no one is arguing about govenemnt funding of > the military or the space > program. No one questions the morality of the M1-A1 Abrams. > I think it is > a very elitest tank--as it destroys only that which it > targets. We have no more right to scrutinize the NEA than we > have to scrutize NASA. So what if they fund a few > embarassing projects. Do they do any good? Maybe you are pointing this out obliquely, but I want to make this explicit: we *do* scrutinize NASA *and* military spending. Great, raging public debates are held in the media all the time about military and NASA spending--or am I the only one who notices that every time a missile is shown blowing something up, or a new NASA mission is announced, that the *cost* of said missile/mission is given--usually with a sub-vocal "tsk tsk" underlying it. It's only when we criticize the NEA that we're told to sit down, shut up, and just pay your taxes. I mean, there *is* a certain amount of that in all government spending--a certain amount of "let the experts see to it, they are so much wiser than *you*", but that doesn't mean we put up with that kind of attitude. If we feel we can stick our noses into, say, the Office of Homeland Security and bemoan the lack of public disclosure of the decision-making process and budget spending of our secret security forces, how on Earth do we justify the smoke-screen thrown up around the NEA? Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:03:10 -0800 From: Stephen Carter Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art Actually there is a small connection between Andres Serrano (the photographer of famous "urine soaked cross" that everyone has been talking about) and government funded arts in Utah. About two years ago the Visiting Writers grant sponsored a visit by Bruce Beasley, a poet who is very rooted in evangelical Christianity. Beasley interprets Serrano's work in a proufoundly religious way. From the back of Beasley's book _Signs and Abominations_: "All of the books' figures ... [including] Andres Serrano submergig a crucifix in his own urine, set out on a deformed search for signs of the divine among the abominations of the profane. These poems are brilliance cast back at the hypocritical religiosity of those who refuse to admit that the spiritual and the profane inextricably encompass each other, and that art and religion have more in common than not." The cover of the book has Serrano's Pieta II which is the Pieta submerged in urine and blood. It's a very challenging book. Good poetry too. I would highly recommend it. Many people on this list would probably find the book fascinating. Maybe I'll write a review for it over the summer. Stephen Carter Fairbanks, Alaska - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:44:34 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art "To carry on with Eric's dragging of this discussion back to Mormon Arts and Letters... I feel constrained to point out that Sunstone, Irreantum, the Sugarbeet... (not funded or legitimized by the Church) produce/publish good edgy mormon art." And how many of the artists involved in those ventures get paid for their efforts? Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 16:46:58 -0600 From: "Kelly Thompson" Subject: Re: [AML] Sorensen, _The Evening and the Morning_ I love Virginia Sorensen's writing. While this book deals with illicit l= ove and may be challenging on that level, it is an incredible book. I thi= nk that the more you know about Sorensen, the more you love her as a pers= on and as a writer and the more you love her writing. I presented on this= very book at the AML Annual Conference in 2001. I said that Sorensen's T= he Evening and The Morning read in light of her short story titled "The A= postate" is a personal examination of her life in terms of the heritage s= he'd acquired from her ancestors, particularly her grandmother and her co= nnection to the Mormon faith. She's examining her own life and experience= as she writes. (She's in an unhappy marriage and involved in extramarita= l affairs). I think that there is a tone of condescension towards full be= lievers in the gospel because she lived in a day (the 30s and 40s) when a= lot of intellectuals thought Utah and Mormonism too provincial. She also= struggled in the faith herself. Her grandmother left the faith (based on= The Evening and The Morning and "The Apostate," one can assume that she = had an affair and was excommunicated) and that affected Sorensen's mother= and, of course, Sorensen herself. She loved this grandmother and struggl= ed to assimilate her love of the Mormon faith and her love of this creati= ve, fascinating grandmother. Sorensen once said in a letter that she lon= g desired to be the one to write the story of her ancestors who left Denm= ark for the Mormon faith but she said that she seemed always on the outsi= de looking in on the faith. She had faith in God and, in much lesser degr= ees, in the teachings of the LDS Church but it seemed to be always underm= ined. In her writing, she is indeed critical but she is examining how she= got to the place where she is. =20 Kelly Thompson =20 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:49:14 -0600 From: "Thom Duncan" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art > Robert Starling wrote: > > > Perhaps it should be noted that Orem DOES have a good theater company, = > > -The Hale Center Theater- which operates quite well _without_ any = > > subsidy, as do all the several Hale theaters. > > > > I say let the people vote with their feet and dollars about the art they = > > want to see. > > Just a thought. Perhaps if government-subsidized theater didn't exist, > the private theaters wouldn't have such a thinned-out audience to fight > for and could attract a larger crowd. > The Hales don't do art. They do entertainment. If "true" art is, as it should be, ahead of the societal train, it stands to reason that its messages won't be embraced by the majority of folks who should hear it. People being people, most of them don't like anything new, or, for that matter, things that might make them think, to re-assess their values, etc. Art is kinda like religion. Most people who need either one will ignore them. So, for the good of mankind, both need to be subsidized. Thom Duncan - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:23:25 -0700 From: "Jeff Needle" Subject: Re: [AML] [AML-Mag] JOHANSON, _What Is Mormonism All About?_ (Review) Thanks for this nice note. And of course, you're right, he was saying things that many Church members might well believe. For the record, non-Mormons have equally distorted views of Mormonism. Some of their anti-Mormon polemic is really awful. I've had the pleasure to read the works of some fine LDS scholars who truly understand other religions. My main point was one of credibility, since this book was not written for Mormons, but specifically for people outside the Church, who might be wondering about it due to the publicity surrounding the Olympics, people who may very well spot the distortions as we would. I appreciate your comment. [Jeff Needle] - ----- Original Message ----- From: "kumiko" > Needle's review of "What Is Mormonism All About?" is excellent. [snip] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:22:16 -0400 From: "Debra Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Mormon-News Query I send them to the list as I get them, and I haven't gotten any for awhile. I just checked out the website and its dating back to Jan, so its not up to date. Debbie Brown > Does anyone know if Kent Larsen's Mormon-News is still up and running? I haven't received any news updates from them since April 4th. Thanks, Frank Maxwell - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:15:59 -0500 From: "kumiko" Subject: [AML] Box Office Report April 26 Feature Films by LDS/Mormon Filmmakers and Actors Weekend Box Office Report (U.S. Domestic Box Office Gross) Weekend of April 26, 2002 Report compiled by: LDSFilm.com [If table below doesn't line up properly, try looking at them with a mono-spaced font, such as Courier - Ed.] Natl Film Title Weekend Gross Rank LDS/Mormon Filmmaker/Actor Total Gross Theaters Days - --- ----------------------------- ----------- ----- ---- 4 Murder by Numbers 6,362,457 2,663 10 Ryan Gosling (actor) 18,362,833 27 The Other Side of Heaven 252,202 197 136 Mitch Davis (writer/director) 4,000,579 John H. Groberg (author/character) Gerald Molen, John Garbett (producers) 59 Ocean's Eleven 39,212 45 143 LDS characters: Malloy twins 183,405,771 64 The Singles Ward 33,849 14 80 Kurt Hale (writer/director) 537,598 John E. Moyer (writer) Dave Hunter (producer) Cody Hale (composer) Ryan Little (cinematographer) Actors: Will Swenson, Connie Young, Daryn Tufts, Kirby Heyborne, Michael Birkeland, Robert Swenson, Lincoln Hoppe, Gretchen Whalley, Sedra Santos, etc. 73 Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man 15,055 4 724 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 13,232,617 75 Galapagos 12,425 6 913 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 12,633,529 95 China: The Panda Adventure 5,232 4 276 Reed Smoot (cinematographer) 2,251,061 101 Mark Twain's America 3D 4,228 1 1396 Alan Williams (composer) 2,203,394 102 Mulholland Drive 3,575 5 203 Joyce Eliason (producer/writer) 7,217,058 KIETH MERRILL SPEAKS: Academy Award-winning filmmaker Kieth Merrill delivered the keynote address at the annual LDS Artists Retreat (sponsored by the Mormon Arts Foundation), held in California on 12 April 2002. The text of his address was published by MERIDIAN MAGAZINE at: http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/020423vision.html During his address, Kieth Merrill mentioned sculptor Bertel Thorvoldsen, Michelangelo, actor Leonardo DiCaprio, filmmaker Richard Dutcher, writer/director Mitch Davis, producer John Garbett, LDSFilm.com, composer Thomas C. Baggaley, the Nauvoo Temple, Joseph Smith, producer Saul Zaentz, director Milos Foreman, composer Antonio Salieri, actor F. Murray Abraham, Mozart, Beethoven, Tom Clancy, Harold Prince, John Williams, Thomas Kinkade, Steven Spielberg, painter James Christensen, sculptor Dennis Smith, Deseret Book C.E.O. Sheri Dew, songwriter Michael McLean, actor Jimmy Stewart, producer/director Gary Cook, cinematographer Scott Swofford, cinematographer T.C. Christensen, composer Merrill