Government funding of the arts: For or against?

[Fulmar]

Originally posted by Maverick
For those who think Eagles idea is out of the question, I remind you that we have already had a very similar example that was touted as "art". One of the most recent examples was the individual that decided a cross submerged in human urine was "art".

Do you think that deserves tax dollars?

There are other examples, just google fecal art and you will see numerous examples. Here is one link.
http://media.www.middleburycampus.com/media/storage/paper446/news/2004/02/26/Arts/Is.It.Art-617874.shtml

I'm sorry but art deserves to be funded privately, not by tax dollars.

And was this urine cross funded by government tax dollars?  I don't think so.  Just because a few 'radicals' are so bored with traditional forms of art that they feel they need to break boundaries of decency because they're not creative enough to push the boundaries elsewhere.  I agree there is 'breaking the boundaries' and there is just plain 'garbage.'

I work in the arts as I am a graphic designer by trade.  It bursts my bubble (to put it very lightly) when people tend to stereotype art (mainly modern art) in the same category of sculptures of Britney Spears giving birth on a bearskin rug.  Just because you read an article from the Associated Press about this art piece does not give you fodder for an argument like yours.  There is a whole art world that is under-appreciated and definantly under-funded.

As for public funding for the arts...I'm for it.  The amount of private funding many small artists receive is not even worth counting.  If interest in the arts was adquetely funded by private investors there would be no need for public funding from tax dollars.

There's larger loopholes on the horizon than a 'cash drain' for the arts.  Ya know, paying $200,000 for a CIA toilet seat.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Fulmar
And was this urine cross funded by government tax dollars?  I don't think so.

This work of "art" was not commissioned up front through NEA funds but the "artist" did receive a $15,000 award in a competition that the NEA helped fund. So yes, my tax dollars did go to this artist for this work of "art", so did yours if you were paying taxes in the '80's.

[culero]

Originally posted by Tachus
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.)

No, we're on the same page. OTOH, economics isn't all that's important. Part of what I want from my community's leaders is more intangible than dollars and cents. Call me crazy, but for instance I want America to represent liberty and justice for all. That's not economics, but its important. A little beauty and culture thrown in is OK too, IMO.

[culero]

Originally posted by AKIron
This work of "art" was not commissioned up front through NEA funds but the "artist" did receive a $15,000 award in a competition that the NEA helped fund. So yes, my tax dollars did go to this artist for this work of "art", so did yours if you were paying taxes in the '80's.

Yanno, Iron, I like drinking chocolate milk. I often stop in a convenience store and buy a pint, sometimes a quart. I pay and leave, drinking as I drive.

A couple of times in the past 30 years or so, I can remember getting some sour milk.

I didn't stop buying milk.

~shrug~

[AKIron]

Originally posted by culero
Yanno, Iron, I like drinking chocolate milk. I often stop in a convenience store and buy a pint, sometimes a quart. I pay and leave, drinking as I drive.

A couple of times in the past 30 years or so, I can remember getting some sour milk.

I didn't stop buying milk.

~shrug~

I did, haven't liked milk since I was 5.


This isn't really my objection to public funding of the "arts" though. I consider socialism a necessary evil that should be restricted as tightly as possible and not allowed to corrupt the "arts".

[culero]

Originally posted by AKIron
I did, haven't liked milk since I was 5.


This isn't really my objection to public funding of the "arts" though. I consider socialism a necessary evil that should be restricted as tightly as possible and not allowed to corrupt the "arts".

Well, then say that instead of harping on the cross in a glass of pee thing (which was what my milk analogy referred to )

[AKIron]

Originally posted by culero
Well, then say that instead of harping on the cross in a glass of pee thing (which was what my milk analogy referred to )

Well, if you were bored enough to go back and read all of my posts in this thread I think you'd find my objection consistent. I didn't bring up the urine art and I don't believe I've "harped" on it. My objection is government funding for the arts in principle.

As others have mentioned, when the government becomes involved in art pretty soon it will have to discriminate as to which "art" is officially funded. If our forefathers could have foreseen this I'm confident they would have insisted the government stay out of promoting one art over another, same as with religion.

[moot]

Keep people happy and well educated and the art'll happen on its own.

[culero]

You're both pretty much right, IMO, but as in most things there's shades of gray rather than just black and white. I do agree that art should be mostly funded by the private sector, but there's something to be said for some exception to that principle.

