I disagree with Ms. Dole's position on the arts.

[Melatonin]

We need to eliminate federal funding for the arts? We'll do it gradually by defining what is and is not art?



------------------
Life is short. Make fun of it.

[RTA]

With a rake, eh? Makes sense, the dirty hoe ...

Yeah, great. Then American 'high art' would correspond to something like Joe Camel and the works of Leroy Neiman. . .

[andros]

This is just now pissing you off, Melatonin? She's just toeing the Republican Party line. Conservatives have been trying to kill the NEA for years. Anyone remember Mappelthorpe?

How about: "FUCK the Republican Party with all kinds of farm implements."

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[Chief Crunch]

I'm thinking that the government already does this to a certain degree, because if I glued a bunch of elbow macaroni to construction paper and presented it as art, I don't think I'd get any federal funding for it.

[ChiefScott]

I say buy each and every american a watercolors kit and a set of pastels and be done with it.
There'll still be patrons of the arts to support artists whose work is in demand. If their work is not in demand, Oh freakin' well! So sorry!
I know that 1 percent of the building cost to construct a new building in Philadelphia has to go towards public art. And that money doesn't come out of my pocket either.

[Sam Stone]

They should scrap public funding for the arts. It never fails to amaze me when Democrats are constantly harping on how the poor need to be helped, but then support something like the NEA which benefits mostly rich folks at the expense of the poor. I mean, when's the last time a poor guy in the Ghetto hung out in the Metropolitan Museum of Art?

If you like art so much, pay an admission fee to see it, or buy it outright. But don't make poor people hand you their food money so that you can give it to some clown with no talent to pee in public and call it art.

I believe that Mapplethorpe WAS an artist, and a damned good one. I also recognize that he didn't need his art to be publicly funded, because he could sell it at high prices. The really talented people will find a market for their work. The rest of the parasites can go work for a living.

The same can be said for public television and radio. There is no longer a need for it. You could make an argument for it back when the airwaves were dominated by the big three networks which had no interest in special programs that appealed to smaller audiences. But now that we have cable, PBS is a waste of public money. There are better arts shows on A&E, better comedies on the Comedy Channel, better science programs on Discovery, better history programs on the History channel, etc.

Great thinking dhanson - let's get rid of musicians and the symphony - now we have the technology for electronic music!

I think you're forgetting about something called culture. A lot of people in this world appreciate culture (i.e. art, music, architecture, quality programming). A lot of people get or learn something from culture - they can be moved, angered, inspired. The government recognizes this and makes sure that citizens or those who are visiting the United States get to experience the thoughts, handiwork and talents some Americans have or have had.

Would you really like to live in strip mall McDonald land?

As for PBS: not everyone can afford cable and none of the shows you mentioned even come close to the artistic masterpieces shown on PBS. Why should people have to watch the crap on network TV all the time? And have all of those commercials crammed down their throats?

Have you never had a creative outlet? Is that why you have this attitude?

[tracer]

I'm also not so sure you can really say there are better science shows on the Discovery Channel any more, either. Discovery Channel -- and especially its offshoot, the Learning Channel -- have slid toward sensationalism and pseudoscience to try and garner a wider audience.

Not that PBS hasn't done some of the same, mind you.

[VegForLife]

But now that we have cable, PBS is a waste of public money. There are better arts shows on A&E
Yeah, that Quincy. . . man, could he wield a paint brush. . .

Rich

Why ruin a perfectly good rake?

------------------
We have met the enemy, and He is Us.--Walt Kelly

[Lissa]

Discovery Channel -- and especially its offshoot, the Learning Channel -- have slid toward sensationalism and pseudoscience to try and garner a wider audience.

The History Channel, too. Weekday afternoons, they have an hour block of In Search Of. What in the blue hell is this? Only occasionally is history even mentioned on the program, and then it's some crap about how the Maya got architecture tips from the Space Men. Personally, I'm horrified. It's like seeing your previously dignified gandmother in fishnet stockings.

[TVeblen]

I agree w/ Dan: why mess up a perfectly good rake?

Typical politico cheap shot. Hey, let's address the REAL issues confronting the country. Quick vote: is your #1 concern funding for the arts?

BTW, the Steel Magnolia has also planted her size 6 alligator pump AGAINST all that filth and smut on the Internet. Yep, any school or library receiving federal funds have to use filters if they want Unca Sam to cough up the dough.

Let's not bother our dim little minds with the fact that filtering products just flat don't function effectively in multi-user settings. It's SOFT! It's a good sound byte! It's vague!

Hey, Our Lady of Viagra goes up against the biggies: the arts and libraries. Sheesh.

That said, I'm still waiting for "nude emperor" wake-up call.. (Did Hughes, the art critic, ever recover from his motorcycle accident?)
A huge portion of highly touted "modern art" is pure schlock and hype, aimed at dweebs with more money and pretension than discrimination.

Whether governmental or free marketplace, art has been degraded by media campaigns and drivel.

Liddy is a twit.
And as long as we're misuing farm implements, I think she rates a John Deere manure speader for being a fatuous, opportunistic lightweight.

Veb

[Sam Stone]

I've gotta agree about The Learning Channel, but then our local PBS outlet used to air 'In Search Of', so I guess they aren't much better. Maybe this stuff happens because the arts majors who staff these networks don't have a clue about science?

As for 'culture', it's a pretty strange notion that culture is something everyone wants yet no one is willing to pay for. And the examples used weren't very good. Many major symphony orchestras play without government funding. The Metropolitan Museum of Art gets only a small portion of its funding from the government. Broadway shows don't get government funding.

[tracer]

Mmmmmm, farm implements. :D

[pldennison]

I half-agree with dhanson. I do think that, while grants to individual artists maybe aren't something we should continue, the funding provided by the NEA for arts education, especially in grade schools, are a good idea.

As for PBS, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would call "Are You Being Served?" or
" 'Allo? 'Allo?" masterpieces of any kind.

[JoeBlank]

I'm with Phil and dhanson. I was trying to resist weighing in on this one, and obviously I failed. Why is it some of you want the government to take your money and spend it on what some government goon considers art? Are we not smart enough to decide what art is deserving of our patronage? Why is this "art" somehow more special than the music industry, or other areas where excellent artists find a way to make a living without asking the government to take money from others and give it to them?

The only way to judge the quality of art is public opinion. That does not have to mean a majority vote. If a small minority finds your art likeable, that group can spend their money on your art, and you can make a living. If the only way for you to get money for producing your art is to have the government take my money, against my will, and give it to you, then your not creating marketable art. If you still want to create your art no one is stopping you, but you might have to find another way to make a living. There are plenty of people who create art of various forms as a hobby, and do something else for money. I'm not saying artists should get a real job, that is another thread. But if one can't make a living doing what one loves, one must find a way to provide financial support and still allow time for life's pleasures.

I think I'm going to puke. I don't know where you people live, but every place I've lived art has been supported, treasured and appreciated. Maybe I have a better understanding of it than others, but this "the only way to judge the quality of art is public opinion" bullshit disgusts me. Public opinion (by the looks of this forum) is crap.

