Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Leslie on August 17, 2007, 03:30:18 PM
-
The PBS post kinda begat this thread. Lazs and MT were about to have a discussion, so here is a thread for that if you like.
I do not favor govt. funding of individual artists mainly because of the graft and corruption involved. There have been cases of individual artists receiving the same grants over and over again, and it turned out the artists were relatives of organized crime figures...so this was clearly mob influence and crony ism. It is surprising to most people that art is one of the Mob's most lucrative legal involvements (as per these govt. grants.) On the unlawful side, copies of famous stolen paintings are made and sold to several collectors world wide before the original painting is returned to a museum. What buyer of one of these paintings would call the police? Fyi, even the fakes are quite valuable. Of course those involved in such activities are criminals of the mastermind category, and evidently it is enough of a problem that the New York Police Dept. created a special inspector to investigate art crimes.
But I diverge. Other than not being able to trust the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts) with doling out grant money, the question arises "Can the arts survive without some sort of public funding?" It is a fact more money is spent by the public on art events than sport events. Why is there no govt. funding of football if this is the case? Should there be a National Endowment of Sports in this case?
Who decides what art receives funding? Seems like grants are awarded to applicants who use the correct academic lingo and catch phrases. More than not, the artwork does not merit a grant, and imho you can pretty much forget it if your work is traditional or conservative. It seems cutting edge nowadays means primitive or what I call "weird." Problem with that is it's not cutting edge or innovative, though some of the "weird" art is very interesting and competently done. And I believe modern and abstract art has more than an even chance of selling, provided it shows craftsmanship. Probably the greatest factor in whether an art piece sells or not is how clean it is and how it's displayed. This is entirely up to the artist and something he has complete control over.
About literature, again why govt. funding? As an example which comes to mind I'll use author Alex Haley who wrote "Roots." Haley was living on something like $20.00 a week in some run down garret while he was writing his book. He ate sardines and crackers during this time. A friend saw his plight and offered him a job that paid $6000 to help him out. Haley turned down the offer because it would interfere with his writing. Had he taken the job he wouldn't have written his book. Should not an artist's/author's success be based on merit? Clearly Haley's work was successful without public funding.
I am not totally against govt. funding when it comes to team efforts such as the symphony orchestra. This is something which benefits a community and stimulates other arts. I am very much opposed to funding other than private sector funding for individual art efforts, which can and do succeed on their own merits. Some will say meritorious artists may go unrecognized without govt. support. I say it goes with the territory that thousands of meritorious artists don't receive recognition after devoting a lifetime to their art. Who chooses those that do succeed? The best steps our government has taken to stimulate creativity is copyright law which protects intellectual property. The creation of the Library of Congress is money well spent. When tax money was used to promote art with merit, I'm not against that. The downfall of the NEA can be measured when art was funded for social purposes or agendas, thus basing funding of the arts on a common denominator, which, while not the lowest common denominator, has never been the purpose of art. As Clint Eastwood stated in his role as art teacher in the movie "The Eiger Sanction" - Art is not and has never been for the people, it is for those who can appreciate it.
Les
-
against
-
against
-
For, as long as the people who are being taxed have a say in the distrubution and targeting of those funds.
-
against
-
For.. duh.
Not only should a government fund the arts, it should fund them with little or no inteference. When someone in government starts deciding what is "art" we are on the road to Hitler on a white stallion....
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
For.. duh.
Not only should a government fund the arts, it should fund them with little or no inteference. When someone in government starts deciding what is "art" we are on the road to Hitler on a white stallion....
LOL ~ how is it that the government should foot the bill, but not have any say-so here?
That's laughable.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
For.. duh.
Not only should a government fund the arts, it should fund them with little or no inteference. When someone in government starts deciding what is "art" we are on the road to Hitler on a white stallion....
That's the difficulty then isn't it? You don't have infinite fund. Some people will have to be told no. Who? How do you decide?
-
For funding of the arts with as little restriction as is practical.
The dollar amounts to the arts are a very small percentage compared to the overall budget, and a level playing field to support artists of all types in all venues is one of the small positive things a government can accomplish.
Gaft and corruption? Compared to most government corruption, this is weak. Want to go after corruption: target the agricultural and shipping industries and their subsidies. You'll save more money there than the arts.
-
AGAINST. The government should NOT be a patron of the arts. The government shouldn't be a charity fund either. There's a lot of things we need before we fund "art". Regardless of who likes it.
-
Against, the government should not fund anything.
-
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/thumbsdown.gif)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
There's a lot of things we need before we fund "art". Regardless of who likes it.
things we need more of ...like corporate welfare or the subsidization of the military industrial complex?
fact is, public funding for the arts barely even registers on the budget and is so minuscule that it should be embarrassing for anyone to bother picking on such small kid in the class.
i am for the funding of some public arts projects, symphonies, museums and festivals and the like, but i am mostly against individual grants. those types of handouts are better left to the corporations who get such great corporate welfare from the government that they can afford it. besides, it makes them look so kitten cute when they put on a play.
the 1% programs that some cities have put in place have been great for revitalizing tired communities and enticing new blood. they get voted in by the communities and have had some great results.
all in all though, the arts have done much better than people tend to think when they step out of "arts and crafts" and start to factor in spielberg. when you look at art that way you see that it art brings in billions.
what doesnt bring in billions are the things that we should preserve. thats what public arts funding is meant to do. to bring what has already been deemed good or valuable art to the people. its not a matter of judgement or taste...its the things that we take for granted.
the classical stuff...it gets subsidized...otherwise it couldnt survive in mcdonaldland.
sesame street. good stuff, but you must a commie for letting your kids watch it?
rally against arts funding?
how 1980s.
like i said...it's such a small blip that only people who think art is "studmuffingy" really care much about it anyway.
its a non issue.
take it away. dont care. im an artist and ive never used it. never will.
i prefer the spielberg method to the lockheed way of getting money from the people anyday.
-
Negative.
For those of you with an open mind:
Not Yours To Give - Col. David Crockett - US Representative from Tennessee (http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm)
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
Those of you interested enough to read Mr. Crockett's explanation are cordially invited to click on the link.
-
Support for the arts is not charity, no matter what link you might dig up Toad.
-
So...
If I poop in a bucket, place a sunflower in there, and call it art, do I qualify for govt funding? In other words, do I deserve your tax dollars for pooping in the bucket? What if I claim discrimination because the local university or city art society won't fund my bucket pooping?
I would argue no, that sort of thing does not deserve tax money. But who sets the standards, if not the govt agency tasked with spreading around some tax money (the money you worked hard for and gave to the govt) with the intent to foster a variety of artistic expression?
Someone has to set the standard, and govt funding of the arts is to ensure that artistic diversity survives what can often be brutal peer repression. So while there must be standards, those standards must be loose enough that some money goes to artistic endeavours that are outside the mainstream.
I don't trust YOU to make that decision, and if it was my decision I'd keep the tax dollars and buy a painting from a student at the local art school. But that doesn't help the "artist" who is trying to get tax dollars to poop in a bucket, and that's really what the question is all about. Who decides if pooping in a bucket should be funded as "art".
-
i should by an f-16 from a starving college engineer.
because that's who makes the good stuff.
:rolleyes:
nobody is trying to get money to poop in a bucket. they are trying to get it to poop on a canvas. get your facts straight.
same tired arguments... over pittance.
-
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.
-
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.
dont even need to read it. the elephant poop was included (as a very small part of, iirc, a work of mary that was made entirely of materials found on the site that it was made in in africa....it wasnt even meant to be controversial...someone just latched onto it.
pisschrist. its serano. was a long time ago and it is rolled up everytime some fear monger needs to point a finger at some other monster than the real ones that are stealing from and corrupting our society.
tired tired tired.
give us something recent.
geez.
pittance.
-
I don't see the funding of the arts as "charity". I see it as support of art. Similar to support of science and education and research. Although not as earthly important or of having the potential impact as science and education and research, it nonetheless is a part of society that should be supported.
It also takes "petty" to a whole new level.
The National Endowment for the Arts budget was submitted as $170 million for FY 2007. $170 million out of a Federal Budget of $2.8 trillion.
You are begrudging an expenditure of 0.006% of the total budget. That's just 6 cents out of every $1,000 dollars spent.
That's $170 million that goes to dance, music, literature, visual arts, television, radio, and supporting the touring of artistic works around the nation for wider exposure.
The NEA has a lower price tag than most any SINGLE pork barrel rider that most members of Congress get attached to one bill or another each year.
Those that target the NEA usually either have a social agenda against something they have funded; Are would-be quasi-anarchist that don't want to spend 1 dime of their own on anything -- but do generally want to personally benefit from the existence of government; Are trying to run smoke and mirrors to take attention away from the several hundred million of pork barrel spending that they do favor and support; OR are so hyper-homophobic that anything related to art has them overreacting to defend their so called man-hood.
But on a dollar basis..... JB88 is right.... it is such a tiny fraction of the whole to be not worth a debate against it. You want to save money, go look at some REAL government waste in funding.
Does some of that money go to pretty bad projects? Yep... it happens, and those are the one's that make the news. But the (unreported) good far outweighs the (sensationalized) bad out of that program.
-
JB,
You are welcome to give your money to it. You are not welcome to send mine to it. Art does not deserve public funding from tax dollars any more than movie studios, rap "musicians"or other examples of popular entertainment do. They need to survive on their worth to individuals in competition on the economy, not as a government subsidized project. If it has worth, people will pay for it willingly. FWIW I also include professional sports in the same venue with their tax incentives and demands for new stadiums or arenas.
-
Good read Toad, especially liked this:
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.
To those who are willing to spend MY money on something THEY think art consider this question: are you willing to pay for a manger scene outside the courthouse at Christmas? I consider that to be art.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
JB,
You are welcome to give your money to it. You are not welcome to send mine to it. Art does not deserve public funding from tax dollars any more than movie studios, rap "musicians" do. They need to survive on their worth to individuals in competition on the economy, not as a government subsidized project. If it has worth, people will pay for it willingly.
i dont. and i never ask for your money for it without delivering a product in return.
but lets not compare buttholes to gaping bullet wounds here.
if you truly feel that way than you need to write your congressman and tell him to quit subsidising roads and national parks...and lets not forget the military...you know, the ones who take up the single largest segment of the budget...so much in fact that it would require a microscope to see the arts next to it on a pie chart.
by your arguments, these other hooligans are robbing you blind.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i dont. and i never ask for your money for it without delivering a product in return.
but lets not compare buttholes to gaping bullet wounds here.
if you truly feel that way than you need to write your congressman and tell him to quit subsidising roads and national parks...and lets not forget the military...you know, the ones who take up the single largest segment of the budget...so much in fact that it would require a microscope to see the arts next to it on a pie chart.
by your arguments, these other hooligans are robbing you blind.
The constitution mentions providing for the common defense, not art. Robbing us yes but we aren't blind and still we let them pick our pockets.
I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'
-
You make assumptions that are not valid. I see those same issues you raised as being somewhat necessary, particularly the roads you so cavalierly mentioned. I also wasn't discussing any of those issues. The question of the post was art, not roads, military or even public parks.
The question was do we agree with government subsidies to support art. My opinion is no.
I also don't support the use of tax dollars to fund sports, racing or entertainment venues either. The amount of taxes for it is immaterial, I don't agree with it. I understand that my opinion is not the only one and I accept it. I have no problem that you believe it does deserve tax funding. You are entitled to your opinion and I have not denigrated you for expressing it, nor have I used unrelated issues to try and bolster my position. It's OK to have differing opinions.
-
which kinda sucks because i really liked the smithsonian...the arts musuem is top notch...paid for by the taxpayer...oh...and the air museum too. gonna have to go.
-
it is common defense AND the GENERAL WELFARE that is stated in section 8 of the constitution.
some would consider a society which supports the arts as one which cares about a diverse form of public welfare as opposed the spartan "lets go look at a pretty tank" one.
again. it is negligible.
and patently ridiculous.
no matter how it's sliced.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Support for the arts is not charity, no matter what link you might dig up Toad.
Just who are you to decide how the rest of us spend our tax money?
Public support for the arts certainly is charity, if you want the arts funded..
do it privately.
-
who is anybody to?
but heyyyyy...i got an idea, lets focus on this little speck while theres a big ball of wasteful spending dung hanging over our heads and robbing our children (who have no exposure to the arts and wouldnt appreciate the image that i am painting) of thier future because we focused entirely on the wrong problem.
ahem.
big black ball of wasteful dung...right over there ------> pork.
