<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/649070</link>
		<description>Comments by eja144</description>
<item>
<title>Big Hollywood : The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?</title>
<link>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/#IDComment33082112</link>
<description>How is this any different from a company hiring an advertising agency? &amp;mdash;using art as a tool to rally support for a company, its brand, its values, and ultimately its product? In the end, each and every American still has the choice of whether or not to support Obama&amp;rsquo;s policies, just like each American has the choice of whether or not to buy Apple computers, Volkswagon cars, or Nike Shoes. However, I suppose I wouldn&amp;#039;t be too happy about my tax money paying the government&amp;rsquo;s advertising bill.  This brings up the age-old debate of using art as a tool to change public opinion in a calculated way. Should there be a line drawn between art and advertising? Can a creation be deemed &amp;ldquo;art&amp;rdquo; based on aesthetics alone? </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Sep 2009 02:14:18 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/#IDComment33082112</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>