How come few of you like modern,interpretive, offensive art? These are the thoughts and creations of the people living today who have great imagination, deep understanding of human nature and a medium in which to express themselves. You should rejoice that this country doesn't censor its art the way others have in the past (hint: USSR).

Clearly the government should support art and offer grants to artists. It's a sign of a rich, wholesome society (like ancient Rome) and it's a way to nurture those who may not have the financial means to explore their talents. Do you people think the government is giving away billions of dollars and that these artists live in expansive lofts in SOHO? Well, throw your TV out the window, because it isn't like that at all. My friends that are artists never receive more than $5000 a year from the government.

If you want to cut taxes, start with the space program or the military - they both receive a much bigger cut than artists. (I'm going to look for the figures).

I would also suggest that you go down to your community college and take an art history course. I used to think like you - since I learned what art is really about I've changed my tune.

Oh, and my examples were fine, dhanson. Most of the buildings (except for Broadway theatre which I never brought up) are owned by the city. Did you know that you have to pay admission for 90% of musuems in the US? In Europe, they are free. They have their priorities straight and everyone is always commenting on their wonderful 'culture'. You sure as hell don't hear that about Americans. I think that should change - I'm sick of being a part of white trash land.

[Lucky]

melanie;

Who told you museums in Europe are free? I've got news for you---they're not.

------------------
"I think it would be a great idea" Mohandas Ghandi's answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

[andros]

Melanie, are you seriously saying that the only people who can appreciate art are those who have taken art classes??!?

(at a brief loss for words . . . ah, yes, that's it)

Bite me.

-andros-

[UncleBeer]

Melanie, only $5000/year? That's about, umm, let's see... $5000/year more than I ever got.

Granted, I'm not an artist and have never claimed to be. But maybe for $5000 I could give it a shot. I think I could turn out items similar to a lot of the dreck I see now.

As to why I don't like "modern, interpretive, offensive art," how 'bout, it's offensive?

"The only way to judge the quality of art is public opinion bullshit disgusts me." Huh? How else do you propose to judge the quality of art? Especially art that is funded by the public. You want to spend my tax dollars and then I'm not even allowed to express an opinion on the quality of the purchase? You should rejoice that this country doesn't censor opinionated speech (not much anyway) the way others have in the past (hint: USSR).

Andros, sorry, forgot that I have to qualify absolutley everything I write on this board.

Those without an appreciation for art might consider taking an art history class to gain some knowledge about it.

Better? Geez.

Also to Lucky: MOST art museums in Europe are free. I've been there. But perhaps some have started charging admission since the last time I was there.

[UncleBeer]

And those without an appreciation for the space program or the military might want to take a science history or military history class to learn something about them.

UBeer, of course you can express your opinion - duh, that's what this forum is about. But do you really think it's feasible for the public to vote on art displays, monuments, etc? Get real.

A lot of people objected to the Vietnam Memorial - they thought it was tasteless and inappropriate. Does that mean it should not have been built? What a waste that would have been!

I can't stand most of the politicians in office and a lot of their policies, but can I stop paying taxes that pay for their salaries and their programs? Hell, no. This is America - an easy place to live compared to SOME other countries. We all have to pay taxes for something we can't stand. Big deal.

I guess the grand point that I'm trying to make is that you could be bitching about a lot bigger things than funding for the arts.

[andros]

No, Melanie. You don't have to qualify everything you say. You just need to be prepared for some fallout when you spew elitist comments like that in the ol' Pit.

Believe it or not, it is possible to "appreciate" art without the snooty accent and the glass of cabernet. And without looking down your nose at the philistines who don't use terms like "sublime" when referring to a sculpture involving elephant dung.

FTR, I like art. I have studied art history and theory. I have Mappelthorpe's autograph (don't ask where). But I don't think that makes me superior. Joe Blow's opinion is as important as anyone else's.

So, again, bite me. Artistically.

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

UncleBeer,
WOW! I never thought that happened. Thanks for doing the research I'm too drunk, I mean lazy, to do. Dhanson: e-mail me your address and I'll send you the $.36

Kelli and Andros: There's no need to personally attack me (although I suppose that's what one does in the pit). I think you should know that I am not an artist - I have a real job and a degree in history. I was also a Young Astronaut in middle school. I just think that not enough people are well rounded and some just plain anti art. That makes me really sad and angry. Didn't mean to come off snooty.

For the record, I do not object to welfare. I think if a family needs food, clothing or shelter, the government should help them. I do not mind paying taxes. But if you want to get into this with me, start a new thread.

[kellibelli]

Nothing personal meant my dear, you know how we canadians get sometimes ;)


Um...What's a 'Young Astronaut'?

[andros]

Didn't think I was attacking you, Mel. Or even what you said. Just how you said it. I'm sure you're a wonderful person. My knee just jerks a bit when I hear a variant of "intellectual"="superior" or "degreed"="intelligent." Not that that was what you were saying, but it sounded close.

It's generally a good idea not to take anything in the Pit personally, and please don't let me (or anyone else here) get under your skin. Dammit.

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

Thanks Kelli and Andros- glad the unpleasantness has cleared up (even though we're in the pit and it should all be unpleasant - I thought this thread should've been in Great Debates anyway).

LOL, a Young Astronaut is a faux piece of the space program. It's where kids learn about space outside of school (after classes or at summer camp). I got a lot of stickers from it. Here's some info if you are interested: http://www.yac.org/yac/

[UncleBeer]

Uh oh, concilitatory remarks, consensus and mutual respect on the horizon of the pit. don't tell Nickrz.
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000254.html

------------------
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind." - Humphrey Bogart

[kellibelli]

UncleSmartass, very funny. :)

[andros]

It's where kids learn about space
outside of school

Oh, dear GHOD. Now I have visions of Kate Capshaw in that abortion of a movie, Space Camp

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

Andros: Ha ha ha!! Young Astronauts is really a nerdy thing. Make that very nerdy.

This is for dhanson: This is a mostly Republican organization (or so I gather from reading the names). It lists what it believes to be government money wasted. No mention of arts (from what I read)! http://www.cagw.org/about/index.htm

[andros]

So, back to the OP . . . FUCK Liddy with a [farm/gardening implement]. But don't forget to also FUCK the republicans as a group for their long-standing anti-NEA platform.

Hell. I'd vote for Dole in a second, if it weren't for the fact that she's so damn right-wing.

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[Chief Crunch]

Thirty six cents per person actually translates into millions of dollars per year.
I can think of many things more worthy of that cash than some freak who'd rather throw shit on images people hold dear than get a real job.

[andros]

And also FTR, I support public funding of the arts.

But, as I said before (Veb, you listenin'?), Liddy is NOT the antichrist. Well, she is, but he opposition to the NEA, et al., is nothing new. She's a Republican drone trying desperately to win support against Dubya, and as such is vomiting up all the arch-conservative rhetoric that so many others have hurled before her.

