Government funding of the arts: For or against?

[moot]

I meant to edit my earlier post but had to sort through a few cardboard boxes to find the book I mention down there..

The acid analogy was about the faltering intermediate between idea and execution.  The way a ballerina will miss her marks if she's pissed.  Stoned to the moon, you are in a way personifying the acid trip that's running through your mind, i.e. perfectly adhering to its 'discipline', the same way you can perfect your motorcoordination to bring you closer to being nothing but a piece of living tai-chi or muay-thai.  These disciplines are martial 'arts'; if your name is Bruce Lee, it can be said that you've got some of them down to a science.
"Down to a science" because you've effectively learned the (existing so far anyway) rules by heart.  The same way painters past a certain expertise turn into "Masters".  

I knew I had seen a real life confirmation of this idea of mine somewhere, and like a number of other notions I realized as I grew up, this one is echoed almost word for word in a chapter from an introductive engineering book from my first college year in Phoenix.
I can't copy the text here, but it's worth looking up. The chapter is just 30 pages long.  It ties together most of the loose ends in this part of the thread.. I don't mean to break copyright laws, but here's support for the idea that both creativity and dogmatism are a matter of discipline:
The book
Contents
Correspondence

Whether you are satisfying a conscious or unconscious need, there will always be a definite criteria for its optimal solution.  Even if that need fluctuates over time. If there is a definite optimum solution, there's (in the finite resources of reality) an optimal path to make it happen, i.e. a way to engineer it.
I'd go on but don't want to derail the topic.

"Pop culture junk": If you educate (articulate) kids minds, the same way men can climb out of Plato's cave, they'll swim past the sorry excuse for bait that is "pop culture".

[culero]

lazs, there's a difference between skill and art. I understand what you're saying, but I'm a welder too. That ain't art, its skill.

I realize this is a semantic distinction. Another example is "artist" and "artisan". The welder is an artisan. He is skilled. He doesn't create art (unless, of course, he's an artist that uses welding as his medium).

[AKIron]

Originally posted by culero
Quite true, still you must admit that some folks seem inspired, others don't. Its indeed a matter of degree. There will always be amateurs who dabble at being artists (like me when I wanted to play the axe I built), but how many actually ever create anything that the public wants to admire? Those that can create what many want to enjoy are IMO blessed with something in their soul that cannot be taught.

I agree with what you say.

I'm inclined to think of teaching/learning as synonymous with inspiration. We establish our own goals and pursuits through our desires and interests and achieve them with our willingness to forgo those pleasures or distractions that would hinder us. Those who achieve the exceptional are usually admired for their achievement whether it be a painting, a sleek car, or a well ordered life sacrificed for others (ie. Mother Teresa). The benefit we gain from appreciating the "art" of these people is the stirring we feel in ourselves to reach higher for our own goals, imo. I will probably not feel that for someone who's art is paid for with my tax dollars.

[culero]

Originally posted by AKIron
snip
I will probably not feel that for someone who's art is paid for with my tax dollars.

Again, a matter of degree for me. If someone aspires to be an artist, and wants public support, IMO the hell with that. OTOH, if they're not simply a wannabe but someone who has demonstrated tangible talent and results on their own, but are now starving to death, I don't mind doling out a little so they can eat and produce beauty.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by culero
Again, a matter of degree for me. If someone aspires to be an artist, and wants public support, IMO the hell with that. OTOH, if they're not simply a wannabe but someone who has demonstrated tangible talent and results on their own, but are now starving to death, I don't mind doling out a little so they can eat and produce beauty.

For me the beauty is in the dedication and sacrifice. Who cares if someone can paint a perfect picture of a beautiful sunset? I can do that with a $30 camera.

[Tachus]

Originally posted by JB88
orrrrr just dont participate.  if noone goes to art events, or musuems then they will probably eventually get rid of it.  i think that the same should go for military museums because they are pretty much useless for the public defense and they just go ahead and make them without my say so and some might disagree with the glorification of war.

air shows.  now theres a HUGE WASTE of money by the standards being laid out here.  i think i should start writing my congressman to have them stopped.  all that fuel....all of those man hours...is that a part of the defense as laid out by the constitution or does that fall under providing for the general welfare?

no musuems.  you have to promise and you can't be a hypocrite so make sure you tell your kids that they can go to the canning factory for their cultural field trips instead.

sounds like a hoot.

orrr....maybe they can go to the "tostitos metropolitan fiesta museum"  even better!