-
NEA get's 6 (SIX) cents on evey $1,000 tax dollars spent !!
If arguing on the basis of the money spent, and who has what right to decide what, I've got a few tidbits to edumacate yous all of just what happens to some other of you moneys.
The Missing $25 Billion
Buried in the Department of the Treasury’s 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled “Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position,” which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2]
The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report con_cludes that locating the money is “a priority.”
The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.
FY2007 Defense Budget line item: $5,500,000 added by the House for the Gallo Center. According to its website, “The Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center (EGCRC) at the University of California, San Francisco (USCF) was established in 1980 to study basic neuroscience and the effects of alcohol and drug abuse on the brain.” There is no mention of any defense-related research. Apparently, they will serve no pork before its time.
Unused Flight Tickets Totaling $100 Million
A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets. The GAO blamed a system that relied on department personnel to notify the travel office when purchased tickets went unused.[3]
Auditors also found 27,000 transactions between 2001 and 2002 in which the Pentagon paid twice for the same ticket. The department would purchase the ticket directly and then inex_plicably reimburse the employee for the cost of the ticket. (In one case, an employee who allegedly made seven false claims for airline tickets professed not to have noticed that $9,700 was deposited into his/her account). These additional transactions cost taxpayers $8 million.
This $108 million could have purchased seven Blackhawk helicopters, 17 M1 Abrams tanks, or a large supply of additional body armor for U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
FY-2007: $35,000,000 for Impact Aid, which is described by the website of the Military Impacted Schools Association as “the federal government paying its ‘tax bill’ to local school districts as a result of the presence of a military installation.” The funding included $5,000,000 for Impact Aid for children with disabilities. It is the taxpayers who are impacted by this aid.
Embezzled Funds at the Department of Agriculture
Federal employee credit card programs were designed to save money. Rather than weaving through a lengthy procurement process to acquire basic supplies, federal employees could purchase job-related products with credit cards that would be paid by their agency. What began as a smart way to streamline government has since been corrupted by some federal employees who have abused the public trust.
A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted mil_lions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees’ purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.
The USDA has pledged a thorough investigation, but it will have a huge task: 55,000 USDA credit cards are in circulation, including 1,549 that are still held by people who no longer work at the USDA.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Headquarters Audit Report, “Adequacy of Internal Controls over the Individually Billed Travel Card Program,” Report No. 50601–05–HQ, June 19, 2003, at http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/ 50601-05-HQ.pdf (March 28, 2005).
FY-2007: $225,000,000 for port security grants, a 29 percent increase from last year’s total. Pork-barrel funding for this program has more than doubled in two years. Established in 2002, the grants are an opportunity for private companies and port authorities to apply for federal financing to improve security at ports. An audit performed by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2005 revealed that some of the grants “appeared to be for a purpose other than security against an act of terrorism.” According to the audit, 95 percent of all international commerce enters the United States through the nation’s 360 ports, but nearly 80 percent comes through only 10 ports. While Congress intended the grants to protect ports that have the highest volume of cargo, handle hazardous material, or are located near military facilities, the audit found DHS was distributing the funds in a broad, unfocused manner. As a result, the department “had no assurance that the program is protecting the nation's most critical and vulnerable port infrastructure and assets.” Although major ports received funding, so too did smaller ones, including ports in Ludington, Michigan; Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts; and six located in Arkansas, none of which appeared to meet grant eligibility requirements, according to the audit.
Credit Card Abuse at the Department of Defense
The Defense Department has uncovered its own credit card scandal. Over one recent 18-month period, Air Force and Navy personnel used govern_ment-funded credit cards to charge at least $102,400 for admission to entertainment events, $48,250 for gambling, $69,300 for cruises, and $73,950 for exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office, Travel Cards: Air Force Management Focus Has Reduced Delinquencies, But Improvements in Controls Are Needed, GAO–03–298, December 20, 2002, p. 4, and “Travel Cards: Control Weaknesses Leave Navy Vulner_able to Fraud and Abuse,” testimony before Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO–03– 148T, October 8, 2002, p. 8.
That's from a quick 15 minute search. You folks are worried about 6 cents on ever $1,000 for the NEA? Classic example of being unable to see the forest for the trees.
Pa-thet-ic.
-
So, I can get a grant to fund my nativity scene in front of the courthouse? That's as much about art as anything. Some will just never see the principle involved here. Forced charity is communism and it has been inarguably proven that communism DOES NOT WORK.
-
lolz.
drama.
:rolleyes:
-
Government funding of the arts: For or against?
[Translation]Should art supporters be able to have the government put a gun to someones head and force them to pay for art they may not want to?[/translation]
For example, in MT's perfect world, his sons would be force to pay, on pain of incarceration, for a white supremacists "art" that say glorifies lynching and denigrates negros.
-
WOW! UBERDRAMA!!!!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So, I can get a grant to fund my nativity scene in front of the courthouse? That's as much about art as anything. Some will just never see the principle involved here. Forced charity is communism and it has been inarguably proven that communism DOES NOT WORK.
If you had a grant to hire a sculptor to create the 3D figures, rent the studio, and purchase art supplies, then yes, you could possibly apply for a grant, somewhere. You would also have money for an opening reception, and a roundtable discussion with the artists, funding would also likely cover mailing lists, and media outreaches.
No, you would not get funds to purchase plastic flamingo style nativity objects to plant into the courthouse.
-
There are few in this debate who would argue against government support for national museums such as the Smithsonian, or of reputable foundations supporting legitimate art programs.
However, those that maintain that the potential for abuse is irrelevant are conveniently ignoring the track record of waste and mismanagement of the very government they would entrust with the task of funding private art endeavors around the country.
This is the government whose court system defines pornography as "freedom of expression" and which cannot even come up with a solid definition of what constitutes child-porn.
Currently any government guidelines for the distribution of monies for the support of the arts are too nebulous to prevent my dime from falling into the hands of "artists" who are little more than porn peddlers. I realize that the very idea of government regulation of funding for the arts is abhorrent to some here, being seen as a violation of "freedom of expression."
Yet, it is no more abhorrent than the thought that my money might be going to some greasy scumbag who renders his porn in oil on canvas.
A "no guidelines-no-strings-attached policy" is no policy at all. That is totally unacceptable.
-
LOL... so it is not charity? How so?
It is indeed charity and it is money forced from us.. the fact that we have to support other charities is no reason to keep funding the arts...
The very fact that we spend so little is the best reason to stop... we can do it easily. It will be easy.. then we can start working on the harder ones...
baby steps children.
The evil is more than just the extortion of money from people who don't want to pay it..
The evil should be apparent to everyone... some have hinted at it... even those in favor say... "with as little interferance as possible".
Now that is funny... real funny...
The ONLY way to make it fair is to take the money and divide it out to anyone who can poop on a canvas. EVERY SINGLE ONE WITH NO JUDGEMENT.
We know that will not happen tho don't we? so... use your heads for a second other than to snatch soundbites off the airwaves and think.
Whatever type of government that is in power at the time will shape who and what type of art gets money.
why give money to a crucifix in urine but not a koran? why is my feces not as much art as someone elses?
Who decides what is art....
No matter what side of this you are on... if you say government then you are no friend of the arts.
lazs
-
If support for the arts is charity, then so is support for the military. Both are in existance for the purpose of improving or at least maintaining our quality of life. If private comanies alone were to decide what is best for the defense of this Country, we would be in a world of hurt.
Art does not have to be commercially successful to be good.
-
soooooo... you have no argument?
The military is not to improve the quality of life.. the military is to protect the way of life... a very large difference... big enough that it is one of the few things the founders gave government the right to do.. to raise an army.
Your other worthless point is that art doesn't have to be saleable to be good. The implication being that the government knows what is really good stuff and needed because we are to stupid to recognize it.
This is hardly worth a comment.. it is like some kind of newspeak jibberish. You must not even be able to think and write such a thing at the same time.
If government wanted to make sure that all art got a fair shot...
Everyone who could crap on a canvas would get exactly the same amount of money from the government.. the choices would be truly fair.
ANYONE could apply and NO ONE would be denied. By what standard would you go by to give or deny? Who should control it? A christian panel perhaps? One sect of the art world? Who decides what is "art"? and who decides who gets my money?
How is pbs worth my tax money but not fox news? How is a cross in urine or blood spatters on canvas worth my money?
lazs
-
Support the Maynard G. Krebbs School Of Fine Arts.
Yeah.......right. :rolleyes:
-
What one man sees as art another will see as garbage. Should the one that sees it as garbage have his money [tax] spent to support it? I don't think so.
IF it truly is art the artist will have no problem finding people that will buy it and support him. So I'm against tax money going to individuals.
-
I graduated from a College that had a top fiction writing program. In addition to my advertising, journalism, marketing, technical and PR writing courses I practically took enough fiction writing courses (minus 1-2) to have a formal major in that course of study.
A major problem I see with the public funding of the arts is that it is virtually impossible to provided a non-biased allocation of the funds. The "fine arts" community is as biased as any in academia. The "approved" art is narrowly defined, and the funds allocated accordingly.
Now, for a non arts comparison, small business people can get loans to support their ventures, also with limiters and restrictions on who gets the funding. Some are common sense and objective, from a business plan standpoint for example, and others are artificial and formally biased such as a women or minority status. Still, fairly objective criteria hopefully in tune with a proper business model.
To get back to the arts, the funding criteria is almost all biased and subjective. Who gets the money depends on the art fashion of the day. Don't produce the fashion, don't expect the cash. When I was in school the genre de jour was "the gritty urban tale." Anyone who has suffered through Last Exit to Brooklyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Exit_to_Brooklyn) will be familiar with this noir style of urban hopelessness. It was interesting to see, week after week, suburban white kids getting all gritty and urban and racial with their writing assignments -- posers of the highest order with no life experience to back up their material. But that didn't matter as long as it was gritty and shocking and fit the other style elements.
Now, the fine arts set would be appalled to hear Hubert Shelby's works being called genre fiction (fiction that follows a set style and structure for popular consumption, along the lines of romance novels, sci-fi/science fiction, police procedurals, etc.). The most basic genre fiction being the romance novel "bodice ripper" style where the plot formula is rigid and you practically just insert new characters and a new location with each book. Much like Star Trek the Next Generation or a sitcom like Three's Company or According to Jim.
Of course, tale after tale from Shelby followed exactly the same pattern -- gritty urban transsexual heroin prostitute gets a bunch of character development, a lot of overloaded description of the scene with little plot and a final orgasmic horrible death for the dark main character reflecting the hopelessness of life etc... ad nauseam. And shocking -- must be edgy and shocking! The literary art version of poop in a cat food can.
Now any attempt to write what they defined as "popular/genre fiction" -- basically anything that would be even remotely popular to a mainstream audience or to a science fiction audience, etc. was strongly discouraged. As was actually finishing a work with a beginning, middle, end. An awful lot of scenes that went nowhere, toning a writing style of overloaded description like you find in Flaubert's "classic" Madam Bovary. Another book you only read if you have to for a class or for elitist peer acceptance :)
Here's an example of the MFA writing style, I just pulled out of my ass:
Clint, looked long and hard down the dark alley. Raindrops, like the sweat off a 54th street hooker's bellybutton ran in spidery rivulets down the dark brooding dumpsters, reeking with the half eaten refuse of the broken dreams of life in the big city. Clint pulled a Marlboro from the pack he always kept in the pocket of his tattered green with grey striped flannel shirt. It was a warm shirt, and he liked warm in the cold dampness of metropolis. He remembered briefly, when his mother bought him that shirt two years past at the Ogden Pickle Festival. Happy times. Mom was off the bottle that year, and dad had yet to come out about his attraction to men... (Jump ahead 2 pages)
"...I'll be dammed, they look just like snakes -- dark gritty urban snakes," Clint said to himself, of the pair of pantyhose stretched over the widow sill. After three pages of mind numbing gritty description, Clint had forgotten why he was looking down that dammed alley in the first place. Could it have been related to his first foray into male prostitution to support his girlfriend's heroin habit? Perhaps. Maybe. The readers sure the hell had lost track. And yet they would receive no respite from the darkness. They had to analyze elements of the book for class tomorrow. Or they needed a few useful quips to WOW Shiela with at the party over the weekend, because she was a very kinky girl and had a thing for dark, artsy types...