-andros-

[kellibelli]

Oh my God!
{quote]If you want to cut taxes, start with the space program or the military - [/quote]
Are you MENTAL

Oh yes, cut the military, then you artsy types will really have something to complain about when the Commies (or whoever) take over.

And the space program...dont need to worry about space exploration...the planet will be fine, all that global warming stuff is just alarmist crap...it not like we will ever gain anything from space exploration...its just for fun.

Look, I am Canadian, but we also support the srts through govt money...and I think it should stop. Churches, Museums, any other cultural stuff can get by on the support of partons and corporate sponsors. If they cant, then tough.

I dont see how you can justify even $5000 per year for an artist's grant when there are children going to school hungry. Culture be damned! Social reform is needed!

Lets run things like a business, if the art you produce makes you no money...make something else, or get a job, and make you art at night to be appreciated after your death.

I truly doubt that Van Gogh, Monet or Picasso had much govt funding...and they still managed to create art.You often see corporate sponsors doing sporting events...why not the arts?

Clearly the government should support art and offer grants to artists. It's a sign of a rich, wholesome society (like ancient Rome)
I would guess you failed history...ancient rome- wholesome???
and it's a way to nurture those who may
not have the financial means to explore their talents. Oh jesus- spare me the sad story! get a job, buy a dictionary and look up 'HOBBY'
My friends that are artists never receive more than $5000 a year from the government.Do you realize that is a years rent for most families?

Its great you are an arts fan, but you might want to take a drive through the real world someday when you dig the art history book out of you arse.

[JamesCarroll]

My 2 cents. I agree that there should be a certain number of people in a society who are granted intellectual free reign. The scientist who does basic research that doesn't always have a practical application; the college professor who investigates theorectical math;and, yes,even artists. What bothers me is the conceit that today's art has and the contempt for the 'unwashed' who don't think that what they do is important. I think this is the real root of the backlash we're seeing now. Somewhere along the way art (and artists) became too self absorbed.

[Sam Stone]

Another reason not to support public funding of the arts - it may not be good for art.

Here in Canada we have a ton of public funding for the arts, and we have Canadian content rules to 'protect' Canadian artists from American competition. Guess what? The Canadian Content rules mean that Canadian artists don't have to compete as hard, and quality suffers. Canadian television is largely a joke. The Canadian musicians that have been successful are generally opposed to Canadian content rules. And arts funding is controlled by a cliquish old-boy's network which dictates the tone and direction of Canadian art. I have a friend who is a sculptor who does traditional sculptures of busts and things, and he not only can't get funding from the government, but he has a hard time selling his work because the market is flooded with subsidized crap produced with government money.

In the old world, most art was religious because artists needed sponsors to survive, and the church was the biggest sponsor around. Nowadays, religious art is almost certain to be turned down by government arts councils. There was bias then, there is bias now.

I'm guessing that the average income of a patron of the Metropolitan Museum is at least three or four times the national average. If you are a liberal, doesn't it bother you even a little bit that these people are getting their tickets subsidized by poor people?

[kellibelli]

Yeah!

What he said!

Really though, dhanson, you couldnt be more right...those canadian content laws are crippling us culturally.

[JamesCarroll]

The Canadian Content rules mean that Canadian artists don't have to compete as hard, and quality suffers.

But if it weren't for the content rule we would never have had The Mchenzie Brothers!! :)

[UncleBeer]

If anyone is interested in a link to the National Endowments for the Arts homepage, click below.
http://arts.endow.gov/

Melanie, I must apologize for my previous rants. I was merely reacting to your statements using what I thought I knew about the NEA. After a little basic research, I guess I found that the NEA is not quite what I thought it was.

It appears that the NEA is not really all that expensive (in government spending terms); I thought it was a much larger organization. They claim to get only about 36 cents per person from our taxes. The rest of their funding is from private donations.

Some of their grants go to programs I see little value in, but I guess that is the way it goes with art. Again I apologize. Besides if someone has interests like the saxophone and beer, obviously their opinions are worth consideration.

Consider me an elightened convert.

[pldennison]

I think I'm going to puke. I don't know where you people live,

Cleveland. Well, specifically, Lakewood. Lakewood has a thriving arts community, and I don't believe any of it is publicly funded. The Cleveland Museum of Art, one of the country's premier museums, has free admission. It is right up the street from the Cleveland Institute of Art (where my friend Jill works, and which contains the Cleveland Cinematheque) and the Cleveland Institute of Music. And you don't get much better than the Cleveland Orchestra. So I know whence I speak.

Maybe I have a better understanding of it than others, but this "the only way to judge the quality of art is
public opinion" bullshit disgusts me. Public opinion (by the looks of this forum) is crap.

But why on Earth pay for art that nobody likes to be produced? The only way to judge art is via public opinion. The criticism of peers or its adherence to a particular aesthetic is all well and good, but if nobody wants to see or hear it, what is the point?

How come few of you like modern,interpretive, offensive art?

Well, those are three very different things, and not necessarily intertwined. I find much modern visual art boring, intellectualy lazy and unchallenging. But, then again, I don't like dance. So it's all a matter of taste.

These are the thoughts and creations of the people living today who have great imagination, deep understanding of human nature and a medium in which to express themselves.

I don't know about that. That's a highly generalized statement. Steven Spielberg has a great imagination--do you consider him a great artist? OTOH, I don't think it takes any of those things to put goldfish in plastic cups, not feed them, and let them die and decompose. It indicates to me that the artist is out of ideas.


Clearly the government should support art and offer grants to artists. It's a sign of a rich, wholesome society (like ancient Rome) and it's a way to nurture those who may
not have the financial means to explore their talents.

I don't think we should use ROme as an example on how to do much of anything except maybe deliver water. However, I think the government should support arts education and let private patrons support individual artists. (And, as Polycarp has proposed, maybe get a tax break for it.)

My friends that are artists never receive more than $5000 a year from the government.

My friends who are artists don't receive one red cent from the government.


I would also suggest that you go down to your community college and take an arthistory course. I used to think like you - since I learned what art is really about I've
changed my tune.

I think it is terribly unwise to make assumptions like this.

JamesCarrol hit on the most important aspect of this issue-contempt for the public by the artist.
Manure , feces, butchered animals are not expressions of beauty. They are deliberate attempts to piss people off.

Art is a means to nutuer the human spirit. This dammable, mechanized, dehumanizing age we live in has raped away our peace of mind, & even our humanity itself. Art could, in theory , helps us to undo that.

But the artists don't give a fuck.

They'd rather sneer at the very people who are paying for their projects; the taxpayers; and then deliberately set out to disgust us . And the arts supporters wonder why the public is turning hostile.

Rather than use symbology that the public can understand & interpert, these assholes create private systems of artistic symbology that , unfortunately, leave the ordinary working man out in the cold.
Most days, art museums stand empty. If our artistic community would admit to some reponsibility to their fellow human beings; an obligation to their fellow human beings;
those museums would be crammed with visitors & there would be no call to cut arts funding.

