Our disscussion in class today about where to draw the line between art and pornography reminded me of something I recently heard on the news. In Albany, NY, Steven Dick, owner of the strip club "Night Moves" was taken to the court of appeals for about $400,000 in unpaid taxes. His lawyer, W. Andrew McCullough, argued that Dick shouldn't have to pay state taxes. In New York, anything that is considered dramatic performance is exept from taxes and McCullough believed that the strippers at Night moves were "choreographic performers not unlike ballet dancers."
Though his arguements about stripping being considered an Olympic Sport seem exaggerated, he did seem to bring up some good points. "On artistic grounds and on a First Amendment ground, there's no question that if you start drawing a line you have no clear line to stop at... Where's the line in art? You have to draw it as safe as you can to protect the freedoms."
Unfortunately for Steven Dick, the court did not rule in favor of Night Moves, claiming that they "failed to prove its exotic dancers are exempt performances."
This court case was incredibly interesting and made me think about what I personally consider art. In this instance, I feel that exotic dancing should not be considered art and should not be exept from taxes at this point. However, I agree with W. Andrew McCullough in that the line is consistantly changing, making it impossible to pin point as a society what the difference is between art and not art.
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Strip-club-makes-naked-case-for-art-3843247.php
No comments:
Post a Comment