P0rn, G@mblin', and Cruel and Unusual Art Money Laundering Techniques

 This is another chapter in the investigation of the CT Office of the Arts CHRO complaint I'm researching.

The expectation I had had was that when the State made a Call for Art and received, as a thought experiment, 80 pre-qualified entries - that those 80 pieces would be evaluated strictly on their artistic merit. and no one is ever warned that that's not true.

Secondly, just because the 1% that funds the purchase of the art comes from the construction or renovation involving architecture, the purchase of fine art is not an exercise in interior decoration, social reparations, or personal shopping excursions. The Call for Art *is* a call for *ART*. It's an artist's opportunity to exhibit their gift to their audience. But, as I've found, that's not true either. One Percent For Art is just a euphemism for misappropriating money into a slush fund that the taxpayer intends to be used for art but instead is diverted everywhere but.

In attempting to make my case why this happens I looked to find the original Call for Art involving the Elihu Burritt Library extension at Central CT State University (CCSU). The CT Office of the Arts is obfuscating any link to that information from their own site but it can be found here. Oddly, all of the links contained within it go to what looks to be a p0rn site. Handle with care.

One percent of an advertised 18.8 million dollar construction amounts to $188,000. The Call for Art states that the buying budget is $100,000. This same exact amount appears in other CfAs as if the COA pulled it out of its collective keister.

Very Sus.

In any case, as I compared and contrasted the buying habits of whoever the hell makes these decisions, I noticed that there was no random distribution of our sample 80 entries. Of the three 1% award groups, say 70 of the 80 ( purchased pieces skewed toward two or three CT counties as if the rest were thrown a token purchase (or not) to avoid suspicion.

Upon further investigation, I discovered that the entire Second District of CT has been, for all practical intents and purposes disenfranchised for both DECD and the COA Arts consideration. A few years ago, these entities contrived a regional Cultural Districts scheme that punished rural, lighter business district arts communities and rewarded already thriving (e.g. wealthier) Cultural Districts.

About four years ago, the Northeastern Cultural District was wholly eliminated and later incorporated into the dysfunctional Southeastern Cultural District. The Arts in the Second Congressional District have been largely co-opted by the Tribal Casino interests of tourism marketing and promotion and as an anti-gambling proxy. The euphemism is "healing" arts but it amounts to funding juvenile flower murals that are claimed to prevent gambling habits. IMO, they are more likely to induce su1cidal tendencies after a gambler has lost it all in the casino.

In any case, most taxpayers might expect that the State's Arts organizations were there to ensure that the entire State enjoyed to benefits and opportunities that the 1% for Art program pretends to offer. Instead it appears to be a finely tuned, State-sponsored money laundering operation that has no oversight or accountability and absolutely no interest in promoting CT artists (more on this to come).