But as of now, art museums dont have comprehensible messages to the common man. They have ego trips in feces & stainless steel; love notes in brass & dead animals between 'artists' & critics; & are no better than a private club for arrogant bastards! One that we all pay for.
And yes, I took an art appreciation course at the university. I have reproductions of Alphonse Maria Mucha's work on my walls. And a lot of resentment in my heart.

------------------
We have met the enemy, and He is Us.--Walt Kelly

[TVeblen]

Bravo, Daniel!

The issue of politicios taking cheap pot shots is one issue...

The underlying issue of the quality of art is another. I *really* don't want to get into a hairy, vague discussion of art and vision and whatnot--much less the fun side issues of funding.

But you put your finger on it. With all the jargon and pontificating, from politicans and artists, one thing never seems to addressed: "shock" art may just be a grossly commerical corallary to "shock radio" and Jerry Springer, etc. It may just be *bad art*.

IMO, the visual arts have attempted a loft disdain for the vulgarities of popular culture while cashing in like f**&^ing bandits using exactly the same means.

Okay, hard questions here: if the role of art is to shock, force a new view of the world, etc. then what is the qualitative difference from, say, Howard Stern or Jerry Springer? Different media, same tactics.

BTW, Stern and Springer do it w/ considerably more wit, style and irony than merchandisers---I refuse to call them artists--- who present rotting cow skulls crawling with maggots or religious icons juxtaposed with excrement and sexual images and call it "art".

If art means anything, it's seeing more clearly--and making that vision tangible for others.

Want to take bets? Remember the cloying, sentimental, moralistic "story" paintings beloved of the Victorians? Well, the more-shocking-than-the-last "artists" of today will typify our age in turn. And the "vision" and "statement" behind them will turn out to be just as banal and empty.

Woof! Went on a tear there....
Veb

[Sam Stone]

What makes you think art requires beauty? Art is a method of communication. A well-done piece of art can transmit as much information to the viewer as a novel. There are many famous artworks which are heartachingly beautiful, and there are others which are ugly, but for a reason.

My main gripe with 'modern art' is that there is often no point. It's just a nihilistic temper tantrum.

Modern art is also VERY faddish, and very cliquish. Much like modern fashion, the direction and content of art is controlled by a small number of influential people. This is not a good thing.

[Sake Samurai]

Funded art is always inflammatory. When you are comissioned to produce a painting or write a song you are, in a way, freed. It's a wonderful feeling - being liberated.

Then the evil sets in. One begins to think that a subversive stance should be taken - something that might not be noticed upon first impression, or maybe something so obvious that noone dare think you meant it. Perhaps you might even change society - make them reflect and (godforbid) think outside the confines of the drab!

Funding an artist fuels his/her ego. It is empowerment. Look at Michaelangelo. What thanks did the Pope get for funding his art?

Artists do not need public sympathy or funding. 80% of people can't form a coherent interpretation of a piece of art anyway.

Sure education would help, but what would really help is if people realized, really realized, what true beauty and horror is and how important it is to seek it. Artists are essential in this quest; fund them and they'll be impotant. Suffering is the key.

[tracer]

Lissa wrote:

Personally, I'm horrified. It's like seeing your previously dignified gandmother in fishnet stockings.

Well, hey, whatever turns gramma on.

------------------
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

[VegForLife]

Art is a means to nutuer the human spirit.
Nurture? Or neuter?

Rich

[TubaDiva]

Folks, I changed the name of this title, because, frankly, it's too much.

Yeah, this is the Pit, but this is not right.

Please be a tad more restrained in the future, okay?

At least let's not do anything to get the attention of the Secret Service, that's all we ask.

your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope
(your friendly neighborhood administrator)

[Melatonin]

Wow, way to neuter my wrath, TubaDiva.

Well, let me express my feelings on the subject= why "I disagree with Ms. Dole's position on the arts," and hope she doesn't acquire greater access to secret service protection any time soon.

Without going so far as to say that the US is a land of fat uncultured pigs who couldn't tell Rachmaniniff from Roto-rooter and think that the 'Louvre' is something that runs down the back of one's throat when one has a cold, I'd like to state, point blank, that we, as a society, don't seem to appreciate or patronise "The Arts" as much as many other nations of the world.

Many of us haven't read 'the Classics of World Literature,' have not been to the symphony/ ballet/ opera. We have only cursory knowledge of world history or the great philosophers that have come before us. We couldn't discuss poetry to save our lives.

Now, of course part of the reason for this is that the Opera is really f*cking expensive. More fault lies in the fact that we aren't ingrained to appreciate these things from an early age- I don't know of many districts in which Art Appreciation and Literary Criticism make up a large part of the elementary school curriculum.

I think a large part of our apathy towards the arts and humanities can be summed up by the fact that, well, we really don't have any history of them.

When Aleksandr Pushkin was born, our nation was less than 30 years old. We as Americans were less concerned with leaving a literary or artistic mark on the world than we were making it through the winter.

Now that we've settled down a bit, we can concentrate on forging our way onto the international arts scene. But we have to bear in mind that the age of Baroque has passed, and people just don't draw Jesus the same way anymore. Not to mention that the noblemen are just not soliciting manuscripts like they used to.

So we need a little time and patience and, yes, funding to spot the path of the Arts for the 20/21th centuries. We need to take a look at the Arts both as they appeared in other nations before us, and as they are emerging amongst us today. We need to think and read and discuss them as children and continue to appreciate them as adults. WE MUST DEVELOP OUR OWN NATIONAL TRADITIONS IN THE ARTS. Because, frankly, all the other countries are laughing at us. They think we're the big fat oaf of a nation who doesn't know how to hold its fork at the dinner table.

Frankly, I'm sick of reading articles where the follies of an American scholar are used as an introductory anecdote. I'm tired of having foreign students run circles around me at the university. I am sick of belonging to a nationality recognized throughout the word primarily as the progenitor of MTV.

Yeah, we've got lots of bombs and packaged Snak-Kakes, our pop music pollutes the air waves the world over, the youth of the world are shod in our ugly running shoes, but ya know what?

Nobody respects us. Commiting genicide against the indigenous peoples of our nation didn't alleviate that, forcing every child in America to say the Pledge of Allegiance hasn't helped, spending billions of dollars to get potheads off our streets didn't work, heck, even bombing the Chinese Embassy didn't bring those crazy citizens of Earth to their senses.

Is it really that crazy to think we might not have anything to lose in trying to foster Art Consciousness in this country?

------------------
Life is short. Make fun of it.

[manhattan]

… and hope she doesn't acquire greater access to secret service protection any time soon.If you understood what TubaDiva was saying, you would specify that this statement means that you hope that Mrs. Dole does not become President, not that you hope she will become less secure. This is not a slam or an accusation, just a suggestion to try to help out the mods. Now to the slam.

We need to take a look at the Arts both as they appeared in other nations before us, and as they are emerging amongst us todayNo, "we" don’t need to do anything of the sort. An essential characteristic of being American individuality. Artistically. Spiritually. Intellectually. Economically. We choose how to live our lives and associate with each other. We do not look to the State to do this for us. If an individual chooses to look to somewhere else for inspiration, God bless him. If a bunch of individuals choose to band together as a school to collaborate and advance their ideas, God bless each of them. This "we" speak of is a collection of "me" and "you" and "him" and "her." We make our own decisions, thank you very much.