Jensen, composer Sam Cardon, film editor Jerry Stayner, President Hinckley, President Faust, and Martin Harris. He mentioned a number of films by name: Amazon; Titanic; God's Army; The Other Side of Heaven; The Singles Ward; The Blair Witch Project; Amadeus; Mr. Krueger's Christmas; The Testaments Of One Fold And One Shepherd; Gladiator. He also quotes filmmakers Frank Capra, Orson Welles, John Lyde and Jerry Molen, as well as poet Robert Frost, apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Elder Holland, Aristotle, President Spencer W. Kimball, President Brigham Young, Ruskin and Elder Neal A. Maxwell. DUTCHER'S 'PROPHET' CAST: The lead roles for Richard Dutcher's "The Prophet" have been cast. Of course, it was reported a few weeks ago that Latter-day Saint actress and BYU student Erin Chambers (the star of Disney's "Don't Look Under the Bed") will be playing the part of "Emily", a friend of Emma Smith. Canadian actor Duff MacDonald will play Robert Foster, a radical apostate from the Church. The part of Joseph Smith has already been cast. Do we know who it is? Yes, we do. But our lips are sealed. You'll have to wait for Dutcher to release the information officially. Hints? Well... Let's just say that he has played a similar role before. L.A. TIMES AND MITCH: The Los Angeles Times ran an excellent, in depth article about recent and upcoming Christian-themed feature films. The article includes extensive quotes from Mitch Davis about his movie "The Other Side of Heaven", and about Christian filmmaking in general. The article also discusses the recently released "Joshua" (produced by a Presbyterian, based on a book by a Catholic). Richard Dutcher's "God's Army" and "Brigham City" are also mentioned, as are Warner Bros.' $40-million-grossing "A Walk to Remember", and critical flops by Evangelical filmmakers, such as "Omega Code", "Left Behind", "Carman: The Champion" and "Extreme Days." The article can be found at: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/printedition/suncalendar/la-000030007ap r28.story WHERE DOES 'THE OTHER SIDE OF HEAVEN' NOW STAND IN MOVIE HISTORY? With its nationwide opening a few weeks ago "The Other Side of Heaven" surpassed "God's Army" as the box office leader among "LDS Cinema" films -- movies made by and about Latter-day Saints. But where does it stand among ALL movies about Latter-day Saint main characters, including movies made by non-LDS filmmakers? According to our data, "The Other Side of Heaven" is the 2nd highest grossing movie in which one of the lead characters is openly a Latter-day Saint. It trails only behind the musical "Paint Your Wagon", which was released in 1969 and earned $14.5 million (made with a $20 million budget). That movie took a light-hearted look at Mormon settlements in the West and polygamy. The female lead (played by Jean Seberg) was a long-time Latter-day Saint, and (if I recall correctly) the male leads (Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood) join the Church at the end of the movie. Unfortunately, I don't know the box office gross "Melvin and Howard" (1980), but it may have been more than $4 million. Mary Steenburgen won an Academy Award for playing Mormon housewife Lynda Dummar in that movie, and Paul Le Mat played the titular Melvin Dummar, also a Mormon. The real life Dummars were Latter-day Saints, but I don't know if the movie addresses that fact or not. There are a number of other movies which have made more than "The Other Side of Heaven" and featured Latter-day Saints characters, but the characters were not explicitly identified as Latter-day Saints in the movie, or they weren't the lead characters: Steven Soderbergh's "Ocean's Eleven" had a U.S. gross of $183 million, but its two Mormon characters were only two of Ocean's crew of eleven, and were not as prominent as George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Julia Roberts. Barry Levinson's "Rain Man" (U.S. gross $173 million) features a title character BASED ON a real-life Latter-day Saint, but the story itself is fictional, and the onscreen character is not apparently LDS. (Interestingly enough, the movie was produced by a Latter-day Saint--Jerry Molen, who also has an important role onscreen as an actor -- playing the psychiatrist.) In "Deep Impact" (U.S. gross $140 million) the Latter-day Saint astronaut from Utah ("Dr. Oren Monash") is only maybe the 7th most important character -- and is not explicitly identified onscreen as a Latter-day Saint character. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" (U.S. gross $102 million) is, of course, about a real-life Mormon, but the movie portrays Butch Cassidy (played by Paul Newman) only after he was no longer active in the Church, and his Church affiliation is never mentioned in the movie. Likewise, Mario Van Peebles's biopic "Panther", about Eldridge Cleaver, does not address the famous Black Panther's later membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon characters in "Donnie Brasco" and "One Night at McCool's" were major characters, but not lead characters. So while there have been a number of movies with Mormon characters which have earned more than "The Other Side of Heaven," it appears that only one movie that is really, explicitly about Mormons has out-earned it. And that movie -- "Paint Your Wagon" -- used Latter-day Saints largely for comic effect and as a plot device. NELEH WATCH: The Salt Lake Tribune ran a fascinating article about Neleh Dennis, the Latter-day Saint competitor on "Survivor: Marquesas." By a wide margin, Neleh is the most popular competitor on the show, according to the show's official web polls, and based on the flurry of online activity supporting her. In the latest episode, Neleh continued her stay on the island, emerging as one of the key power players among the island's remaining contestants (although doing so in a very quiet, behind the scenes, and completely nice way). Tammy the Crime Reporter (from Mesa, AZ -- but not LDS), was clearly marked for banishment this week, because after last week's ouster of John, she was the most aggressive and duplicitous player left. But she won immunity for a second week in a row, and Zoe the sea captain from Maine got the boot. Now there are only seven castaways left, and Neleh is still sitting pretty. Unless allegiances shift radically (and there is no sign that they will), Tammy and Robert ("the General") will be the next to go, leaving Neleh one of five left (out of the original 16), along with Paschal, Sean, Vecipia and Kathy. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:29:46 -0600 From: "Scott Parkin" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art robert lauer wonders: > But is anyone addressing the MORALITY of forcing people (all law--including > tax law--is the use of force or the threat thereof) to support IDEAS? Always a fun discussion when politics, religion, and personal ethics collide... I'm not sure that anyone is forced to support any particular idea when tax dollars are used to fund the expression of that idea--any more than my consumer dollar spent on Kraft macaroni and cheese is an explicit endorsement and establishment of Phillip Morris Company's alcohol or tobacco products. I pay for mac and cheese; I support mac and cheese. If part of my mac and cheese money helps make a cigarette, I can only assume that part of their Pall Mall dollar is funding my cheesy mealtime delight. I suppose the dollar funds the whole company and the production of products I have no interest in. It also funds the production of the product I do have interest in--just as the NEA or any other tax-funded organzation supports the expression of both ideas I agree with and ones I don't. I see a tremendous amount of morality in supporting the expression of ideas with common money. It's how we ensure that the free exchange of ideas continue--by supporting the expression of even distasteful or disagreeable ideas. If anything, I almost see it as a moral imperative to specifically fund the expression of unpopular ideas to ensure that we are always given choices and hear arguments for other ways of thinking. I see it as my moral imperative to ensure that the majority is not given the power to quash the ideas of minorities--like Mormons or women or blacks. And so the use of my tax dollar to support a wide variety of expression seems very much to be not only a good thing to do, but becomes very nearly necessary if we are to ensure free expression of any idea--be it religious, pragmatic, or philosophical. Of course the extension of withdrawing funding to support the expression or study of ideas is that we eliminate public funding of education as well, since very specific ideas and morals are taught in schools--especially at the university level. To make it worse, those darned universities then turn around and tell me I can't attend them because I don't meet some arbitrary entrance requirement--even though my tax dollars established them and continue to fund them. It just seems more morally correct to support all expression of ideas than to support none. One creates choice, where it seems to me that the other creates nothing and enables the majority to exercise tyrrany of control over the minority. Since no one--political, religious, or business leader--can force me to believe anything, I see support of expression not as a suppression of my right to ignore silly things, but as a support of the right of others to say silly things. Which is the cost of my right to believe what I want. > philosophy upon which the Constitution rests (that of the NATURAL RIGHTS of > the INDIVIDUAL) prohibits the use of law --meaning Government use of force > or the threat thereof--from supporting ANY particular religion. The prohibition is against the establishment of religion as the foundation of law, not the support of free expression of ideas. The right to express unpopular ideas is precisely what allowed a group of colonists to declare themselves independent of the rightful and established authority that had funded their colony. The Constitution itself arose not out of some grand sweeping unanimity of opinion, but out of the difficult collision of sometimes completely opposite ideas. The protection of smaller, less populous states against the will of the larger states was a foundational argument. So the explicit governmental (aka, lawful) protection of