Oddly, none of my MFA student instructors were published outside of scholastic circles, nor were the department heads with the exception of 1-2 low run titles perhaps. They all had a work "in progress" they all were, I'm sure, receiving grant money and school support. The Arts racket, as far as I could tell, existed to support living the carefree artist's life without being encumbered by the need to have a significant audience for the work in question. The main audience for those that published their works were, I firmly believe, fiction writing and literature students given no choice but to buy these assigned texts and a small subset of the hipster crowd. IMO a closed-cycle art funding sponge that couldn't exist on its own, or that could but as more of a hobby than vocation. And there's nothing wrong with with producing art as a hobby! Better than time spent in front of the tube.
Before the internet you could perhaps argue that publishing houses and record labels limited the ability to get your work to the masses. In the internet age anybody can publish and produce. For sculptors and painters, etc. there have always been galleries and the elitism of that scene is it's own universe. Grant money just allows you more time to tailor your work to "sell" to that crowd.
And what's wrong with art for arts sake? If you like creating art and want to share it with others, then the Internet makes that easier than ever. If you want to earn a living at art then maybe the market should decide. Again, with the Internet an artist has more access to a paying audience than ever before. Even a niche artist can market his or her product to the small subset that appreciates it on an international basis -- multiplying the profit potential.
The best teacher I had in my fiction courses was one of the few black sheep of the program: Phyllis Eisenstein. An actual published author with over nine novels in science fiction and fantasy. The only one (aside from my screen writing instructor, who also earned a real living in the trade) pushing plot and movement and telling a full story from beginning to end. She earned a living with her work. Not a great living, compared to the big name genre guys, but a chance to get a few bucks doing what she enjoyed. No chance for her to get grant money -- wrong type of writing. She just went out and did it the old fashioned way -- she earned it.
Charon
-
Originally posted by JB88
which kinda sucks because i really liked the smithsonian...the arts musuem is top notch...paid for by the taxpayer...oh...and the air museum too. gonna have to go.
Had you brought this up instead of the old but we waste more $ over here argument I could understand your viewpoint a bit better. I honestly did not consider museums at all in this case. I would argue that a historical preservation museum such as the Air Force museum in Dayton or the Patton in Ft. Knox serve a historical value that is different from an artistic venue but the Smithsonian is another issue even if it was started with private money. It's a pity that it is only in one spot and such a crowded one at that.
Speaking from a strictly "art" museum stand point I could see a delineation between displaying works that have already attained public approval status and historical import. Going along with that I could understand and support a secondary purpose of allowing some floorspace (wall space) for the display of other more contemporary art that has not yet been recognised by the general public.
Obviously art is your "sacred cow" and I don't mean that sarcastically. I think you could be a good spokesman for it if you would get off the financial aspect, the wasted $ aspect and simply concentrate on being a spokesman for a beneficial aspect of art to society. Mere sarcasm does not support your cause and in fact makes it look as if you can't do anything more than whine about others opinions. If art is your passion, support it here instead of just throwing out meaningless sarcastic remarks. Perhaps you might just change an opinion or two. It is possible to learn something new here on the bbs.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
soooooo... you have no argument?
lazs
Obviously I have none that you seem to understand. That is kinda the point here though isn't it? If art doesn't appeal to lazs or he doesn't understand it.. it ain't worth supporting.
I think we need an NEA that is completely bipartisan and that will dole out support to not only those artists who are universally accepted, but also to the new and imaginative artists who may push the envelope.
Do you think we appoint poet laureates because they are top sellers?
or maybe you should just look here NEA GRANTS (http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/index.html) before you go off on a rant about crosses in urine... as if they are around every corner like zombies or smething.
-
I always thought starvation and other forms of deprivation were supposed to put an "artist" in touch with his soul. I'd be interested in seeing some examples of great art that was state supported.
Now this girl's art is truly fascinating: http://www.artakiane.com/press.htm
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Had you brought this up instead of the old but we waste more $ over here argument I could understand your viewpoint a bit better. I honestly did not consider museums at all in this case. I would argue that a historical preservation museum such as the Air Force museum in Dayton or the Patton in Ft. Knox serve a historical value that is different from an artistic venue but the Smithsonian is another issue even if it was started with private money. It's a pity that it is only in one spot and such a crowded one at that.
(Letsee if I can do hyperbole as well as others here:)
"What about the taxpayers that don't want to fund historical sites and want to melt down all those old planes for scrape to help pay down the public debt? That's what happened to most of that equipment in the 1940's and 1950's. Why should my tax dollars go to restore, refurbish, or maintain something from World War II? It's old!"
Arguing against NEA on monetary basis is a joke. It's a pittance.
Most people go nuts over the NEA because something, somewhere it has funded (or that they have "heard" they funded but other's against the NEA) offends them in some way, and they use the money argument as the justification.
Well, chose just about any subject matte, you'll be able find people offended by it. Go through the line items in the 2007 (if you were actually willing to spend some time and effort on the matter) and you'll find lot's of things to be offended by in the appropriations of your tax dollars.
I see the narrow minded are fixating on only one or three specific NEA funded efforts, with either a religious agenda, an anarchy agenda, or i wanna be ticked about everything I can agenda.
So, what GOOD comes out of the NEA's $170,000,000 budget? Well, I expect few of you naysayers will stop venting your spleens long enough to look at the NEA website, or the list below, but I submit it anyways.
Dance[/B}
Alabama Dance Council, Inc.
Birmingham, AL
$10,000
To support the presentation of the 2007 Alabama Dance Festival. The statewide festival will feature performances by River North Chicago Dance Company, showcases of Alabama artists, master classes, and dance education workshops.
Alaska Dance Theatre, Inc.
Anchorage, AK
$10,000
To support residencies by choreographers. The choreographers will each create works for Alaska Dance Theatre, and teach master classes at the School of Alaska Dance Theatre, area high schools, the University of Alaska-Anchorage, and for the general public.
Alvin Ailey Dance Foundation, Inc. (aka Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater)
New York, NY
$90,000
To support a North American tour of the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater. The company will offer performances and outreach activities across the United States and in Canada.
American Dance Festival, Inc.
Durham, NC
$60,000
To support Pioneers and Frontiers: Tradition and Beyond II. The project will include the commissioning and presentation of American and international modern choreographers and a range of education and outreach activities.
Andanza, Inc.
San Juan, PR
$10,000
To support the creation and presentation of new works by choreographers Lolita Villanúa and Carlos Iván Santos. The project will include original music played live by local composers, and will premiere at the Luis A. Ferré Center for the Performing Arts in San Juan.
Art Sweats, Inc. (aka David Dorfman Dance)
New York, NY
$10,000
To support the creation and presentation of a new work by artistic director and choreographer David Dorfman. The project will include classes, workshops, lecture-demonstrations, open rehearsals, and post-performance discussions.
Ballet Austin, Inc.
Austin, TX
$10,000
To support the creation and presentation of a new work titled The Mounds. Artistic director and choreographer Stephen Mills will work with visual artist Trenton Doyle Hancock and composer Graham Reynolds.
Ballet Theatre Foundation, Inc. (aka American Ballet Theatre)
New York, NY
$80,000
To support the creation and presentation of The Sleeping Beauty by American Ballet Theatre. The new piece will be re-imagined by artistic director Kevin McKenzie and will be presented at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York.
Ballet West
Salt Lake City, UT
$20,000
To support the presentation of a work by choreographer Jirí Kylían. Petite Mort will be presented at the Capitol Theatre in Salt Lake City. The piece will be performed as part of Ballet West's education and outreach programs for Utah elementary and secondary students, teachers, and individuals with special needs.
Bates College (on behalf of Bates Dance Festival)
Lewiston, ME
$20,000
To support extended artist residencies as part of Bates Dance Festival's 25th anniversary. Dancing Our Community will include Bridgman/Packer, BoanDanz, David Dorfman Dance, Rennie Harris Puremovement, Liz Lerman Dance Exchange, Bebe Miller Company, PearsonWidrig Dance Theater, and Doug Varone and Dancers.
Better Family Life, Inc.
St. Louis, MO
$10,000
To support a national dance festival, Black Dance-USA: A Celebration of Movement. The project will consist of dance workshops, a concert by a regional or national dance company, discussion sessions, dance films, lecture-demonstrations, and African percussion and song classes.
Big Tree Productions, Inc. (aka Tere O'Connor Dance)
New York, NY
$10,000
To support the creation and presentation of an evening-length work by artistic director and choreographer Tere O'Connor. The work will be created in collaboration with composer James Baker, and lighting and set designer Brian Macdevitt.
Boston Ballet, Inc.
Boston, MA
$30,000
To support the staging of Polyphonia by choreographer Christopher Wheeldon. The work will premiere at The Wang Theatre. The score, assembled from piano works by Gyorgy Ligeti, will be performed live by one of Boston Ballet's staff soloists.
Capoeira Foundation, Inc. (aka DanceBrazil)
New York, NY
$10,000
To support the creation and presentation of The Ritual of the Roda. The new work will be created by DanceBrazil's artistic director and choreographer, Jelon Vieira.
Career Transition For Dancers, Inc.
New York, NY
$10,000
To support a series of career-counseling seminars for dancers. The National Outreach Project will take place in Seattle, Salt Lake City, Boston, San Francisco, Portland, and Cincinnati.
Carolina Ballet, Inc.
Raleigh, NC
$10,000
To support the creation and presentation of Monet Impressions, works by choreographers Robert Weiss and Lynne Taylor-Corbett. Monet Impressions will be presented in conjunction with the North Carolina Museum of Art's Monet in Normandy exhibit.
Chicago Human Rhythm Project
Chicago, IL
$10,000
To support the Tap 2007 dance festival. The project will include educational, performance, and outreach activities. The festival will take place around four main events, culminating in a weekend of performances, lecture-demonstrations, and classes.
-
Musical Theater
Some details of the projects listed below are subject to change, contingent upon prior Endowment approval.
5th Avenue Theatre Association
Seattle, WA
$60,000
To support a production of West Side Story, with book by Arthur Laurents, music by Leonard Bernstein, and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, with accompanying outreach and educational activities. Associate artistic director William Berry will direct the production in collaboration with Seattle's Spectrum Dance Theatre led by Donald Byrd.
Arden Theatre Company
Philadelphia, PA
$30,000
To support a production of Leonard Bernstein's Candide with accompanying educational and outreach activities. Originally adapted by Hugh Wheeler from Voltaire's 1759 novel, a new musical version, with book by John Daird, lyrics by Richard Wilbur, and additional lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, John Latouche, Lillian Hellman, Dorothy Parker, and Leonard Bernstein, will be directed by producing artistic director Terence J. Nolen.
Arizona Theatre Company
Tucson, AZ
$50,000
To support a full-scale production of the 1924 jazz-age musical Lady, Be Good! with score by George and Ira Gershwin and book by Guy Bolton and Fred Thompson. Artistic director David Ira Goldstein will direct performances in Tucson and Phoenix as part of the theater's 40th-anniversary season.
Guthrie Theater Foundation
Minneapolis, MN
$75,000
To support a production of the musical play 1776, with book by Peter Stone and music and lyrics by Sherman Edwards, with accompanying educational activities. Associate artistic director John Miller-Stephany will direct the Guthrie's first musical production in its new three-stage theater complex.
Japan Society, Inc.
New York, NY
$30,000
To support the re-creation and production of Delusion of the Fury, a Japanese Noh-influenced musical theater work by the late composer/theorist Harry Partch, with educational activities. Director John Jesurun will create the production with musical director and choreographer Dean Drummond.
-
Visual Arts Touring
Some details of the projects listed below are subject to change, contingent upon prior Endowment approval.
Craft in America, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA
$100,000
To support the touring exhibition Craft in America, featuring works that exemplify aesthetic achievements in the fields of craft, folk, and native arts, with accompanying catalogue. The exhibition will provide historical context for a selection of objects created from the mid-1850s to the present.
Edmundson Art Foundation, Inc.
Des Moines, IA
$215,000
To support the touring exhibition After Many Springs: Art in the Midwest in the 1930s, with accompanying catalogue and education programs. The Des Moines Art Center exhibition examines the intersections between painting, photography, and film that grew out of the Midwest during the Great Depression.
Massillon Museum
Massillon, OH
$20,000
To support the touring exhibition Visions of Midwestern Impressionism, with accompanying catalogue. The project will focus on the years between 1880 and 1930, investigating if there was a truly Midwestern Impressionist style, and examining the similarities and differences among Midwestern artists and the larger American Impressionist movement.