Artistically, the result has been some of the best art in history, IMHO. You’re just not looking in the right places. Come out of the Big Building With Fountains on 5th Avenue long enough to join me at a blues club. Or a jazz club. Pick up some of the southern authors of this century. If art is about communicating ideas, I’d put American music and literature against any in the world. Visual arts? I don’t know, myself. But someone else will probably debunk you on this one, too.

WE MUST DEVELOP OUR OWN NATIONAL TRADITIONS IN THE ARTSAgain, "we" who? The State? I think that’s an awful idea. The State can’t even do a good job funding basic sciences, a more objective field. What in the world makes you think they’d fund good art?

... all the other countries are laughing at us. They think we're the big fat oaf of a nation who doesn't know how to hold its fork at the dinner table.Fuck ‘em.

Frankly, I'm sick of reading articles where the follies of an American scholar are used as an introductory anecdote. I'm tired of having foreign students run circles around me at the university.I’m tired of hearing that a few more bucks and a boneheaded bureaucrat out of Washington will solve your problem. So we’re even. Again, there’s plenty of great art in this country. If the "international arts community" wants to snort at it, let the stuffy bastards snort. If you want to buy into their game, do it on your own nickel. My give-a-shit factor about our standing among a bunch of academics and bureaucrats in Europe is exactly zero.

Nobody respects usDon’t worry about it. The far-right Freedom Party just got second place in the Austrian elections, and the righties are stirring again in Germany. In 5-10 years, it’s not a bad bet that they’ll at least be pretending to respect us.

Maybe the next time we send our sons and daughters to save the Art Capital Of The World from destruction, you can get someone to bring you back a Rembrandt.

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

[Melatonin]

Shit, I was a little worried that I was going to come off as an self-hating American basher. Really, I'm not. I eat at McDonalds and I watch 'Friends' in syndication at 11pm.

Now, I had no intention at any point in my previous post to claim that the US has made no strides in any of the fields of the arts. (Just couldn't think of any in which we *have* at that point.) Nor was I trying to accuse us of being a nation of cretins who all need to be sentenced to a state-mandated 'Doubleplusgoodthink Course in Art Appreciation.'

What I perhaps failed to harp on enough is the fact that *we are a very young nation,* and thus have several centuries less of our own art to appreciate. Now, since every nation's favorite art is *its own,* we aren't left with much to discuss over our espressos at the book club meeting.

Sensory input is neccessary for sensory output, in order to further the arts and humanities, it *is* neccessary to look at what has happened before: not just at our own very young traditions, but also at those of other nations.

I happen to believe, point blank, that mankind needs art. It would follow that I believe that the US, *as a society* ( no particular reference to the individual who wants to live in an arsenal powered by a solar generator in Idaho) needs art. Yes, we have made broad strides in bringing such genres as jazz music to the world, but it can't stop there.

ALl this rhetoric is really founded on my closet-Nationalism. See, I would like to *proud* to be an American. Not just because we build fast cars or secretly control the IMF or have a kick-ass national defense system. Not just because our economy is solid enough that the amount of American dollars in circulation abroad rivals the amount circulating here.

See, none of these things are really important to *me*. Following your logic, the values that I, as an individual American, hold dear are the foundation upon which the very cornerstones of This Great Nation were raised. Well, the federal government spends a lot of money already on stuff that is not important to me. What I am concerned with is the fact that Ms. Dole is so set on diverting the chump change they spend on something I care about back to defense.

As for your attitude towards the rest of the world and their values:

" Fuck ‘em."

Well, I'm sorry. I just can't share your opinion.

[Sam Stone]

How about being proud of being an American because you are part of the first nation on Earth to proudly declare that individuals have a right to live their own lives and pursue their own notions of happiness?

America has made plenty of contributions to the arts. Much of it is in 'pop' art, but that's because, as you said, America is a young country. America has fine traditions in music and literature.

I think you are picking up too many echoes from the professional Euro-snots that hold their noses up in disdain at McDonalds and then sneak in the back door for their Big Mac fix.

[TVeblen]

I'm getting mental whiplash here.

Is it not appropriate to recognize the grim financial realities underlying art? Patronage has always been needed; artists need food, shelter and time to pursue their art. Most certainly older countries have longer histories that included mega-rich folks who could function as patrons and suport art. Though, in fine human fashion, it usually to a couple of generations to get cultured enough to be "new money" vs "old money", i.e. to let time blur the realities of the rapacious predators who made the pile of loot in the first place.

Even then, a lot of the rich-arts patron types weren't exactly overloaded with taste. Hey, time tells. But time also winnows out the true geniuses who worked around, above and beyond the constraints of their funding sources. (Some vanity portaits are works of deadly, subtle satire.)

BUT---yeah, I'm finally getting to the point here---our rich folks don't suport art. Hey, it just isn't the "done thing" any more. You don't see Bill Gates, Buffett, etc. suporting the arts. I strongly suspect that's partly due to a lack of *grounding* in the arts.

Now whether that deprives us as a people, or just forces art back to vital roots is another thing.

But the hard reality is that fine art is also a cutthroat BUSINESS, and that's where I'm concerned that art is being bastardized. How much of "shock art" is genuine vision and social commentary, and how much is aimed at pumping headlines and hype? That, I believe, is the real danger to art. If it ain't controversial, it's ignored. So artists, in order to survive and flourish, too often have to sell out to pure sensationalism simply to remain viable.

And, no, not all "shock art" is schlock. I lived in Cinti. during the Mapplethorpe flap. (Anyone remember that it took the jury less than an hour to decide in favor of the art museum?) If you looked at the whole exhibit, he presented a visual specturm of pain, innocence, and some sexual aspects that disturbed people. As far as the infamous bullwhip photo, it's flat beer compared to some images from antiquity, particularly Roman stuff.

Sorry, I'm tired and blathering. Anyway, I don't know the solution. But I still maintain that the Emperor is buck nekkid in some instances. I sympathize with those who fiecely defend the arts, because damned few people care. But partisanship can blind even the most passionate defender into fighting for the wrong things and wasting their ammunition.

Veb

[Melatonin]

dpd, stuff your own crap.

I am also a state (not federal) employee.

I am also overworked.

People quit my field all the time, not only because it's becoming increasingly difficult to find jobs, but also because it's a very high stress field.

I earn less money than everyone I know, including the people I buy my burgers from.

I work at the second largest university in the United States.

------------------
Life is short. Make fun of it.

[manhattan]

Well, shit, Mel. I go to sleep for a few hours, and now we're agreeing. That's no fun! ;)

As it happens, I don't really have too big a problem with the few shekels the Feds throw at the arts, particularly because most of it goes to build and maintain facilities and programs to make art more accessible to people of lesser means.