Well, I guess if you would rather not discuss the issue of "Whether the Federal Government has been granted the Right to fund things like art." Then  I'll take your advice "just don't participate"

If the only thing you have to offer to the discussion is a repeated attempt to justify your position by saying, "They do it for other things, so they should do it for art." or, "We need art", "it's not much money" etc..., then any further participation on my part, is pointless.

Also, the idea that "Art" would dry up with out federal money, is pretty unrealistic. There are lots of ways to fund things, without the use of Federal funds. State funds, corporate funds, private funds, and so on. (Including running museums for profit.)

The "belief" that art is vital to our culture, and we need it for our survival simply doesn't mean the federal government should fund it. I might "Believe" religion is vital, and our society and culture will collapse without it.  Any nation without religion is doomed... so on, and so on. So, does that mean if people stop supporting churches, the government should step in and do it? (I don't think so, and I'm pretty sure you would agree with me on that point, if nothing else.)

People can (and some do) make all the same claims about religion you have about art. The point being, there are some that believe our country needs art and would be better off without religion; and just as many (if not more) believe the reverse to be true. (we need the church, and if they close the art museums down, it will be no great loss.)
The point is, believing it is important doesn't address the issues of whether or not our federal government has the "right" to fund those sorts of things.

BTW, I agree that as a whole, Art is a good thing, and a needed thing for that fact. Also, as I posted earlier, I'm not necessarily opposed to the federal funding of it. (Though, I'm not so sure, the federal government has been granted that authority.) I was simply looking for more than, "I think this", "I think that" type of a discussion; but alas, it has eluded me.

Best regards,
--Tachus

[culero]

Originally posted by AKIron
For me the beauty is in the dedication and sacrifice. Who cares if someone can paint a perfect picture of a beautiful sunset? I can do that with a $30 camera.

Right, we agree. I'm talking about someone who has, on their own, accomplished themselves (meaning they do more than paint snapshots).

Its a very subjective thing we're discussing. For instance, you see many folks sitting around Jackson Square in New Orleans supporting themselves painting portraits. Most of 'em do a really nice job. That's a skill. Not many of 'em are what I call an artist.

[Bronk]

Question
How is artist welfare any different than corporate welfare/farming welfare?
Other than the amount spent.

Bronk

[Tachus]

Think of it like this. What would have happened if the Feds had not bailed out all those Savings and Loans in the late 80's (I think, might have been the early 90's) It was seen as necessary for the overall good of our economy. The same might be argued about farm aid, and so on. So the difference is about the perception that one (farm aid, corporate aid, and so on) is "necessary" for the good of our economy, (or for a sector of our economy.) While aid for art is not seen as having a direct economic impact.

[culero]

Originally posted by Bronk
Question
How is artist welfare any different than corporate welfare/farming welfare?
Other than the amount spent.

Bronk

Its not, and its a good example of what I've been saying to 88. Its a slippery slope.

FWIW, I think we're WAY overboard right now in terms of corporate/farming welfare...but that to some extent it may be a good thing. The determining factor is to what extent it benefits the whole of us rather than the special interest. Like Iron says, its a matter of degree. Its an example of why we all need to be involved. Government is more responsive to an involved populace than a herd of sheep.

[culero]

Originally posted by Tachus
snip
While aid for art is not seen as having a direct economic impact.

Culture is an important element of a vital community.

[Bronk]

Edited because I R teh tard  


Bronk

[Tachus]

Originally posted by culero
Culture is an important element of a vital community.

Don't disagree with this. I was speaking about the economic impact, not the cultural one.
Unless you were saying the loss of "Art" would result in an economic hardship for our nation. (Which, I don't know that I would agree with.)

[Tachus]

I think he was agreeing with you Bronk.

In his opinion there is no difference.

BTW I love that Krusty on Math, is that the Krusty from these boards?

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Tachus


BTW I love that Krusty on Math, is that the Krusty from these boards?

Yes it is.

Bronk