Phillips Collection
Washington, DC
$180,000
To support the touring exhibition American Impressionism: Paintings from the Phillips Collection and accompanying education programs and materials. The exhibition highlights 50 paintings from the golden age of American Impressionism (1885-1920).
Phoenix Art Museum
Phoenix, AZ
$215,000
To support the touring exhibition Contemporary Rhythm: The Art of Ernest L. Blumenschien, with accompanying catalogue. This first retrospective of Blumenschien's (1874-1960) work will contribute to the American public's knowledge and understanding of the artist's interpretation of the American West.
-
Arts on Radio and Television
Some details of the projects listed below are subject to change, contingent upon prior Endowment approval.
American Documentary, Inc.
New York, NY
$220,000
To support the selection, acquisition, packaging, and promotion of films for broadcast on the public television series P.O.V. ("point of view"). As the longest running PBS series devoted exclusively to the art of independent, non-fiction film, P.O.V. brings documentary artworks - rarely found in the mainstream media - to national audiences.
Art 21, Inc.
New York, NY
$140,000
To support the fourth year of Art:21 - Art in the Twenty-First Century. A public television series about contemporary visual art and artists in the United States, the project will yield four one-hour programs as well as ancillary outreach activities.
Artemis Media Project
Foley, AL
$5,000
To support the production of a radio documentary about traveling black college swing bands of the 1930s and 1940s. A co-production with Murray Street Productions, Swingtime: Black College Bands on the Rhythm Road will explore the social, musical, and historical legacy of these bands and their role in the development of American musical culture.
Beale Street Caravan, Inc.
Memphis, TN
$10,000
To support the production and national broadcast of the public radio series Beale Street Caravan. Weekly, one-hour programs featuring performances by blues artists will be broadcast on more than 312 public, community, and college radio stations nationwide.
Bowery Arts and Science, Ltd.
New York, NY
$15,000
To support post-production costs of a music performance film by Robert Levi. Hidden Music: Billy Strayhorn's Secret Songs will be a one-hour public television program featuring newly discovered jazz and vocal compositions written by the co-composer and arranger for the Duke Ellington Orchestra.
-
Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth
52nd Street Project, Inc.
New York, NY
$63,000
To support Playmaking, a playwriting and dramatic performance program. Students living in the Clinton (Hell's Kitchen) neighborhood of New York City will develop new plays in collaboration with professional theater artists and directors.
AjA Project
San Diego, CA
$15,000
To support the Journey program. The series of after-school photography workshops is targeted to serve refugee youth, ages 12 to 17, living in the San Diego area.
Al-Bustan Seeds of Culture
Philadelphia, PA
$18,000
To support Arabic Rhythms: A Percussion Instruction and Music Appreciation Program. Professional musicians will offer weekly group instruction, individual apprenticeships, rehearsals for public performances, and master classes in Arabic percussion to advanced students (ages 8-15) who also will participate with their teachers in weekend outreach workshops for peer-age audiences.
Alleghany County Schools
Sparta, NC
$15,000
To support Junior Appalachian Musicians (JAM). The program will include after-school instruction in Appalachian traditional folk music and dance for students in third through eighth grades; a performance at a day-long summer gathering; interactive Web site pedagogical forums for artists, teachers, and administrators; and publication of teaching resources in Old Time Herald, a folk music quarterly magazine.
Allegro Foundation
Charlotte, NC
$12,000
To support dance classes targeted for children with physical and learning disabilities. Working with Charlotte-Mecklenburg public schools, the foundation will provide weekly dance instruction by specially trained peer tutors.
-
Literature Fellowships for Translation Projects
Christopher Burawa
Chandler, Arizona
$20,000
To support the translation from Icelandic of the selected poems of Jóhann Hjálmarsson, incorporating poems from his most recent books. Jóhann Hjálmarsson is the author of 18 books of poetry, three chapbooks, six books of translations, and two volumes of critical essays on Icelandic literature. Hjálmarsson was awarded the 2000 Nordic Literary Prize for his third book of a trilogy of poems, Hljóöleikar (Sound Play), based on Eyrbyggja Saga, whose events take place in the region of Iceland where his ancestors settled. He was presented with the 2003 Icelandic Parliament Award in recognition of his outstanding contributions to Icelandic literature as a poet and translator.
Christopher Burawa was born in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 1959. He was educated at Arizona State University, and studied Icelandic Language and Literature at the University of Iceland. He received the Witter Bynner Residency Fellowship for Translation in 2006.
Bogdana Carpenter
Ann Arbor, MI
$20,000
To support the translation from Polish of a selection of poems by Julia Hartwig. A generous selection of some 140-160 pages will be translated, emphasizing Hartwig's latest volume, Bez Pozegnania (No Farewell), but also including selections from her earlier volumes. Julia Hartwig was born in Lublin, Poland, in 1921. During World War II, she studied Polish literature, philology, and philosophy at the underground University of Warsaw. From 1990 to 1993, she served as vice-chairman of the Society of Polish Writers. She has also received the Austrian Georg Trakl Prize, the Prize of the Turzanski Foundation, and has been a finalist for the Nike Prize.
Bogdana Carpenter is a Professor of Polish and Chair of the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of Michigan. She has translated Zbigniew Herbert, Czeslaw Milosz, and Wislawa Szymborska into English, and has received many awards for her work including the Witter Bynner Poetry Translation Prize.
Thomas Cooper
Chapel Hill, NC
$20,000
To support the translation from Hungarian of The Snake's Shadow by Zsuzsa Rakovszky, a historical novel set in 17th-century Central Europe against the backdrop of religious wars between Protestants and Catholics. An immediate success in Hungary following its publication in 2002 and already translated into German and French, this 500-page novel is Zsuzsa Rakovszky's first work of prose fiction. It was soon followed by her second novel, A hullócsillag éve (The Year of the Falling Star). Rakovszky is the recipient of numerous literary awards, including the Magyar Irodalmi Díj (Hungarian Literary Prize), the most prestigious literary award in Hungary.
Thomas Cooper is the editor of the contemporary authors project for the Petofi Literary Museum in Budapest. He also lectures on Hungarian studies at the University of North Carolina.
-
That all is just a small selection each from just HALF the categories under the NEA awards.
Most of the awards to to marginal, regional, or very select areas of the arts which would NEVER get the kind of funding to go forward from private sources. Much of it has little commercial value, so is un-fundable. Others are very controversial. Some in remote or poor areas.
6 cents out of every $1,000 dollars of taxpayers money goes toward funding thousands of such projects every year. It's a pittance.
-
I really wonder sometimes if those who espouse socialist/communist ideals realize they are doing so and have they not observed the brutality inflicted by these societies?
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
That all is just a small selection each from just HALF the categories under the NEA awards.
Most of the awards to to marginal, regional, or very select areas of the arts which would NEVER get the kind of funding to go forward from private sources. Much of it has little commercial value, so is un-fundable. Others are very controversial. Some in remote or poor areas.
6 cents out of every $1,000 dollars of taxpayers money goes toward funding thousands of such projects every year. It's a pittance.
So, who the hell are you to decide for another man how his hard earned money is spent? You think ****ing career-counseling seminars for dancers is worth spending money on, use your own.
Jesus Christ, some family can't afford to put their kid through their first year of college because some people who can't dance need to learn how to find a job and don't want to pay for it?
-
You guys seem angry.. maybe you need a poem?
-
Very interesting thread.
Instead of asking if we approve, maybe would should ask couple of other questions.
1. Why should the government fund the arts?
The sad truth for art lovers is, there would be no significant impact on our culture, our society, or (most importantly) our economy, without those "arts" that could not survive without government support.
The same cannot be said for many of the other funding efforts that have been mentioned in this thread. So, even if you argue from a Utilitarian perspective there really is little support for this position. Outside of taking the position, which states, "We need the arts, they're important, and it doesn't cost much compared to other things. (Especially if those are things we don't like to begin with.)
BTW, The amount of money spent on the arts by the government, really has no bearing on this argument. It can be a fraction of what is spent or it can be half of what is spent. It just doesn't matter. Now, if we are just answering the question, whether we agree or disagree, that's another matter. I might agree as long as the amount is small, and then change my mind if that amount grows. However, if we move to the issue of whether the government "should" fund the arts, the amount of money really isn't the issue.
2. If the government does fund the arts, why should they do so without some control?
I'm surprised by the number of people that want to have things given to them, without any "strings" attached. (Well actually, I'm not surprised people want this, I'm surprised by the fact that they think it's their "right" to have it.)
This really comes down to a Respect of Persons issue. How can you justify, taking what is mine, and giving it to someone else, while the whole time saying, "You have no say in how it's spent." I can't understand how people can come to a place where they believe their right to entitlement (regardless of how great that need might be, or is perceived to be.) out weighs my rights.
Of course it will be argued by some, I don't like the military, or I don't like our highway system, or I don't like the police force, or I don't like public schools and the government spends my tax dollars on that. Yes, but as I pointed out above, these things in large measure are believed by most to be necessary for out society to continue. The same cannot be said about art. Well what about __________ (fill in the blank), it's not necessary for our society to continue, but we spend money on that, so let's spend money on the arts. I have a better idea, let's stop spending money on "it" and stop spending money on the arts as well.
Lastly, if the public really cares about the arts, then let the public fund them. If the public don't care then so be it. Of course there is a portion of the populace that believe the public are to dumb to know what is best for them, and since they don't know enough to support the arts, we will make them support them for their own good (by taxation and redistribution).
What an arrogant attitude to have.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Too lazy to read all the posts, so sorry if I echo someone else...
Perhaps if the gubment allowed me to keep a little of the money I earn, I and everyone else could fund art and things arty themselves by purchasing and viewing art and things arty...
...I personally could really go for a Garfunkel.
(just an idea)
-
without the govt there would be no "art".:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Had you brought this up instead of the old but we waste more $ over here argument I could understand your viewpoint a bit better. I honestly did not consider museums at all in this case. I would argue that a historical preservation museum such as the Air Force museum in Dayton or the Patton in Ft. Knox serve a historical value that is different from an artistic venue but the Smithsonian is another issue even if it was started with private money. It's a pity that it is only in one spot and such a crowded one at that.
Speaking from a strictly "art" museum stand point I could see a delineation between displaying works that have already attained public approval status and historical import. Going along with that I could understand and support a secondary purpose of allowing some floorspace (wall space) for the display of other more contemporary art that has not yet been recognised by the general public.
Obviously art is your "sacred cow" and I don't mean that sarcastically. I think you could be a good spokesman for it if you would get off the financial aspect, the wasted $ aspect and simply concentrate on being a spokesman for a beneficial aspect of art to society. Mere sarcasm does not support your cause and in fact makes it look as if you can't do anything more than whine about others opinions. If art is your passion, support it here instead of just throwing out meaningless sarcastic remarks. Perhaps you might just change an opinion or two. It is possible to learn something new here on the bbs.
if anyone were to have read my initial posts, they could have caught the part where i stated that i do not think that support for individual artists is a good idea. they would have also read the part where i said that i prefer the "Spielberg" way of making art = making money v. the lockheed or corporate welfare method. they would have also caught the part where i expressed that endowments are critical for maintaining the integrity of art in the historical and preservational sense. i thought i made this pretty clear.
it doesnt surprize me to hear the same tired arguements over and over again. the same pissbloodchristpooponacanvas arguements are the ones that have been being replayed over and over again by the types of folks who would would rather react from fear than from understanding. talk about armchair generals. "my money this" "my money that" ...this is where many of the posters here have taken it maveric ...so you'll excuse me if i point to back to tedrbears post where he lays out what the funding of the nea costs per year. 170 million dollars. six cents for every 1000 dollars spent.
my point is, that it isnt really about "my money" or "your money" in this case...that's just how it's packaged. the amount of money spent is so negligible that it takes a real dufus to try to compare the NEA to anything.
what it is really about is fear.
and smoke screens.
because lord knows, its easier to attack some art that got made during the reagan and bush I administrations than deal with the bottomless pit that is the soul sucking government that sits on high today.
-
no, no, the renaissance came after the dark ages.
-
guess we have something to look forward to then.
;)
edited.
meant to say comes...not came.
lets not lose the point john.