A few thoughts though. The way our system works, money = control, as Tveblen points out. As we see in Brooklyn, even funds meant for upkeep/maintenance mean that the megalomaniacs we elect from time to time get to try to influence content. I think we'll agree that this is a Bad Thing, and I hope we'll agree that it's inevitable. The arts need to be funded, and they need to be more funded. Heck, I part with 3-5K/yr to support the arts. But as we see from healthcare to road construction to welfare to housing, allowing the government to do the job often leads to perverse incentives, wasted resouces and undesired outcomes.

If you really want to help the art tradition in this country, I'd suggest two things to consider. First, don't let our community be judged by the standards of others. Yes, we're a young country. But I bet we've created more great art in our first 200+ years than any other country did in its first 200. Hell, I bet we've even done better over the past 200 than countries that have had several centuries to build on. So don't let the snooty bastards rest on their collective laurels. Why is Frederick Remington not considered a great artist in Europe? Because his sculpture reflected the (somewhat idealized) American experience? Because he was a White Guy selling to White Guys? Please. Slap the next person who says that for me, will you?

Second, convince the American arts community to give more respect to part-time artists, folk-artists, etc. Living on a university campus or in a Soho loft is not a pre-requisite to creation, and the insular, whining, oh-so-urbane gimme-gimme crowd that inhabits much of the traditional visual arts community has to learn that. To me, a big part of the American tradition is that some of the best ideas have come from the garages of ordinary people. Why should American art be an exception?

OK. Now some asides.

My "fuck 'em" comment was meant solely for the folks who carry the "big fat oaf" theory. My not small experience tells me that this attitude is actually fairly rare in other countries. But for the people who have it, Fuck 'em.

The U.S. does not secretly control the IMF. I do. Really. I didn't used to, so the whole Asian thing wasn't my fault. But that is a subject for another thread.

Tveblen suspects that American big-shots don't contribute to the arts because of the lack of grounding. Let me put forth two alternative hypotheses. First, they don't because they are so capitalist that they believe that good art will support itself commercially. I make no judgement as to whether that's a good thing, just suggesting that that may be the thought process here. Second, they don't because they do in fact have some grounding in the arts, which grounding comes from the same Euro-centric school that I believe is holding back the arts in this country. Hell, they don't seem to have too much problem with dropping $30 MM on a Renior.

------------------
Livin' on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

Manhattan, I think I'm in love! ;)

[TubaDiva]

Well, let me express my feelings on the subject= why "I disagree with Ms. Dole's position on the arts," and hope she doesn't acquire greater access to secret service protection any time soon.

All presidential candidates have Secret Service protection -- you can thank Arthur Bremer for that one.

your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope
who wants culture to be more than the Norman Rockwell exhibit and the Puff Daddy show.

[Melatonin]

Okay, now. I know I can be pretty verbose sometimes and need to state my position more clearly.

So what I've been trying to say with my allusions to gardening implements in uncomfortable places and all the rest is:

NOT: that we should all put on berets and stop wearing deodorant. (You'll notice this is the first time in this thread I've even alluded to the French,)

BUT, RATHER: Elizabeth Dole has some bad, bad ideas.

AND: I do not want her to become president.

AND: I'd like everyone to write to their congressperson requesting greater government funding be aloted for research into the practical application of gardening utensils as dissuasive tools in the political arena.

Just kidding.

Maybe.

Now I think this thread has become all too cozy and lovey-dovey for the pit. Quick, somebody throw something!

I meant 'nurture'. Sorry, but as a State employee, I'm terminally overworked. Tennessee State government is badly understaffed, with people quitting the very low-paying jobs left & right.

Melatonin: Stuff your crap. The artists don't respect us, and we shouldn't pay to have shit rubbed in our faces by American artists.

The French are willing to do that for free.

------------------
We have met the enemy, and He is Us.--Walt Kelly

[pldennison]

I'm just curious why, if citizens of other, more arts-aware nations don't respect us, why they are falling all over themselves to come over here and attend our institutions of higher learning and not the institutions in their own countries? Could it be because a degree from an American university, any university, is inherently more valuable to a professional? Maybe, with the possible exception of some British schools.

[Melatonin]

Well, my experience as far as 'foreigners falling all over themselves' to attend our institutions shows that:

They generally earn the first degree in their own country, then:

Apply to graduate school here where they can *get paid* to study and coast through classes centering on materials they mastered in high school.

[Melatonin]

Don't forget the higher, ahem, standard of living.

A direct quote from a Romanian physics student with whom I'm acquainted:
"Life is just so easy here."

------------------
Life is short. Make fun of it.

First- my comment about where I work & the hours referred to the <font size=4> spelling error I committed</font> & was not part of the argument. When I get tired, my eye for detail in my spelling falters. Sue me, swine.

Regarding the " argument " (insert snigger here) that suggests that Europeans are ahead of us ; or more advanced than us; in art- please remember:

1-Art is culturally relative. There is no such thing as 'being ahead in art" because artistic expression is not a race. Our art is good as Europe's art is as good as Ancient China's art is as good as the art on a caveman's walls. Our art ( jazz music, modern dance, Art Deco Streamline, Rock Music) is just fine.You cannot & must not assign values to it.

2- Occasionally , the unwashed among us do burn works of art. This is deplorable, and there is no excuse for it. But in Europe; every 30 or 40 years; a new type of political radicalism springs up. And then; noble, enlightened, Europe --<font size=5>BURNS THE ARTISTS.</font>(cite-Facist Italy, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, many others)

Remind me again,please, I seem to have forgotten; just who was the civilized, noble & artistically inclined society?


Hmmmmmm?

------------------
"The truth is uncontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may destroy it, but there it is."-Sir Winston Churchill

[Melatonin]

dpb, your first point is exactly what I've been screaming for the past three days. "We are a young culture, blah, blah, blah."

The point: We missed the age of the Rennaisance. This I can state for certain. The 'USA' simply did not exist at that time. Further, my comparative comments will refer only to Russia, as I (surprise! surprise!) know relatively little of cultural history in (Western) Europe.

blah,blah,blah
200 years ago, it was possible for artists to make a living because social groups comprised of nobles (salons) supported and patronised said artists. Getting together to hear the artist read from his latest epic and discuss/criticise was 'hep' or whatever. Journals began to be published including episodes of prose/poetry/ criticism/illustration. These journals were circulated largely hand to hand and pieces from therein were read aloud (by whoever happened to be literate), among all strata of society.

Thus evolved a 'customer base' for the high arts. Many of these classics were considered trash at that time. Novels and poetry were *not* taken seriously, because they "were not factual and had no moral or educational purpose. . ." (I'll give you the cit. whenever I get the damn paper back.)

Whether they were trash or not, there was a reading public at the time willing to invest their time in such pulp as 'War and Peace' and 'Crime and Punishment,' because, as I have stated, it had been the 'hep' thing to do amongst the rich folk a few years before.

end blah, blah, blah

Practicioners of Art need to eat. Critics of Art need to eat. (Otherwise, it will be very difficult for them to continue developing Our National Traditions) The means by which they were fed/ otherwise encouraged at the time when an Art-appreciating public evolved in some other Art-appreciating countries are no longer politically relevant.