unpopular ideas against the oppression of a popular majority *is* the basis of the U.S. Constitution, in my eyes. It's not all about majority rule--the majority is every bit as much the tyrant as a single powerful ruler. To my mind it's at least partly about explicit minority protection. There's a difficult line here between religion and philosophy and ideas. When is an idea religious, and when is it merely an idea? Is personal honesty the philosophical concept of "the fear of getting caught" or is it the religious idea of "a sin against God?" Or is it simple pragmatism--loss of trust means loss of income? Since most religions teach honesty, is the idea tainted and can no longer be supported by the law designed to protect us all from the manipulations of the dishonest? Are truth in advertising laws really the establishment of religion--or are they the protection of people regardless of (or perhaps even despite) religion? I'm not real keen on what I see as the overzealousness of organizations that try so desperately to ensure that government agencies express *no* religious ideas or symbols--it seems to forcibly prevent the expression of certain kinds of ideas while explicitly supporting other kinds of ideas. But I do support the careful watchdogging of the use of governmental authority to validate one philosophy over another. Directly and explicitly supporting the expression of ideas just doesn't seem like the same thing as establishing a particular religion as the foundation of law and authority to me. Try as I might, I just can't see the NEA as a state religion. > Where is the MORAL JUSTIFICATION for taking one penny from me and giving it > to another artist whose work, ideas and philosophy may be completely > opposite to my own? In this case, I think the justification comes from the very idea that the government and its agencies support a broad range of ideas precisely to combat the moral absolutism of a small ruling class. By supporting the expression of a wide variety of ideas you (theoretically) ensure that unpopular ideas (such as Mormonism) are given equal protection and support. >From a particularly Mormon standpoint, it's the opposing force that gives us the freedom to choose. Without a choice there is no righteousness. The cost of that freedom to choose is that some will choose poorly. But the choice is critical, and explicit support of the expression of ideas is a foundation of that choice. In my opinion. > None of > the arguments made for the violation of the rights of Mormons were > consistent with the philosophy upon which the Constitution rests. It is the > rejection of this philosophy and an acceptance of the same arguments used by > 18th century anti-Mormons that serves as the conceptual foundation > supporting the notion of Government supported arts. On this we just disagree. As you point out, the use of government power to try to stamp out Mormon religion was a wholesale violation of the concepts on which the Constitution was founded. Some would argue (and I tend to agree) that the reason Mormons were so successfully persecuted was precisely because of the partial establishment of religion as the basis for governmental policy. What the government did was illegal by their own rules; they justified that corruption on the basis of a religious idea of moral correctness--the same kind of religious fervor that led to Prohibition and a great many other Bad Ideas. What I don't see is how the NEA or any other tax-funded organization is crushing or destroying the free practice of religion or the free expression of ideas. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the NEA supports a great many arts projects that I find of immense value--that I agree with both philosophically and religiously. I don't see the NEA establishing religion, or forcing anyone to accept a single philosophical framework by force of law. Unlike what was done to the Mormons in the two prior centuries. Yes, the threat of violence causes people to pay their taxes. Those tax dollars are then used to fund a great many things that I don't really like, including certain wars, the expression of certain ideas, and the aggrandizement and debauchery of a great many alleged civil servants. Ideally, people would pay their taxes because it's right, and would support the expression of opposing ideas for the same reason. Since human nature is not always to do the right thing, we create and establish law to ensure at least minimal protection of the minority or unpopular viewpoint. The law is not perfect, but to me the issue is administration not moral correctness. On this one it looks like we'll each have to take advantage of our tax-supported (and policed) right to disagree and to express that disagreement publicly. Where's the Mormon literary connection? In this case it's a very weak one, and in my mind is related to the idea that a pure free-market economy will tend to produce only that which reinforces a majority opinion. Which seems like the big knock against Mormon literature. Maybe what Mo-Lit needs is a little governmental sponsorship to support that alternate voice. I know I got the government to help fund a science fiction magazine at BYU; maybe