-
6 cents of every $1000 is no big deal huh? You've heard the expression "slippery slope" no doubt. Well, we're ridin' down that slope faster than Elvis put away a bag of potato chips and I think we may not be too far from the bottom. When we hit, it ain't gonna be purty.
-
Just a couple of points
Originally posted by JB88
it is nieve to think that a society can endure without at least some preservation of the arts. when the arts go...the dark ages come. what came after the renaissance? dark ages. what comes when fear overtakes enlightenment? dark ages. what are we entering now culturally? hmmm.
It is naive to think that the Dark Ages resulted from the lack of art, or to think that they later ended because of it. Art has and will continue to shape cultures and societies, (in both positive and negative ways) but a person would be hard pressed to show a culture or society would collapse without it. The list of things the led to the fall of the Roman empire is indeed long, but I don't remember seeing "Lack of Art" on the list. Would culture be slower to change without the influence of art? Absolutely! (Again whether that shift is positive or negative) Did art help to speed up the abolition of slavery? Absolutely, but it was not the only factor, and slavery would have ended, with or without. (BTW, I don't believe we funded that art.)
Originally posted by JB88
my point is, that it isnt really about "my money" or "your money" in this case...that's just how it's packaged. the amount of money spent is so negligible that it takes a real dufus to try to compare the NEA to anything.
Money is mentioned, because we are talking about "funding" with tax payers money. So at least in some measure it is about money, but more importantly it's about the role of the government and the rights of the people.
We should always remember this:
The government has no money (for all intensive purposes) of it's own. The only money it has is "Our Money"; and we certainly have a right to voice our opinion about whether it should be spend or not, and if it is spent, then how. Again, the issue of "amount" is irrelevant, if the discussion is about, whether the government "Should" or "Has a right to" spend the money.
BTW, I should point out, I'm not necessarily against the government funding certain historical preservation projects, or other such things. However, I believe it is not unreasonable to expect that it is done with some oversight.
Originally posted by JB88
what it is really about is fear.
and smoke screens.
I have no doubt this is sometimes the case, it is not the case with me however, nor is it the case with everyone that opposes funding for the arts. Just like not everyone that wants the arts funded is a socialist.
For me it's about the fundamental philosophy surrounding the role of our government, and the rights of its citizens. It's about debating where the line starts and ends, on those things that are "necessary" for the well being of our society; and finding a place where the good of the whole is maintained, without stripping away the rights of the individual.
As I mentioned above, with the arts money is mentioned, because the issue revolves around "funding." But the real issue is not money so much, as the issue of the role of government and the rights of the people. If we talked about drug testing, that topic might not include allot of talk about money, and more about what is best for our society. However, the same views really drive both topics. The rights of the individual versus the rights of the society as a whole.
I would normally (almost always) rather error on the side of the individual, because I believe (and history certainly demonstrates) when the rights of the individual are stripped away, not only do some individuals suffer, but that society as a whole suffers. So give me liberty, even if I use my liberty to my own harm, as long as I don't strip away your right to liberty in doing so.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Weren't many of the art "biggies" sponsored by monarchs in the past? Da Vinci etc?
:noid
-
Originally posted by Curval
Weren't many of the art "biggies" sponsored by monarchs in the past? Da Vinci etc?
:noid
not neccesarilly. the rennaissance has been largely credited with being funded by the d'medici family...bankers. they held positions of power and may as well have been monarchs...but they werent technically...though i think one of them held a high governmental position before getting assasinated...i should probably look it up.
-
AGAINST--Furthermore, "If I can do it, it's not art" said by someone famous....
-
can you?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by sluggish
Too lazy to read all the posts, so sorry if I echo someone else...
Perhaps if the gubment allowed me to keep a little of the money I earn, I and everyone else could fund art and things arty themselves by purchasing and viewing art and things arty...
...I personally could really go for a Garfunkel.
(just an idea)
I think maybe Eagl hinted at it when he said he'd buy a student's painting. Actually, this is what the definition of supporting the arts is. Buying artwork from a living artist who needs the money now. I believe if people had some "luxury" money available to them, they would indeed buy more art. If more people bought more art, then artist's wouldn't be needing or even wanting grants. The way I see it, the less the NEA is needed, the better the state of affairs for real artists.
Les
-
JB,
Nice troll.
-
against
-
Originally posted by Leslie
I think maybe Eagl hinted at it when he said he'd buy a student's painting. Actually, this is what the definition of supporting the arts is. Buying artwork from a living artist who needs the money now. I believe if people had some "luxury" money available to them, they would indeed buy more art. If more people bought more art, then artist's wouldn't be needing or even wanting grants. The way I see it, the less the NEA is needed, the better the state of affairs for real artists.
Les
again, it's not really an issue of that. a good artist will eventually pull money from his or her work... pending they have any business sense of course. this happens each and every day...the collectors market has grown considerably and investors have begun to turn to art as another way to put thier money into appreciable assets. the good end of this is that once you have sold a work to a collector, that collector has a vested interest in increasing your value. a good artist is a good bussinessman...a great combination of doing what you love and adding to the universe in a way that is productive. the whole van gogh myth is ridiculous. sure there are starving artists...there are also starving everything else. personality has as much to do with it in art as it would with a good engineer who cant communicate or play the game.
on the flip side, commercial art is HUGE. america places a major emphasis on magazines and television ads and creativty channelled through all sorts of advertising to the tune of billions per year. sadly, the artists arent always the ones to capitalize on this, but believe me, there are lots and lots who do.
now, with regards to the "fine" artists as people typically see them...cities pay for new sculptures and murals and invitations to artists to come and do thier work all of the time. one has only to read the calls for artists to see that all sorts of public and private money is already being allocated without having ever gone through the NEA. cities who have made an emphasis on revitalization with the arts as a component have seen some impressive results. people like art in general and it is truly sad to see a few bad apples ruin the bunch. but like i said, that was ages ago...the arguements just dont apply anymore either as most individual funding has been curtailed massively since the debacles of the 80's and what funding is left is placed on a pretty slim line.
the problem that the fear mongers keep pushing just isnt there.
i dont see a problem with using art to enrich a culture. nor do i have a problem with a few pennies going towards cultural enrichment. its better than most ways of spending it...
it wayyyy better that than the wasteful bull ca ca that the government seems to want to produce.
national symphony orchestra? yep. i'll pay. (navy orchestra? sure. army? sure why not..etc.)
give me a society which can show a healthy appreciation for the arts and i'll show you a society on the rise.
show me a society where the arts, which barely register as a blip on the list of concerns are being hounded at every corner and hunted down as outcasts and i will show you a society in decline.
its not just the money...its the scapegoating. its the fear...the greatest sign of weakness that i know of.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
That all is just a small selection each from just HALF the categories under the NEA awards.
Most of the awards to to marginal, regional, or very select areas of the arts which would NEVER get the kind of funding to go forward from private sources. Much of it has little commercial value, so is un-fundable. Others are very controversial. Some in remote or poor areas.
6 cents out of every $1,000 dollars of taxpayers money goes toward funding thousands of such projects every year. It's a pittance.
Respectfully,
This completely dismisses the risk factor that goes with the territory of being a working artist. It is a gamble with your life for everyone not independently wealthy. The only saying I think of is, "You don't bring gum to school unless you have enough for the whole class." Why do only select artists receive support when there are thousands of meritorious artists who go unrecognized? I don't believe is it a decision that should be made by government unless the work in question may serve some special need or fill some spot of vital importance, whether that be historical preservation or the like.
For my education, could you please give a couple examples of the areas of the arts which are un-fundable by the private sector? Thank you.
Les
-
poet laureate.
-
Not sure I understand what fear you are talking about JB. Unless I guess folks may be somewhat intimidated or feel funny or not be sure how to deal with an artist when it comes to doing business. One of my artist friends said people don't know what they want and must be guided to purchase a painting.
He has his share of sales. So yes, I agree that an artist's personality has much to do with art sales. Probably the more an artist gets out and is seen, the more contacts and eventually sales will result.
I guess I'm one of the fear mongers, because I didn't think Serano's work should even be shown in a museum, much less be funded by anyone but himself. But that's just me. Whether it's art or not, I don't know. I have never been an aficionado of conceptual art, I just don't think it's legitimate. Too flakey for my tastes. I look for at least one of two things in art. Either fine craftsmanship or what the subject is. Subject is important - probably the most important aspect of art, because when you render your subject, it better darn well be true. There is no such thing as good art which is untruthful.
The way I see art is: Art is a message and artists are messengers.
Les
-
the poet laureate of the united states of america.
we have one.
the last one was a man named ted koosier. great poet. hes a nebraskan.
guess i'd rather not have that position brought to me by outback steakhouse.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Support for the arts is not charity, no matter what link you might dig up Toad.
You want art? Contribute personally.
Show me somewhere in the Constitution where it says the Government is allowed to fund art.
I can wait.
-
Originally posted by JB88
its not just the money...its the scapegoating. its the fear...the greatest sign of weakness that i know of.
This country grows more socialist every passing year. I am afraid for my grandchildren. You and the other frogs go ahead and stay in the pot if you will but the water is getting too hot for me.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
You are begrudging an expenditure of 0.006% of the total budget. That's just 6 cents out of every $1,000 dollars spent.
Begrudging? Nope.
Just pointing out that, to paraphrase Everett Dirksen, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money.
It's not just art or any one thing. It's every little thing taken together.
The government needs to stick to doing what the Constitution allows it to do. It has grown and grown and grown and its appetite for power is insatiable.
It's long past time to put it back in its place.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Begrudging? Nope.
Just pointing out that, to paraphrase Everett Dirksen, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money.
It's not just art or any one thing. It's every little thing taken together.
The government needs to stick to doing what the Constitution allows it to do. It has grown and grown and grown and its appetite for power is insatiable.
It's long past time to put it back in its place.
ya. so start with arts funding which has already been paired down to a skeleton and forget about the bloated military industrial complex or corporate leeching.
i guess it's pick the battle you can win huh?
may as well avoid the bother.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
This country grows more socialist every passing year. I am afraid for my grandchildren. You and the other frogs go ahead and stay in the pot if you will but the water is getting too hot for me.
where is all of the money really going? are the "frogs" taking it or is it the supposed conservatives who have opened the floodgates to drown your grandchildren with the current form of patriotic over reaching?
i mean really.
-
Well, you an look at it that way or you can stand up and say this has got to stop.
I would not be in favor of cutting just Federal funding for art.
I would be in favor of cutting ALL Federal funding not allowed by our Constitution. All. Right now.
Art is merely one small example. If that were all that would be cut, it would serve no purpose.
It's time to reign in this monster we have allowed to dominate our lives.
Or, you can just go along with the ever increasing power and ever expanding size of the Federal government. Your kids will thank you. Your grandkids will glorify you. NOT!
-
Originally posted by JB88
where is all of the money really going? are the "frogs" taking it or is it the supposed conservatives who have opened the floodgates to drown your grandchildren with the current form of patriotic over reaching?
i mean really.
Ditto what Toad just said.
There's only a certain amount of money to be had, without destroying our way of of life. I think it's the nature of all government to want all of it which it then redistributes as those in charge see fit. It's got to be in the nature of freedom loving people to resist this.
-
i think we should reign it in. i also think that the constitution allows it by granting for the general welfare of the people.
i think it should be fiscally responsible.
it all should be.
this is hardly where it is causing a problem. not even close.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i think we should reign it in. i also think that the constitution allows it by granting for the general welfare of the people.
i think it should be fiscally responsible.
it all should be.
this is hardly where it is causing a problem. not even close.
Not even close for whom? Over taxation most certainly has been a problem for me and I'm sure many others feel the same.
-
dorthea lang - great american commie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Not even close for whom? Over taxation most certainly has been a problem for me and I'm sure many others feel the same.
is art overtaxing you iron? poor fella. art can be so mean sometimes.
:rolleyes:
-
Well, we disagree.
I don't think it passes the necessary test.
I think we could survive as a nation without it and without a lot of other things we throw money at.
But there's too damn much government in the US. The Feds are only part of it. The little State wannabees are a problem too.
The Constitution is a really a pretty simple document. It's just been abused and subverted by some greedy people.
I think we're about past the point where we can do anything about it though. There won't be rebellion in the streets. Sheep don't rebel.
-
Originally posted by JB88
is art overtaxing you iron? poor fella. art can be so mean sometimes.
:rolleyes:
For you it's art, for another it's a free meal, for someone else it's free rent, for yet another, free health care. As I mentioned early on, communism will not work. Just like the people who aren't allowed to reap the benefits of their own labors.