So, point 1: "Art is culturally relative." No duh. I can't believe you made me regurgitate 2 whole courses worth of Lit History in order to agree which you.

Point 2: One certifiably insane dictator from Georgia does not the artistic taste of a nation make. I don't think I really need to point out that point 2, debate-wise, is the equivalent of sticking your tongue out and going 'nyah-nyah-nyah.'




------------------
"There is nothing you ought to do, for the simple reason that you know nothing, nothing whatever- make a mental note of that, if you please."
-V. Nabokov

Melatonin, take :1-a deep breath

2-your Prozac

3- a flying leap

Europe did not produce "one insane dictator from Georgia" ; Europe has produced a series of maniacs throughout the 19th & 20th centuries. Starting with Napoleon. This is such a pronounced trend, that future historians may regard it as the distinctive trait of this historical era. All of them censored art more than we do, you snotty little ass. Not to mention murdering the artists, which we do not do.

As for your crap about how my remarks support your asinine views--BULLSHIT!

Your responses are a smokescreen for the point that I & others have brought up again & again; & that you have ignored due to your lack of an answer.
Why should Americans support an artistic community with tax money, when that community produces material that exists solely to show the contempt that the artist has for the public? Why finance ego trips in stainless steel & feces?

All your pathetic , elitist garbage cannot conceal the utter pointlessness of funding this trash with money that could be better spent on , say, medical care for the poor or elderly.
Melatonin- I suggest that you get your priorities in order. Art is decoration.
<font size=4>Only decoration. Nothing more.</font>

And if government money should be spent on anything, it should be spent on something we NEED.

Not something frivolous & unnecessary.

Not art. People die from lack of necessities. Nobody ever died from lack of art.

And don't blather anything like 'Oh! Your souls may die from lack of art!'
It's painfully obvious that today's artists don't give a fuck about the public's soul.
They care about their own egos; their favorite critics; and big checks. The public consists of mere peons. And they show their belief in our peonage by pissing on us at every gallery opening.

If you like this so called 'art' so much-pay for it yourself. You sound like enough of a masochist to enjoy that. Or go live in Europe, if thats your idea of Paradise.
Many people do go to Europe to study art , & you sound like you might enjoy it. So beat it. Take your so-called artists with you. Don't bother to come back.

------------------
"The truth is uncontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may destroy it, but there it is."-Sir Winston Churchill

[Melatonin]

Wow, it's so hard to be civil.

"Further, my comparative comments will refer
only to Russia, as I (surprise! surprise!) know relatively little of cultural history in
(Western) Europe."

I'm not talking about Europe. Europe hasn't played the faintest role in any argument I've made so far. But, if you had actually read my post, you'd surely have picked up on that.

Nice application of the standard holler 'Love it or leave it.' You're not going to get off that easy. Taste is a personal thing. You don't really mean than I should exile myself because maybe I like some things that you don't or vice versa? No, it means I should try to change it.

I'm a taxpayer , and I deserve some say in what becomes of that money ( meager as that amount may be). It goes a lot of places I don't want it to. It finances a lot of things which, factually, aren't very important. (see: most of what the Space Program has be engaged in since, say 1990).

I am not going to argue with you as to whether a Society needs to eek out some sort of creative reflection of itself. Bobforbid this country should dwindle to a world of cubicles and vacuum tubes.






------------------
"There is nothing you ought to do, for the simple reason that you know nothing, nothing whatever- make a mental note of that, if you please."
-V. Nabokov

[pldennison]

I'm a taxpayer , and I deserve some say in what becomes of that money ( meager as that amount may be). It goes a lot of places I don't want it to. It finances a lot of things which, factually, aren't very important. (see: most of what the Space Program has be engaged in since, say 1990).

Uh, actually, what we've gotten from the space program since 1990, what with Hubble, Chandra, Galileo, the Mars rover, and other orbital observatories, has been some of the most groundbreaking work in astrophysics and planetary physics ever produced. You can argue against the tobacco subsidies or Federal crop insurance or paying corporations to promote their products overseas, but the space program is money well spent.

And you do have a say in how your taxes are spent, presuming that you vote.


------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[Melatonin]

I didn't mean to imply that the space program is sitting around eating up funds and doing nothing. The space program does, however, occupy A LOT of funds, and you can't eat astrophysics or planetary whatsits. If we're arguing about tossing some coins to the arts and humanities in lieu of taking care of more pressing needs, like health care, well, 'Charity begins at (your) home (planet.)'

I'm also not especially happy with the decision to take an aging astronaut into space as a PR stunt clothed in the rhetoric of 'studying the effects of space on geriatrics,' when a male specimin is not statistically representative of that population on earth. You can bet that cost a lot more money than implementing an arts and music program in Appalachian School District X.

Thanks for the hint about the voting thing. I'll definitely check into that. (Here would be a smiley if I could type one without gagging.)

------------------
"There is nothing you ought to do, for the simple reason that you know nothing, nothing whatever- make a mental note of that, if you please."
-V. Nabokov

[Sam Stone]

In FY1998 NASA's budget was 13.7 billion dollars. Only a portion of this is spent on the 'space program', however. For example, about 6 billion is spent on aeronautics (NASA is one of the prime researchers on airfoil design, drag reduction, new engines, avionics technology, etc). 1.4 billion is spent on the "Mission to Planet Earth" program, which does environmental research, maintains weather satellite info, and other stuff.

The human spaceflight program consumes about 5.5 billion, including around 2 billion for the space station.

'Space Science', which would include planetary launches, is about 2 billion dollars.

So the total space program budget, at 7.5 billion, makes up about .25% of the federal budget, or about $25 per year per person.

Let's compare that to some other government programs:

Health and Human Services: 37 billion
Housing and Urban Development: 24.4 billion
Environmental Protection Agency: 7.4 billion
International Assistance: 11.4 billion
Head-Start: 5.3 billion
National Endowments for the Arts/Humanities: 300 million
Community and Regional Development: 10.2 billion
Agriculture: 12 billion
Safe and Drug-Free Schools: 3.7 billion
Dislocated Worker Program: 1.6 billion

NASA is a high-profile agency, so people tend to believe that we spend a significant part of our societal resources on it. But we don't. The whole interplanetary space program costs us about $5 per person per year. Do you think you get more than 40 cents per month entertainment just from following it?

When the Mars lander was in the news a couple of years ago, NASA's web site was getting more hits than just about any other site on the web. If they could have charged a micropayment for visits, they probably could have funded the entire Mars program for the year with it.

[Melatonin]

dhanson, I dig how you're supporting my side without me having to do any of the legwork.

I am not arguing *against* the space program. While I most certainly do *not* get my forty cents worth per month, it doesn't really bother me that much if somebody else gets eighty cents per month of entertainment out of it.

I am arguing against the silly people who are trying to use the "gross misuse of public funds" line in their argument against the NEA and NEH.

If you were to have arranged your list in scaled, descending order, the funds for the NEA/H would have fallen off the bottom of the screen. It's really not that much money- maybe equivalent to the gross intake of a couple of Disney movies.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, most of that money does not go to artists depicting depicting 'Mary' in the medium of elephant dung. Much of it goes to fund education/ training/ research.