I can get some help funding an alternative Mormon press in central Utah. Hmmm.... Scott Parkin - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:57:10 EDT From: HOJONEWS@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants In a message dated 4/30/02 12:30:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ThomDuncan@prodigy.net writes: > Maybe we should stop and consider, and then > consider again, whether to condemn a sculpture or a painting, or a film > where our first instinct is to condemn Dear Thom and All: Amen to this. That could be extended to many other aspects of life with the Bible's "first stone" metaphor as well as the freedom of speech and right to privacy clauses in our government documents in mind. Carolyn Howard-Johnson, Author of This is the Place, an award-winning story about a young journalist who writes her way through repression into redemption For a FREE First Chapter Click Here or send to: carolynhowardjohnson@sendfree.com FREE Cooking by the Book at http://www.tlt.com/authors/carolynhowardjohnson.htm - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:12:57 -0600 From: "Todd Petersen" Subject: Re: [AML] LDS Environmentalism (was: LDS Activism) Jim said that you can't believe in Gaia and God. Well, if you believe in the book of Moses, I'd suppose you'd have to, unless Enoch really didn't hear the earth groan and ask for a season of rest. Or maybe that wasn't literal? I happen to think it was. Jim also said that nobody in the world is anti-environment. I'm not so sure that's true. If you have ever stood in a clearcut, you'd know that those places have a feeling of violence in them. To say that no one is against forests after witnessing that kind of incursion is like saying that people who kill aren't anti-people. They may not be, but they sure act like it. To extort materials from the creation for the mere pupose of making money, which is different from taking things to sustain our lives, but to extract these things (which our doctrine teaches us are intelligences unto themselves, not inert) in a violent way, without prayer and acknowledgment of them as gifts from God (which demand a certain degree of honor whatever they are), that is anti-environment to me. To not aknowledge God in the minerals and meat and timber and air and water is a kind of blasphemy regardless of the ELF or Greenpeace and others who probably don't help curb the polarization. To me the most Mormon thing in the world would be to say: hey, we've got to share this place that our Heavenly Father and Christ made for us. I've got no more claim on it than anyone else. Living here in peace is my birthright. It is everyone's birthright; this earth is not just for those who need to mine or log or fish or ranch in large scale corporate projects. The Berkley pit outside Butte, MT is un-Christian. I'd like to hear more Mormon people talking and writing about that. Don't I hear people say that we must love our neighbors, and doesn't that also extend to loving them by sharing and by allowing them to live in health and by letting them have equal access to the blessings the Lord has given us through the creation? Maybe I've been listening to a little too much Woody Guthrie. But we all learn that song in school. It just doesn't mean all that much, I guess. LDS people are all about personal property, but we know that there really isn't such a thing as personal property. We have checked it all out from the great PE cage in the sky, and we'll have to turn it all back in when our turn is over. - -- Todd Robert Petersen - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:16:54 -0600 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] Brett Helquist Query Yes, Brett is LDS. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 00:56:52 -0600 From: "Jacob Proffitt" Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art - ---Original Message From: harlowclark@juno.com > So, a question for those who object to forced support for the > arts through our taxes, do you also object to public > participation, through direct funding or SID bonds or tax > deferrals or RDAs or other means? Why or why not? > > And for those who support public funding for the arts, do you > also support public funding in its various forms for stadiums > or buildings for other kinds of private enterprises. Why or why not? I hope I've made it clear that I am *much* friendlier to public spending on the arts than public spending on private enterprises. I'm not fond of anyone who wants to suck at the public teat. However, there *are* important things that require concerted (and even coerced) effort. Art is partially in that category (with caveats), but I firmly believe that profitable businesses are *not*. The key determining factor is (for me) if it is worth the cost of government intervention and won't be met any other way. Profitable businesses are automatically (IMO) excluded by the last criteria... Jacob Proffitt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 02:07:23 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: [AML] Revitalizing Concerts (was: Money and Art) Mary Jane Jones wrote: > As an art form, movies certainly haven't had any trouble