-
i think we could do without an offensive military operation when we cant even be bothered to defend the integrity of our own borders...but thats so unimportant compared to some art that got made 15 years ago that people keep dredging up that i have to waste time defending a 170 million dollar part of the budget that pales in comparison to the hundreds of BILLIONS that are being ripped from us annually for a foreign military intervention that most of the citizens never thought was a workable solution in the first place. what about their money?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
For you it's art, for another it's a free meal, for someone else it's free rent, for yet another, free health care. As I mentioned early on, communism will not work. Just like the people who aren't allowed to reap the benefits of their own labors.
show me one person making a living on nea grants.
one.
-
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.
-
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
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How about the NEA administrators? No doubt they number in the hundreds if not thousands.
did you look it up?
:confused:
-
National endowment for the arts (http://www.nea.gov/)
Number of Employees in 2006: 120
from here. (http://www.bestplacestowork.org/BPTW/rankings/agency.php?code=AJ00&q=scores_small)
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.
;)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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!
-
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?
-
Originally posted by JB88
i see....so are you for the government hiring artists?
she was not creating "art", she was documenting history.
-
oh. so what is art then john?
that can't be art?
:confused:
-
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!!!
:mad:
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!
-
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?
-
and stop putting pictures on stamps!!!! it makes it cost extra and i hate the picturez!!!
:mad:
-
Originally posted by culero
You don't, for instance, want welfare programs supporting illegal immigrants, do you?
are they artistic illegal immigrants?
:confused:
of course not.
again, i am opposed to individual grants at the federal level.
i am not arguing for artists i am arguing for the arts.
so its defacto. and its not even the crowd that i hang out with...but like a freaky cousin, ill fight for them to keep the family together.
-
""In the late 1980s, Congress passed controversial prohibitions on the funding of "obscene" art, triggering thunderous protests from both artists and civil libertarians. At the height of the controversy, then-President George Bush fired the NEA chairman John Frohnmayer.(1)
This phase of the controversy centered on obscenity, which is a recognized exception to First Amendment protection. In 1989 Congress used language from the Miller v. California decision in an amendment to the annual NEA appropriations act:
none of the funds . . . may be used to promote, disseminate, or produce materials which . . . may be considered obscene, including but not limited to, depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts and which, when taken as a whole, do not have serious literary artistic, political, or scientific value. (2)
NEA required grant recipients to certify that they would not use grant funds "to promote, disseminate, or produce [obscene] materials." (3)
Many artists and arts organizations, including the late Joseph Papp, producer of the New York Shakespeare Festival and A Chorus Line (4), refused to accept NEA grants to protest the prohibitions on the content of their art. Some filed lawsuits challenging these restrictions on their exercise of free speech. Federal courts sided with the artists, striking down as unconstitutional the certification required by NEA. In a lawsuit brought against NEA by the Bella Lewitsky Dance Foundation, the court held that the requirement was unconstitutionally vague and that it violated the First Amendment protection of free speech. ""
i think you were saying that if the govt does not fund "artists" our civilization would fall into the "dark ages".
-
i wonder if john reads or if he just latches on to keywords.
me: "not for individual grants.
me: "not fighting for artists...fighting for the arts. "
anywho...
...and it goes without saying that all of those attrocious statues in the rotunda that will eventually need restorations that will cost zillions should just be chopped up and condensed into the concrete that will form the big giant cube that all will agree as a fitting and uncontroversial tribute to ronald reagan after they have down the museum of modern art to build his memorial.
can't wait.
:aok
-
Lemme try again. Are you for any and all socialism?
Again, this point isn't about the arts. Its about the concept in general of what power the government should have to tax and spend.
Again, I do agree with you about the arts. But I also recognize that the larger question is a legitimate one. Its a tricky thing to find balance in anything. You obviously agree that public sector spending (and taxation) is way out of whack. If we're ever going to fix it, we need to be prepared to discuss everything reasonably.
-
I have to agree with funding for the arts however we need to keep the off the page leftists complete out of the decision making process. a urine filled glass decanter with a cruxifix in it is not art and the thats the kind of art the national endowment for the arts likes to fund. I'm against funding that kind of "art". the cheekboness on the board of the NDA need to taken out back for a nice stalinist style shooting party.
where is laverntiy beria when you need him?
-
next person brings up pisschrist... thats over people... its been over for a loooooong time. it drove the deathnail into the NEA and nobody would argue that it was in really bad taste.
Originally posted by culero
Lemme try again. Are you for any and all socialism?
Again, this point isn't about the arts. Its about the concept in general of what power the government should have to tax and spend.
Again, I do agree with you about the arts. But I also recognize that the larger question is a legitimate one. Its a tricky thing to find balance in anything. You obviously agree that public sector spending (and taxation) is way out of whack. If we're ever going to fix it, we need to be prepared to discuss everything reasonably.
no. i am not for socialism. but i am not opposed to the collective allotment by a people in a society to provide for a better common environment. better roads, national parks (yes i know, not very libertarian on the parks but hey...i know people in real estate, lets not kid ourselves there either) national defense (which is BLOATED TO HELL right now and is running in the trillions for this war)
i dislike big government as much as anyone who has posted here, but i am also realistic enough to understand that there are needs that are sometimes better met by the committee that is the government. big government are also the ones who let the FDA make sure that our food is safe. look how well laxness does for china...
my point is that government has to purchase across the board. its purpose is to make our nation function well and stand out amongst other nations.
the works that people keep bringing up? they only serve to put fear and predjudice in peoples hearts. most grants and programs are benign. so much so in fact that its exiting to some of them when a textile show gets funded. trust me, i know these people.
what it does do is serve to preserve a rich heritage of american art, from symphony to original jazz to dance which has a hard time existing without pasties and lapdancing.
it once went to restore the original "all quiet on the western front" so that it can be preserved and witnessed for generations. these things arent arbitrary and they arent people pooping on things. its just people who would rather point a finger and try to find any reason to destroy that which they cannot or will not understand. i believe that it comes from a place of smallness and from a place of fear to allow oneself to be so quick to label and so long to let go.
i believe that a nation can be measured by how it crafts its culture.
if anything, i think that the federal government with its meager acknowledgement of the grand tradition of the arts and with its unwaivering flood of open checks to pork and special interests that is making a big work made out of poop.
and i just think that its damned foolish for anyone to even pretend that the government is even funding the arts because for all intents and purposes it is not...not really...and unlike haliburton or lockheed...no artists are getting rich off of your dime.
-
I do think that a few here are marginal "artists" and entertainers who are the real people who "fear"
The real fear is that they won't get their handout. the real fear is facing up to a lack of talent.
the question of need is.... well... do we need art? Yes we do. we create it. we need love too.. should the government sponsor love? We need freedom.. We need a lot of things.. what we need we make happen.
The question then is... would there be no art without the government... the answer is so simple that it hardly needs to be asked except with the marginal artists and frightened wanna be's who are for funding the arts with other peoples money.
In the end.. that is what it is.. socialism.. a small evil for certain when compared to other socialist extortion but... made even worse because of the idea... the perversion of something so intwined with peoples souls as art.
And.. far from being more or less angry about it... why not just stop it? the very fact that it is relatively small makes it easier to stop funding. We are not "angry" any more than any other waste of government money... we simply say "nay" to more of our money being extorted by the government.
sure... some crooks and some talentless people will stop getting a free ride from their fellows but... art will live.
lazs
-
soooo...a statue at a courthouse is socialism lasz?
how about the architecture?
maybe we should put all government offices in travel trailers.
that way, nobody has to worry about people getting handouts.
:rolleyes:
(forget the parking lots too..we'll just roll the cars up in the yard. no problemo.)
-
and....
What is "commercial art"?
It is not real art?
is it that someone building a custom car is commercial art and someone dunking a cross in urine is "real art"?
How is "real art" defined? is it defined by the fact that no one wants it?
What will people think of the hirohito mercury 50 years from now compared to the jar of urine?
Would photographers stop if they didn't get their handout? Is one view of the world more important than any other so that its message has to be sponsored.
The whole discussion is beyond ironic in the first place. What real artist would want government involved in his work?
lazs
-
dunno. i am not one of them.
i am not "for" individual grants.
i keep saying this.
and the whole pisschrist thing was taken care of years ago. its over. i keep saying that too but none of you seem to be able to digest it.
show me someone who is getting rich on nea grants lasz. show me one.
-
Ok... so now they fund "real art".. they made a mistake on the urine thing?
Why is it a mistake? are you saying that it was not real art and did not deserve to be funded but say... NPR does?
Who decides?
It matters not if individuals are funded... if there is funding the marginal and talentless artists think they can get a piece of it.. of course you would be for it... more funded.. more opportunity for you and less chance you have to rely on your own talent and sweat.
You prove this to me by your support for government intervention in art. No real artist would want such a thing.
lazs
-
you obviously havent read a thing that ive written so i'll wait until you have...go ahead...you can do it. its not that hard.
start from the beginning where i state very clearly my thinking on the matter.
-
and you obviously are not being honest with yourself.
There is no reason for government to meddle in art. No real artist would want such a thing.
There is a very good reason for not taking money from everyone against their will to give to someone else.
you need to read my posts carefully and try to comprehend.. I know it is a shock to hear things you don't hear in your cliques but.. there you have it...
Some people just don't like socialism and don't think what you think is important is worth funding or that ... it is even a good idea.
again...slowly... No real artist would want government involved.
lazs
-
are you a real artist lasz?
-
JB88 you know there's no end to the elasticity (pardon my french) of the limits of "Art". Art is just engineering unrestrained from reality (think that one thru, trust me :)).
So anyone could be qualified as an artist. Lazs definitely isn't in any blurry middle ground: he builds customs.
To really bring this debate out from theory and principles into concrete reality, you would have to find some artistic criterias worth govt subsidies (and the like) that aren't just abstractions. Like XYZ (as precisely and concisely defined as any other no-nonsense legislature) sort of art has ABC effects on MNO parts of the public. MNO target audience is worth TUV funds because it fits into the rest of the budget big picture [...]
-
Originally posted by moot
JB88 you know there's no end to the elasticity (pardon my french) of the limits of "Art". Art is just engineering unrestrained from reality (think that one thru, trust me :)).
So anyone could be qualified as an artist. Lazs definitely isn't in any blurry middle ground: he builds customs.
To really bring this debate out from theory and principles into concrete reality, you would have to find some artistic criterias worth govt subsidies (and the like) that aren't just abstractions. Like XYZ (as precisely and concisely defined as any other no-nonsense legislature) sort of art has ABC effects on MNO parts of the public. MNO target audience is worth TUV funds because it fits into the rest of the budget big picture [...]
it is a nice way of looking at it moot.
so, by your arguements, we should apply harsher engineering constraints to publicly funded art?
:confused:
;)
-
I am not an artist jb.. anymore than you are. I have talents that you could never achieve tho. I can work metal and I make it into what I seen in my head.
I make no claims to being an artist any more than the downs syndrome kid down the street who makes that funny noise with his mouth.
I have spent decades learning to do what I do and sometimes... I do something that others like me admire... mostly I am mediocre tho compared to them.
Lots of people like what I do. I get them coming up to me and telling me. I certainly do not think that they should be funding me with money extorted from them by my government.
I don't do what I do for the money... the truth is that I "suffer" for my art... it costs me a fortune and If I am able to sell it... it is for a fraction of what it is worth in time and material..
If you were to be truly fair then everyone is an artist... in which case...
everyone deserves equal funding wouldn't you say?
In that case... everyone pays 6 cents and everyone gets 6 cents.
nope... I don't know what art is and I don't think I am an artist... but.. I admit it.
Can you say the same?
lazs
-
I would say so, but the real question is what are the criteria?
I definitely don't mean to strangle the artistic process with rules and regulations, rather to separate the art from the economics. Economics are engineerable because they are real. When you put the brush to the canvas (figuratively), you aren't thinking of which IRS form it may or may not satisfy, but how to engineer your vision (unbound from the constraints of reality) into whatever medium you're working with.
Originally posted by JB88
by your arguements, we should apply harsher engineering constraints to publicly funded art?
Not to the art, but to the funds.
-
I brought up religion earlier because I knew there were some who would object to any of their funds being used to support religous "art" and indeed it was dismissed as an "agenda". Does no one else find it interesting or at least amusing that so many of us insist on separating religion and government but not art and government?
