Government funding of the arts: For or against?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by JB88
show me one person making a living on nea grants.  

one.

How about the NEA administrators? No doubt they number in the hundreds if not thousands.

[Leslie]

I understand the general welfare of the people from this point of view.  The only utilitarian purpose a painting has is to cover a hole in the wall.  It is the Process of art that basically teaches its practitioners how to think and especially solve problems.  All engineers, physicists, scientists, mathematicians, military men, business executives, politicians, of these you will find the most brilliant are also artists.  Artists make good scientists, though scientists are not normally good artists.

The entire issue shouldn't be focusing so much on a painting, poem, music performance so much as what does art really do as a process for thinking and problem solving.  The process can take many years because of trial and error.  Rarely is something handed on a plate, discovering the process is mostly experience.  




Les

[JB88]

Originally posted by AKIron
How about the NEA administrators? No doubt they number in the hundreds if not thousands.

did you look it up?

[JB88]

National endowment for the arts

Number of Employees in 2006: 120

from here.


about the same as a single los angeles class sub i think.

these people are not living on grants.  they are government employees.  just like the sailors on the submarine. nice try tho.

[DieAz]

they are government employees

of an (edit:gov't) agency that shouldn't exist in the 1st place.
(edit) private sector like any other business would be fine as long as it isn't paid for from gov't funds. (/edit)

[JB88]

there are some that would argue that most government jobs shouldnt exist in the first place...but then, we are talking about 120 people here.  thats less than one for every two million americans.

ohhhhhh...scary stuff.

[Shuckins]

Dorothea Lange's pictorial documentary of the Great Depression was not subsidized by the Federal Government.  She and other photographers were hired by the Farm Service Administration to make a pictorial history of the suffering of migrant farmers and unemployed factory workers during the 1930s.

Thus, while she received a government paycheck for helping create an official pictorial history for the government, she never received a government art grant.

[Tachus]

This thread has gone something like this.

Against: The government shouldn't fund art, because it has not been granted the "Right" to do so.

For: What we spend on art is only a fraction of what we spend on other stuff.

Against: It's not about how much, it's about whether they have the right.

For: Art is important, we need it, any decent country has it, and those that don't are in decline.

Against: Art will continue, without funding, and no nation will collapse without, but the point is, Does the government have the "Right" to fund it.

For: What we spend on art is only a fraction of what we spend on other stuff.

Against: It's not about how much, it's about whether they have the right.

....Continue repeating until you're tired of reading.

The question about "Need" (Do we need "Funded" Art for the overall welfare of our society.) must be answered first. Only after that can the question about, "Right" (does the government have the "Right" to "Fund" art) be answered.

Everything else is pretty pointless. Including (as I've said before) talking about the amount, and pointing out other areas of mis-management. The question as to whether it's "Right or Wrong" is what matters first. If it's "Right" then we talk about how much (Amount then matters). If it's "Wrong" then it's wrong. If it's wrong it can't be justified by saying, that other stuff is "Wrong" too. That's what my kids do, "But everyone else is doing it." If it's wrong, I don't care if it's 6 cents on every billion, it's still wrong, and the amount no matter how small is irrelevant.

Now as I recall, 4 pages back, this thread originally ask for "Opinions"; simply in favor or against. If we plan on staying there, then we will continue to get the first part of this post, over and over and over again. If anyone wants to move past that point. Then the only way to do so is address the the question that matters.

Need. Do we need "Funded Art" for the overall welfare of our society. (What I mean by addressing the question by the way, is to demonstrate, that we do, or we don't. If it's just your opinion, they we are making no head way.)

Everything else, is pretty pointless. (Regardless of which side of the argument your on.)

Best regards,
--Tachus

[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!

[JB88]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Dorothea Lange's pictorial documentary of the Great Depression was not subsidized by the Federal Government.  She and other photographers were hired by the Farm Service Administration to make a pictorial history of the suffering of migrant farmers and unemployed factory workers during the 1930s.

Thus, while she received a government paycheck for helping create an official pictorial history for the government, she never received a government art grant.

i see....so are you for the government hiring artists?

what if i don't like their style?

[john9001]

Originally posted by JB88
i see....so are you for the government hiring artists?

she was not creating "art", she was documenting history.

[JB88]

oh.  so what is art then john?  

that can't be art?

[JB88]

oh, and we are going to have to tear down all murals and sculptures in public buildings if we are going to make a show of it.  we gotta show the government how serious we are about this art menace.

has anyone seen the big WW1 memorial in kansas city?  if that isnt a big **** i dont know what is.  i cant believe that woodrow wilson actually dedicated it.  scandalous.  tear it down!!!!! it OFFENDS!!!



you know, the arabs have a great way of dealing with this whole freedom and artistic liberty stuff...we should be just like them.  

anyone drawing pictures of geo. washington should have the hand that draweth smited!

[culero]

Originally posted by JB88
show me one person making a living on nea grants.  

one.

88, don't take this wrong, I do think there's a place for reasonable amounts spent on the arts in our public budget. But I think you may have taken Iron's point wrong. The point is that when we start making discretionary diversions from strict interpretation of the Constitution, we enter a slippery slope. You and I think its a good thing to provide a little culture and enjoyment. Others want to spend more on other things. Who's right, who's wrong? You don't, for instance, want welfare programs supporting illegal immigrants, do you?

[JB88]

and stop putting pictures on stamps!!!!  it makes it cost extra and i hate the picturez!!!