Saying that there's a place for limited discretionary spending on the arts doesn't mean we must fund all artists, or discriminate. We can commission the odd statue to be placed in public locations, a few paintings to be done and hung in public buildings, a few performances to be done at state functions, etc etc, and let public scrutiny cause our elected officials to be prudent in the way they apply this largesse. All that without being overly abusive of the treasury, of course.

My view of proper governance is that I choose to vote for people whose integrity I trust. I feel I can hold them responsible for their actions, and trust them to do the right thing, if I've chosen wisely as to integrity. Given that POV, perhaps you can understand why I feel we can and should allow them a small percentage of their budget to spend on things that grace our community with the pleasures that art provides.

If we rely solely on the private funding of art, would we ever see any art in our public places? Would we have museums that the public could enjoy without paying admission? Would fountains and gardens be present in proximity of the public places in our communities? I personally enjoy these things, and feel that they make my community a better place to live for all. So long as my government maintains the necessary infrastructure and services that I expect and does so without taxing me excessively, I do want them to add a small percentage for the finer things of life that we can all enjoy.

[Tachus]

Originally posted by culero
You're both pretty much right, IMO, but as in most things there's shades of gray rather than just black and white. I do agree that art should be mostly funded by the private sector, but there's something to be said for some exception to that principle.

Saying that there's a place for limited discretionary spending on the arts doesn't mean we must fund all artists, or discriminate. We can commission the odd statue to be placed in public locations, a few paintings to be done and hung in public buildings, a few performances to be done at state functions, etc etc, and let public scrutiny cause our elected officials to be prudent in the way they apply this largesse. All that without being overly abusive of the treasury, of course.

My view of proper governance is that I choose to vote for people whose integrity I trust. I feel I can hold them responsible for their actions, and trust them to do the right thing, if I've chosen wisely as to integrity. Given that POV, perhaps you can understand why I feel we can and should allow them a small percentage of their budget to spend on things that grace our community with the pleasures that art provides.

If we rely solely on the private funding of art, would we ever see any art in our public places? Would we have museums that the public could enjoy without paying admission? Would fountains and gardens be present in proximity of the public places in our communities? I personally enjoy these things, and feel that they make my community a better place to live for all. So long as my government maintains the necessary infrastructure and services that I expect and does so without taxing me excessively, I do want them to add a small percentage for the finer things of life that we can all enjoy.

Nicely stated.

Of course, I would still prefer this funding come from local or state governments as opposed to federal funding. (At least for the most part.) As, this would end the argument about whether the federal government has the authority to fund things like the arts.

State or local funding would also eliminate allot of objections on both sides of this debate. Clearly some states or counties would be more willing to fund art that others might find offensive. So people in more conservative states, would most likely fund accordingly. Where more liberal states or cities, would be more likely to fund... let's call it "experimental" art. Then when the guy in rural Kansas complains about what type of art is funded in California, he can be told it's none of his business. (Or vice a versus, when the guy in California says the "art" in Kentucky is un-enlightened; he can be told to "push off".)


Best regards,
--Tachus

[culero]

Originally posted by Tachus
Nicely stated.

Of course, I would still prefer this funding come from local or state governments as opposed to federal funding. (At least for the most part.)
snip

With the caveat that the Feds pay for what's enhancing the aesthetics of Federal property, I agree wholeheartedly. Its as it should be. I am a minimalist regarding anything to do with the Federal government, IMO it taxes entirely too much and spends entirely too much.

[JB88]

this is actually how it has been being done for a very long time.  most public art never even goes through the NEA.

some cities and towns also have what are called 1% programs which require projects which are above a certain size to dedicate 1% of the budget to the arts.  

des moines iowa has one of the best modern art collections that exists in america as a result of thiers.

most of the people that i talked to in and around the areas that were affected liked it alot.  the collection of the insurance company that i visited was impressive.  better yet,  they knew what they were getting in to when they relocated there.

so there is that.

[lazs2]

jb... I have read what you wrote.. the problem is it follows no logic that I can see.

Like all "artists" or...  a majority of em you can't fathom logic or fairness... your whole arguement is based on...  "If we fund other things then funding art is perfectly fine."