-
OK 88, sorry, didn't mean to make you work your fingers so hard in reply. FWIW, I pretty much completely agree with you in detail (now that you spent some time detailing ;))
All I'm here trying to say is that no matter how ridiculous you think others' opinions are (and some of them seem absurd to me) there is a serious point being made by the diversity of opinion being expressed here. Public spending, if allowed any discretion, is a dangerous thing. Scrutiny is necessary, and open discussion is important. Its easy to become impatient with others, but if we don't all talk about it then politicians will certainly do whatever they want - and its obvious what the result of that is/will be.
-
Originally posted by moot
Jsnip
Art is just engineering unrestrained from reality (think that one thru, trust me :)).
Trying to think that through makes my brain hurt.
My gut doen't agree with you, though. Engineering can be taught. Art requires innate talent. IMO, anyway.
-
Principles determine your destination. What seems reasonable today will no doubt suffer corruption and/or excess tomorrow if the underlying principle is false or corrupted.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am not an artist jb.. anymore than you are. I have talents that you could never achieve tho. I can work metal and I make it into what I seen in my head.
I make no claims to being an artist any more than the downs syndrome kid down the street who makes that funny noise with his mouth.
I have spent decades learning to do what I do and sometimes... I do something that others like me admire... mostly I am mediocre tho compared to them.
Lots of people like what I do. I get them coming up to me and telling me. I certainly do not think that they should be funding me with money extorted from them by my government.
I don't do what I do for the money... the truth is that I "suffer" for my art... it costs me a fortune and If I am able to sell it... it is for a fraction of what it is worth in time and material..
If you were to be truly fair then everyone is an artist... in which case...
everyone deserves equal funding wouldn't you say?
In that case... everyone pays 6 cents and everyone gets 6 cents.
nope... I don't know what art is and I don't think I am an artist... but.. I admit it.
Can you say the same?
lazs
yes i can. and i know lots of things that art can be. including what you do. i have no problem thinking like that. its easy.
i have also spent a great many years on what i do and like you, there are things that i can do that you cant even begin to consider doing. i mold all sorts materials into all sorts of things every day of my life and make things come from out of my head and into reality every single day. i spend most, if not nearly all of my time searching for ways to plug them into the grid in a way that will further my work. i think of nothing else most of the time.
say yah. i'd say i'm an artist. so what?
not because it is some special thing, but because it is my chosen vocation and i work very hard at it and frankly i resent the notion that i would be somehow elitist to make such a claim. (which you seem to infer by your words) or that there is some right or wrong way to be. whatever lasz.
i dont ask for grants. never have. never will. i have just made an arguement that the NEA and various grant agencies do serve a purpose that gets missed by people like you who fixate on minutia to further your bull in a china shop tactics.
i dont have a problem making money as an artist either. i fully intend to for the rest of my life.
so what.
-
Originally posted by culero
Trying to think that through makes my brain hurt.
My gut doen't agree with you, though. Engineering can be taught. Art requires innate talent. IMO, anyway.
I would argue that the ability to learn anything is an innate talent. I don't mean that everyone can learn anything, but that anyone's ablility to learn at all is innate and appropriately called talent.
-
Originally posted by culero
Trying to think that through makes my brain hurt.
My gut doen't agree with you, though. Engineering can be taught. Art requires innate talent. IMO, anyway.
lol.
true. but also in reverse.
i come from a bunch of engineers.
i can safely say that i am nothing like them.
tho we think similarly on things from time to time.
i lack the precision, but i have purpose in droves.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I brought up religion earlier because I knew there were some who would object to any of their funds being used to support religous "art" and indeed it was dismissed as an "agenda". Does no one else find it interesting or at least amusing that so many of us insist on separating religion and government but not art and government?
i always like the manger scenes. remind me of my mishapen youth. fund them. dont care. just dont go over 10 cents for every dollar spent. then ill get upset. we have to be responsible here you know.
:)
-
Originally posted by JB88
i always like the manger scenes. remind me of my mishapen youth. fund them. dont care. just dont go over 10 cents for every dollar spent. then ill get upset. we have to be responsible here you know.
:)
No way do I want 'em funded by our government. Anything the government touches loses it's independence. This was why the nation's founders separated the church and state.
I like art and do pay for what I like. That's how it should be.
-
It's all Design. Design restricted to reality, or not. It's not likely you could learn to duplicate Michaelangelo (his art or himself), but it's not impossible. Creativity and the linearity of strictly real engineering are both a matter of discipline.
Put JB88 on 5kg of acid and you will see things start to go a little crooked from their intended forms..
About the funding, I'd say it's safe to suppose that funding the means to do art can only turn out for the best?
If a population willingly buys into junk art rather than everything else above floor level, then what can you do?
-
(http://www.thefishman.net/hires/great_white_shark2.jpg)
i want me one of these customs.
http://www.thefishman.net/flamed_fish_sharks.htm (http://www.thefishman.net/flamed_fish_sharks.htm)
(http://www.thefishman.net/hires/swordfish_red_silver.jpg)
-
Originally posted by moot
It's all Design. Design restricted to reality, or not. It's not likely you could learn to duplicate Michaelangelo, but it's not impossible. Creativity and the linearity of strictly real engineering are both a matter of discipline.
Put JB88 on 5kg of acid and you will see things start to go a little crooked from their intended forms..
i always draw straighter when i am screwed up. something about ADD and reverse effects and things.
ive since quit all recreational drugs. they made me try to engineer things too much...which sucked because while my skill increased, the attention span tended to lessen and i would find myself eating a cheeseburger before i realized that the saw was still running and that it was two days later and i was still working on that perfect edge.
p.s. i was kidding about the manger.
im not sure how much clearer i can put this.
okay. ya'll watch antique roadshow right?
thats the level of controversy that the NEA is tackling right now. that crowd of people.
-
:lol Flaming turtles..
-
Some can "bend the very walls of reality wth the power of your imagination...."
Now that's art. ;)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521044027821122670
Originally posted by moot
It's all Design. Design restricted to reality, or not. It's not likely you could learn to duplicate Michaelangelo (his art or himself), but it's not impossible. Creativity and the linearity of strictly real engineering are both a matter of discipline.
Put JB88 on 5kg of acid and you will see things start to go a little crooked from their intended forms..
About the funding, I'd say it's safe to suppose that funding the means to do art can only turn out for the best?
If a population willingly buys into junk art rather than everything else above floor level, then what can you do?
-
i wanna have sex with her...
okay...go ahead and roll.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I would argue that the ability to learn anything is an innate talent. I don't mean that everyone can learn anything, but that anyone's ablility to learn at all is innate and appropriately called talent.
Fair enough. Still, it doesn't contradict my point. You could teach anyone who is able to digest formal education to be an engineer, so long as the student is willing to be disciplined. Its all book-learning. Art, OTOH, requires creative talent that cannot be taught. There is technique involved, which of course can be taught, but there's a difference between technique and the ability to create.
My personal for instance is musicianship. For high school wood shop, I wanted a project that nobody else had done. I built a guitar. It was beautiful, and musician friends of mine seemed surprised that it was actually a competent instrument. That was an example of engineering.
Then I decided I should learn to play it. A couple of years of that convinced me that while I might eventually practice enough to be technically able to play well by rote, I would never ever be able to create music. Whatever "it" is just isn't in me.
Writing is another example. I'm literate and could easily be a journalist or an author of technical manuals - but I could never imagine stories the likes of the ones people like Heinlen, Hemingway, even Grisham do.
Creativity isn't a part of my soul, and no amount of teaching will ever make it so. I believe that's true for people in general. Its why I appreciate art for what it is - innate talent.
-
Culero,
What category do you place architects in?
-
I think it's a matter of degree culero. Creativity is based on imagination and I believe everyone has the ability to imagine. In some, this appears more developed than in others. That it seems to be an innate ability that some have while others don't may be due largely to the fact that our schools don't spend much time teaching people how to develop their imagination.
-
Originally posted by moot
If a population willingly buys into junk art rather than everything else above floor level, then what can you do?
they already do. pop culture. that's what was so damaging about the NEA controversies - 20 years ago - they bought into that bottom level...and below...and what the culture did was nearly vanquish the NEA altogether. i doubt they will make the same mistake anytime soon...
but lets not put it all on the NEA either. if anyone was ultimately responsible, it was the artists. but maplethorp is dead and serano hasnt done anything that anyone has noticed since so we seem to have gotten them out of our systems.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Some can "bend the very walls of reality wth the power of your imagination...."
Now that's art. ;)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521044027821122670
That was disturbing.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
That was disturbing.
I liked it too. ;)
-
jb... of course I could work with any material that you can. I have no problem working in any material... maybe not the best but...
It is not the ability to work the materials.. although.. to say that is not an art in itself is pretty arrogant.
You call yourself an artist... I do not. No big deal. In the end.. I suppose it depends not on what you call yourself but how others see you... I have been called an artist many times in my life but always correct the people saying so.
I have drawn plans and built houses... to say that art is unrestrained engineering is to simply say that art is lazy engineering.
I see a lot of architecture and landscaping and metal shaping as art. you have defined nothing except yourself and then... only to call yourself an artist.
We are all artists and all deserve to be treated as such... you are not special any more than anyone else.
Show me a material that you can work that I can not. Practice for years and I doubt you would ever achieve the skill of the 14 buck an hour certified welder next door. Practice forever and you won't be able to outshoot me.
The point being... again.... who defines are and how do you take limited resources and fund this or that aspect of it? How do you keep that from being unfair?
the frigging government????? you want the frigging government to define art????
You claim that you don't want funding and that you are an artist... maybe that is the real defenition of art... someone who does it because it is... and would never do it to pander to a grant...
by that criteria... you should be against the funding of "art". especially by the government.
lazs
-
Originally posted by JB88
National endowment for the arts (http://www.nea.gov/)
Number of Employees in 2006: 120
At 40K a year that's $4,800,000 that isn't going to fund childrens education or pay medical bills. You are acting like a child that needs a mommy to tell you how to spend your allowance, and so you expect everyone else to need one as well.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Culero,
What category do you place architects in?
Both.
Highway engineers, OTOH, are engineers. See the difference?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think it's a matter of degree culero. Creativity is based on imagination and I believe everyone has the ability to imagine. In some, this appears more developed than in others. That it seems to be an innate ability that some have while others don't may be due largely to the fact that our schools don't spend much time teaching people how to develop their imagination.
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.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
At 40K a year that's $4,800,000 that isn't going to fund childrens education or pay medical bills. You are acting like a child that needs a mommy to tell you how to spend your allowance, and so you expect everyone else to need one as well.
um. so you are saying that we should socialize our allowance for the other instead?
you havent read a damn thing that i have posted have you?
neither has lasz.
geez.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
That was disturbing.
I was disturbed enough by the initial image (two nerds) and the time signature (11+ minutes) that I am sure I never saw what you deem disturbing (I logged off after 30 seconds ;))
-
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 (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/BTP01-1.jpg)
Contents (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/BTP02.jpg)
Correspondence (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/BTP03.jpg)
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".
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Question
How is artist welfare any different than corporate welfare/farming welfare?
Other than the amount spent.
Bronk
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Edited because I R teh tard :D
Bronk
-
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.)
-
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?
-
Originally posted by Tachus
BTW I love that Krusty on Math, is that the Krusty from these boards?
Yes it is.:D
Bronk
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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~
-
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".
-
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 ;))
-
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.
-
Keep people happy and well educated and the art'll happen on its own.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Charon
As another believer that "socialism is a necessary evil that must be tightly controlled"
Socialism can not be controlled. Once you accept the premise, it is just a matter of time until everything goes down the crapper.
Just like an income tax. When it was introduced it was to tax the Rockefellers, Morgans and their ilk. The maximum was suppose to be a 1%. Guess what, once you accept the premise that it is OK (although illegal) to tax the "rich" to benefit the "rest of us", it is just a matter of time until the "rest of us" is robbed to benefit those who rule.
Just think of it. Whatever money you make, there is another family like yours, driving the same cars, living in identical home, spending the same kind of money... the only difference being... no member of this family works. They stay home, enjoy YOUR lifestyle, and YOU are funding them.
That's what 50%+ in taxes mean. And don't even bother to mention the military.
-
Socialism can not be controlled. Once you accept the premise, it is just a matter of time until everything goes down the crapper.