finding financial support. That's because the medium is relevant to the culture. Let's face it--in America we have a culture that needs visual stimluation. (That's another part of why I think symphonies are suffering--they don't play up the visual aspect of the experience nearly enough--but that's another discussion.) > > My husband and I talk about this last issue a lot. His symphony has seen financial trouble, and every season we watch the numbers dwindle as the audience for symphonic music dies off--literally. He struggles to find ways of making the music that he loves so much relevant to everyday American life in order to attract new audiences. How about multimedia concerts? It's been done. Our family attended a Mannheim Steamroller Christmas concert a while back. For a good portion of the second half of the show, they had a see-through screen in front of the group and, as they played, they showed a film on the screen of a medieval recreation of a Christmas celebration. It was quite fascinating. They also showed a number of other shorts on a normal screen behind them as they performed in the first half. I'm sure the purists would howl at this, but maybe, just maybe the orchestra will be laughing all the way to the bank. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 02:13:01 -0600 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Money and Art Paris Anderson wrote: > > What bothers me about us arguing about government funding of the arts is > that no one is arguing about govenemnt funding of the military or the space > program. No one questions the morality of the M1-A1 Abrams. I think it is > a very elitest tank--as it destroys only that which it targets. We have no > more right to scrutinize the NEA than we have to scrutize NASA. So what if > they fund a few embarassing projects. Do they do any good? The military is a Constitutionally assigned responsibility of the Federal government. That makes a big difference. As for NASA, I recently heard an interesting idea about funding it that might be a blueprint for funding other things in a more acceptable way. To fund space exploration, a tax is placed on all science fiction. This may very well be the only tax I've ever heard of that I would actually like to pay. I wouldn't be surprised if most SF enthusiasts feel similarly. Is there a comparable way to fund the arts? - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:38:14 -0600 From: Christopher Bigelow Subject: RE: [AML] Money and Art <<< To carry on with Eric's dragging of this discussion back to Mormon Arts and Letters... I feel constrained to point out that Sunstone, Irreantum, the Sugarbeet... (not funded or legitimized by the Church) produce/publish good edgy mormon art. Who funds them? I haven't done the research to be able to say firmly that they are funded only by private patrons and donations and sales etc..., but I'm fairly confident that they are. (I do know that the funds for the fiction contest Sunstone runs annually are provided by a private patron of some sort) Can anyone correct me? >>> Irreantum is 100% supported by the AML, which is 100% supported by member dues, subscriptions, event fees, and the occasional donation. Sugar Beet is supported by the three editors taking turns paying the $25 monthly web hosting fee. I don't know about Sunstone, but I know they've had a goal of finding 100 people who will each donate $1,000 per year, and I think they rely on book and art sales too. The AML does sometimes apply for Utah Arts Council and NEA money for Irreantum, but we've been turned down in the past. Chris Bigelow - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 10:54:23 -0600 From: margaret young Subject: Re: [AML] Utah Arts Grants I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. Is there something here I don't know? Did _Irreantum_ apply for grant money and not get it on the grounds that it was Mormon? Since I've gotten grant money myself for a decidedly Mormon project, and since I teach at BYU, I know that the money doesn't go just to U of U. Lance Larsen has also gotten grant money, though I don't know what his particular project was other than poetry. I wonder if there's a difference when individual artists apply for grant money and when a group such as the AML applies. When the word "Mormon" appears as part of the name of the petitioner, I wonder if there's a concern about using state money for religious ends. Every year, the UAC sponsors a free seminar in grant proposals. It'd be interesting for an AML member to go to one of those and just ask straight out if a Mormon entity (not an individual, because we already know that individual Mormon artists can get grant help) will likely be denied a grant because it is a religious organization. [Margaret Young] Todd Petersen wrote: > What Thom didn't point out is that the Utah Arts council didn't fund the > AML publication Irreantum last yeard because it was Mormon. That's what > you get around here. Plus most of the money for literary endeavors went > to U of U projects. We don't see much of that money for things down at > SUU. > -- > Todd - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #697 ******************************