Like most liberals there is no black and white.. only gray areas.   The wrong is that I should not have money extorted from me to fund the arts... the fact that it is extorted from me for other things is not in the least a part of this discussion.

It has nothing to do with it.

We are not talking about those things.  I will be willing to talk about them in another thread if you like but...

The subject was art and it's funding... making me pay for it with taxes is wrong.

Some here would claim that there would be no art... no murals or statues on public buildings...

Perhaps they are just blind.   there is a lot of art of that type on private buildings... the art that is on public buildings usually has a plaque attached... more often than not... the plaque has the name of the person who DONATED the art.

lazs

[lazs2]

and... I won't even go into what is art and what is not... suffice it to say that just reading this thread will tell you that opinions vary.

me welding a bolt to a plate of steel is as much art as someone covering himself in paint and rolling around on the canvas.

lots of shades in between.  what matters is how my weld is displayed and where and if I can get 3 critics to get all wet over it.  lighting and the right show.

sooooo... who decides?   120 government employees?   jb?   me?   some professor who couldn't cut it in the real world?  

Each and every one of us should decide.. we decide with our dollars FREELY GIVEN.

The right and wrong of it is obvious... it is wrong... an injustice... perhaps a small one but an injustice just the same.   it is like saying stealing a dollar from a rich man is not stealing.

lazs

[Charon]

As another believer that "socialism is a necessary evil that must be tightly controlled"  funding of the arts falls in line with the social welfare that goes beyond "a hand up" to an entitlement and the even worse plague of corporate subsidies that have been historically found to be ineffective at achieving stated goals. I could see subsidizing some areas of critical national importance if, for odd market reasons, there was no private drive to support them. But, they would be few and far between. All waste of taxpayer dollars. The reality as I see it is:

1. Art has been self-sustaining since its beginnings. People either do it for love with little expectation for a return beyond personal satisfaction or they produce marketable art and earn a living. I have supported ,and my family supported, mainstream theater (I've seen  Brenner in the King and I and Burton in Camelot as a child, more recently Wicked and The Producers, etc.). I supported a range of storefront theater and improv when I lived in Chicago, and continue to support local bands both at the door with a cover charge and by buying their CDs. Go see the local dinner theater from time to time, and even paid to enter the local art museum though it's not on the top of my interests list. Most of these, even the storefront theater, had little to no artificial support as pointed out in their fund raisers. But, that didn't stop them.

2. With the Internet, previously valid concerns about monolithic, all powerful corporate entities shutting out art have greatly decreased. It's still hard to be the next Brittney Spears -- but that's the commercial pop machine more than the free expression of art. Local bands can promote themselves far more effectively than before, from upcoming gigs to sample tracks to an international market for CDs through paypal, etc. Painters can exhibit their art, poets, writers, sculptors (to some extent), etc. Look at the Youtube piece posted earlier. These guys have something solid to show if the work to move into Hollywood, and Hollywood may actually find them through the Internet. There are still challenges in breaking trough, but I believe that even with the active resistance of the established corporate art powers that be in these fields the internet model will mature and crack open the hold on talent, exposure and money.

3. There is no objectivity in funding. Art is perhaps the most subjective endeavour we have. Whether you're talking individuals or "troupes" etc. I can only imagine that those writing the checks have the same elitist art bias they had 20 years ago. Like in Animal Farm, all art is equal, but some is more equal than others. I doubt you will see a check cut to fund the next Clive Cussler.

4. Local fundraisers and then charging at the door can cover the grants (I've seen it work), IF the community cares. Maybe the community would just rather watch American Idol? Funding the experimental dance troupe will not get Joe Six pack to expand his horizons, even by using his tax dollars. It will just subsidize the product for those already interested, who in many cases could pay more for a ticket or write an extra check if they actually were all that interested.

Again, art is an area where a few do it very well to the estimation of the paying public; good enough to earn a good to extravagant living in the process. That paying public could be one of 50 million teenaged girls buying the next  bubble gum pop CD or some Manhattan swell buying a definitive piece from the latest Warhol. A great many do it less well, or at least less mainstream well, but enjoy it as a hobby or to get some beer money on the weekend. I can't see NEA grant money substantially changing either dynamic. I just don't see the need, and don't fundamentally believe that most receiving the money couldn't make it work with a little more hard work spent on promotion and marketing and networking. At least for the ones who stand any chance at making the broader scene.

Charon