Not to hijack the thread, but I believe while difficult to control, and largely unnecessary, there are areas where socialism is a necessary evil in small doses, with tight controls. The controls could involve a very rigid balanced budget process based upon a limited tax revenue structure and the prohibition of riders (a line item veto gives too much power to the executive branch).
Only "x" amount in the pot for the budget each year, and that being far less than we have now. Support for the mentally ill that have no surviving family when voluntary charity comes up short gets its share -- perhaps. Maintaining a credible defense gets its share. Highway and infrastructure support -- its share. The bridge to nowhere -- hard to sell that one so it doesn't happen. NEA? With a far more limited pot of revenue maybe it loses out to some child nutrition support program. But, maybe more of us have more discretionary income to support the arts with or greater take home pay. Etc.
The most important bureaucracy would become an aggressive and well funded GAO to police the other bureaucracies, many of which will be eliminated and those that remain reformed to become lean, non-political and focused on results with mandatory staffing and org chart limits. Few chiefs, more motivated Indians, smaller missions. Work on one of the models that reduces the formal power of special interests both Union and Corporate.
This would also drive more activity back to the states. State taxes would increase, but... States would then have to compete more with each other for businesses and tax-paying populations. Too onerous a tax environment and the middle and upper class and businesses move. Pays to balance, etc. Simplistic and off the cuff, with some likely issues to be addressed but somewhat along the lines of my core government philosophy.
This comes up short of what a Ron Paul would like to do, and is perhaps no more likely in the real world, but I would be happy with this compromise solution.
Charon
-
regardless of how you feel about socialism being something that can or can't be controlled....
It is obvious that funding for the nea can be easily controlled and as such... should be. It is obvious socialism and extortion... a small one of course but one none the less.
get rid of it and then move on to the next one that can be gone after.. all the while saying no to new socialism.
It is simply the least we can do as free men.
lazs
-
In general, I'm against Governement funding of the arts. It's not the job of government.
-
It is obvious that funding for the nea can be easily controlled and as such... should be. It is obvious socialism and extortion... a small one of course but one none the less.
Absolutely. Art is far from dead in society, and I know plenty of artists practicing their trade without a government check. Perhaps East Angolan Tribal Dance is in danger of disappearing in the US... I guess I have a big "so what" where that is concerned. I do have more sympathy for preserving the artistic historical record, like degenerating film stock, but that is also being handled pretty well with both academic and private funded efforts.
Charon
-
is a 1% program socialist lasz?
:confused:
-
This has been one of the most facinating and well articulated discussion I've read in my time on the BBS.
1. The federal government does not belong in the art business other than it's support of National Museums as repositories of our National Heritage.
2. JB88, please post a picture of some of your most recent work or at least describe what you do. I know what Laz creates because he is willing to tell us, but, it would help in visulising your background to understand your reponses. Your dialoge always seems to reach a point where whe have to take you on faith for the strength of your position and then you end the dialoge.
I was once a working artisan with japanese sword furniture, wraping handles, creating/restoring scabbards and handles, laquering....everything except creating the sword and polishing. I made shira saya and habaki for a polisher in San Francisco. My 5 year relationship with him was that gaijin cannot properly learn to do the work he was buying from me and reselling in japan.
I have also been a welder. Worked in the home building trades. Taken part in restoring airplanes and boats. Worked for corporations as an e-mail engineer and systems and server support engineer. Preaty much as I needed I learned new skills\arts to pay the bills.
If my agent in the late 80's wasent lieing to me, my sword handel wrapping fooled japanese collectors under the name Kiku, and some of my re-wraped and restored handles wound up in the San Francisco Museum of Art collection. So what...........some people like fancy macrome. I needed to eat. I taught myself the whole skillset. I starved for a long time.
Art always survives because it is uncontrolably linked to the human condition. Art does not need to suck on the Feds big tit anymore than any other welfare program. Like sex, humans will always make art. If the art is good, just like good sex, your admirer(s) will come back for more.
-
Originally posted by bustr
This has been one of the most facinating and well articulated discussion I've read in my time on the BBS.
2. JB88, please post a picture of some of your most recent work or at least describe what you do. I know what Laz creates because he is willing to tell us, but, it would help in visulising your background to understand your reponses. Your dialoge always seems to reach a point where whe have to take you on faith for the strength of your position and then you end the dialoge.
i made it a point not to post my work or to bite lasz's "anything you can do i can do better" bait. this conversation isn't about me or my work.
i do post it from time to time and if you look you can probably find lots of examples of it on these boards.
if you are really interested, you can find it, or PM me and i will be happy to send you some examples of what i do.
-
jb is not staying on topic an is not using any form of logic.. he is simply appealing to the emotional... this should be no surprise as most "artists" live in the emotional.
I have never claimed to be an artist. I have seen people who do some of the things I do that I would calll artists tho...
My point is that I can not judge and neither can jb and neither can 120 government hacks soooo... we shouldn't.
and yes jb... 1% or 10% is socialism.. what can't you understand about that? is that simply another gray area for you? depends on what the word "is" is right?
If you extort 1% or 10% from someone who does not wish to pay and give it to someone else then it is socialism.. the redistribution of wealth. If it will make you feel better... 1% is not as painful as 10% but... it is still wrong.
My point is.. it is easier to start the cleanup of wrongs with the little wrongs like art welfare and move up... at the same time.. you establish a policy that says.... "1% is not acceptable any more than 10% is"
This is the only logical way to combat socialism... you have to start somewhere.
But... that is beside the point.. the point was... should the government take my money away from me and redistribute it to others based on what they think is art that is good for me. The answer can only be no.
lazs
-
lasz.
sometimes when i read your posts, i think of a man who has a difficult time liking himself so he is abusive or abrasive to others...and that kinda makes me sad...but not sad enough to think that it's my problem.
on the other hand...it is disrespectful and i find that i'd just as soon dismiss whatever information that you are trying to pass than spend the time that it requires to put it through a filter. so if you actually want me to take you seriously then you might consider treating me with the respect that i (and everyone else for that matter) deserves. if that is not your desire, then by all means, continue on in the way that you have been...just dont expect me to care one iota about what you think.
anywho ...
i admire a good weld. i'm not the best, but i am proficient in stick and mig welding. i would like to learn how to tig weld someday. i know that it is a difficult thing to master.
i digress.
88
-
jb... if that was a joke then I got to admit... it was a good one.
You are answering my charge of not sticking to the topic and sinking to the emotional by... well...
not sticking to the topic and go off on some psycobabel emotional purge that has nothing to do with should we fund the arts or not.
How you feel about me was never in much doubt but thanks for rehashing.
now... can you try to stick to the topic?
Oh... and I never said I am a good welder.. I am mediocre at it at best... I said a neighbor was a good welder. Still... if I stick a few peices of metal together and call it art... who are you to judge? who are these 120 people being paid out of our pockets to judge?
lazs
-
-
If we did not have government funding of the arts, much of classical music and renaissance art would not be here for us to enjoy today.
When the Medici’s funded DaVinci, they were the government of Florence. When the Pope funded Michelangelo, the Papacy was the government. When the Emperor of Austria funded Mozart, …
Each of these governments also had string attached to the funding. Disappoint the Emperor and things may turn out badly.
Government funding is okay, but public taste should be considered when doling out the funds.
-
holden.. perhaps it was ok then. I don't know. That has nothing to do with the nea here and now.
somehow... I think that art would have happened back then tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
holden.. perhaps it was ok then. I don't know. That has nothing to do with the nea here and now.
somehow... I think that art would have happened back then tho.
lazs
Well we could still listen to the Marraige of Figaro, (that was done against the Emperor's wishes) but we wouldn't have that ceiling to look at though.
-
(http://student.plattsburgh.edu/brac1664/Graphics/vietnammemorial.jpg)
one of the greatest public art works of the 20th century...a conceptual masterpeice.
imho.
-
Heres another one, PRIVATELY funded. If they can do it........................... .(http://www.inetours.com/New_York/Images/Cntrl-Prk/Gates/The_Gates_2.jpg)
-
the vietnam memorial IS privately funded...AND it is maintained by the national park service.
a nice balance methinks.
-
the gates project is christo...not a huge fan of his work but i completely admire his effort and scale...hes an interesting study in pulling things off.
he once draped the entire Reichstag in silver fabric.
very clear vision that guy.
james turrell is another big one. he's carving out a crater in arizona to create a perfect sphere where the sky meets the earth.
-
Originally posted by JB88
the vietnam memorial IS privately funded...AND it is maintained by the national park service.
a nice balance methinks.
Thats my point, if THEY can do it with private funds........................ ..
Also, I have no issue with the Parks Service performing upkeep on monuments.
-
Originally posted by JB88
the gates project is christo...not a huge fan of his work but i completely admire his effort and scale...hes an interesting study in pulling things off.
he once draped the entire Reichstag in silver fabric.
very clear vision that guy.
james turrell is another big one. he's carving out a crater in arizona to create a perfect sphere where the sky meets the earth.
I agree it's interesting to look at. I'm just glad taxpayer money didn't finance "The Gates". He did, however, get to use public lands for his "little" endeavor.
-
me niether. (park service)
as for christo, that's what public land is for...
to be used by the public...and it's various entertainment contingents.
;)
there seems to be some misunderstanding of my point. i have tried to reiterate as best i can, but it seems to get missed in the translation. i am not "for" arbitrary arts spending. i much prefer the private sector...but i do believe that there are places where the government can, and should support the arts...better stated...where the government should "do business" with art.
-
88, I think we'd probably agree on more about art than we disagree, with the exception of it's Govt. funding. I also think a lot of individuals WOULD willingly contribute to "art" that they find tasteful. Art is subjective. I would never want my $$$ to go to an artist like Andres Serrano (of pisschrist fame, for those that don't know). He seems to be inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory. That would be, in my opinion, synonymous with somebody creating a giant "crop circle" that spells out the "N" word and calling it art. To some it may be, but I'd rather not fund it. But a giant hole in the desert, thats intriguing, and I might be inclined to support it based on the scope of the project.
-
thats why i am opposed to individual funding. serano and maplethorpe are only part of the blame though...the administrators were as much at fault as anyone and they should have been axehandled if they werent. they made alot of good people extremely uncomfortable. ive seen both artist's works and i can say that niether were good for public funding. not even close. it was an afront to the society that supported these artists and somebody should have known better.
maplethorpes work was incredibley well executed...the lighting, the printing and the toning were sublime. he was definately a gifted photographer...but the whole whips sticking out of a mans butt thing...well, its understandable that people got outraged. i found it nauseating and skipped the rest once i got to it.
it was very "look at this...its scary in your face"
whatever.
seranos work is wayyyyy over rated. he's a big crutch with a nametag.
they were a product of the excesses of the 80's, the same era that brought us the paintings of julian schnobel...he's the one who glued plates to canvas's and got richer than rich doing it. now he has a guy that runs all around the world gluing the plates that fall off back on.
the 80's were a breeding ground for bad art.
-
fun memory:
i once concieved of work which would exist both at the smithsonian (on the wall where old glory had been hanging.. it was being repaired at the time) it was also to have existed online.
the idea was to create a projection (and a webpage) of an american flag whose stars and stripes and blue field were all composed of text. the text would be input from both a terninal on site and/or online connections. the question, which would be answered by the participants and then placed into the flag would be something like "what is freedom?...or, what is liberty?
the idea would be to leave it open and without censorship.
as text is input by a user, old text is scrolled away....or added to a random que to reappear at another time.
one could also go online and access archives...say...10:15 am 2 years prior.
dunno why i'm mentioning it here...but i always liked the idea.
i also concieved of an idea to recreate the constitution in frost and keep it in a temperature controlled case such that if it dropped so much as a degree...or if the power went out for more than a second...it would be gone.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i admire a good weld. i'm not the best, but i am proficient in stick and mig welding. i would like to learn how to tig weld someday. i know that it is a difficult thing to master.
i digress.
88
cortando huevos se aprende a capar. roughly stating you learn by doing. don't be afraid of the process, burn some rod.
-
:D
not afraid of it at all sir.
just never had access to tig welding and tig welding accessories.
-
that changes things. once get accustomed to tig you will never go back to mig. lincoln recently released a pulse on pulse mig welder that when combined with the cobra gun produces tig quality welds with mig speeds but a 250 amp machine costs about $5k. I bought one anyway, just to say I have one. :D I'm a kid in a candy store when it comes to tools.
-
nice.
:aok