------------------
"There is nothing you ought to do, for the simple reason that you know nothing, nothing whatever- make a mental note of that, if you please."
-V. Nabokov

Melatonin: Let me bounce this off you, as you do your arts-oriented version of Contestant #3's line of crap.

A local newspaper columnist described the Feces/Virgin Mary painting as "an anti-Catholic hate crime, paid for at the public expense".

Does 'Art' justify the expendature of public funds to allow an up-front religious bigot to have a public platform for his hate?

If so, should we ask Catholics; who are the victims of this expression of the artist's intolerance; to pay his expenses?

If so, should we ask Jews to pay for the spraypaint , used when Nazis put swastikas on the synagoge door? Isn't that the same thing?

Does burning a cross on a black man's lawn constitute 'performance art'? Is it different than the Burning Man festival?
Of course it's different. Burning Man is not the same as the KKK.
And I know the difference.

But do you?

The Dung Madonna is a hate crime, just like putting a swastika on the synagoge door would be. That is the clear purpose. To show contempt & hatred. A museum shold not showcase bigotry as art. A public museum cannot restrict it's content, even if the 'art' is nothing but hatred. Therefore.....

there should not be public funding for the arts, it should be private.

And you STILL haven't even tried to address my main question. If you can't come up with a creditable response, perhaps you should cede the victory to me?

And the question is:
<p align="center">Why should Americans support an artistic community with tax
money, when that community produces material that exists solely to
show the contempt that the artist has for the public? Why finance
ego trips in stainless steel & feces? </p>


------------------
"The truth is uncontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may destroy it, but there it is."-Sir Winston Churchill

[Melatonin]

"Why should Americans support an artistic community with tax money, when that community produces material that exists solely to show the contempt that the artist has for the public? Why finance ego trips in stainless steel & feces?"

"That community (which) produces material that exists solely to show the contempt that the artist has for the public" comprises of no more than 1 person mentioned thusfar, the Dungmaria guy.

It is interesting how you equate the general public which the Catholic religion, however. They are, after all, the only ones who could possibly have an image of Mary to disparage (?) Do Catholics often step out to get the newspaper in the morning and find burning crosses on their lawns?

"Why finance ego trips in stainless steel & feces?" Obviously I'm not the sort of arts conneusoir (sp) that you are, sir. What I best recognize the names of the National Endowments for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities from are:

1) The credits from various children's shows on PBS, and. . .
2)Grants and fellowships in the humanities*.

*aint no little chilluns out there starvin just cause some kid working towards his phD in history got a 10,000 dollar scholarship last year.*

------------------
"There is nothing you ought to do, for the simple reason that you know nothing, nothing whatever- make a mental note of that, if you please."
-V. Nabokov

[Sam Stone]

The biggest problem with spending on things like the NEA, or the Helium Reserve, or the Wool-and-Mohair subsidy, is not that they are a real drag on the economy. As you pointed out, it's really chicken feed in absolute economic terms. The problem with these programs is that they make it impossible for the government to find the political will to cut the bigger stuff. When you try and cut the pork in some congresscritter's district, he can always point to the NEA if he's a Republican, or the Wool-and-Mohair Subsidy if he's a Democrat, and say "How dare you cut MY programs while that crazy piece of pork is still on the books?" And he'd actually have a point. At least enough of one to convince the voters.

[Atrael]

Well, this is a pain in the ass....

Melanie--
You've made some very valid points. Undortunatly along the way you've made some glaringly obtuse statements.


A lot of people objected to the Vietnam Memorial - they thought it was tasteless and inappropriate. Does that mean it should not have been built? What a waste that would have been!
Actually, the memorial was built in 1979 entirely by private donations....most of them from actual vets. It's maintained by the Vietnam Veterns Memorial Fund...again by private donations...unless you'd like to claim that the land the Government donated was too expensive.


Many of us haven't read 'the Classics of World Literature,' have not been to the symphony/ ballet/ opera. We have only cursory knowledge of world history or the great philosophers that have come before us. We couldn't discuss poetry to save our lives.

Could it be because "the Classics of..yada yada" suck?...(yes I've tried)...The problem with many of these works is that they no longer have a referance in our modern society. Try reading some contemporary authors...you may like them.
I personally like the symphony...and as long as the opera is in english so I don't have to have a translator, I like those too....never much cared for the ballet...but that's just me.....

As far as a clue about world history, well your ignorance in siteing Rome as a paragon of artist support shows how much you know about world history. Philosophy is debated here regularly...wanna talk about poetry?...bet you could find someplace on the web to join a chat room. And (gasp) betcha there might just be a few Americans in there...


We need to think and read and discuss them as children and continue to appreciate them as adults. WE MUST DEVELOP OUR OWN NATIONAL TRADITIONS IN THE ARTS. Because, frankly, all the other countries are laughing at us. They think we're the big fat oaf of a nation who doesn't know how to hold its fork at the dinner table.

I never had much classes about art as a child...didn't go to college to learn either...does that mean that as an adult I can't appreciate them?...Not on your life.

As far as other countries are concerned...well, I agree with manhattan about that. I lived in Italy for 3 years...nobody laughing there. You proclaimed yourself that you "know relatively little of cultural history in (Western) Europe. "...So who the hell is looking down on us? I've been to Italian art museums...lots of stuff from a couple hundred years ago...not much of the modernist crap we have here in America...maybe they know what real are is hmmm?


I'm tired of having foreign students run circles around me at the university.

Study harder....'specially that history part.


Nobody respects us.

Sure they do....you just want them to fall all over themselves drooling over our art....how about our technological advancments?....Or any of the Freedoms we have and sometimes take for granted....


Commiting genicide against the indigenous peoples of our nation didn't alleviate that

Again, go back and study your world history some more...things like this have happened all throughout history..."man's inhumanity to man" is a catchphrase...


we aren't left with much to discuss over our espressos at the book club meeting.

This is just too pathetic for me to comment on...maybe you could discuss world hunger?...Or some of that philosophy you were talking about earlier?..Or poetry?...


The space program does, however, occupy A LOT of funds, and you can't eat astrophysics or planetary whatsits

You can't eat a piece or art either...

I'll grant you that the NEA is important....whether or not it should be increased is another matter. Art can be learned without being taught. And artist can live just fine on their own without getting a leg up from the gov. They'll just ahve to start painting/sculpting/whatever more piece's that are popular.




------------------
I haven't lost my mind, I have a tape backup around somewhere.

[Melatonin]

Atrael, please take note of my Username.


Then, PLEASE, try again.
I really would like to read what you have to say, but I don't have the time to sort out your post- I'm too busy wasting gov't money.

------------------
"There is nothing you ought to do, for the simple reason that you know nothing, nothing whatever- make a mental note of that, if you please."
-V. Nabokov

Melatonin, you are a sorry piece of shit.

Your response to me was illogical & incoherent. I never mentioned public broadcasting. When I'm talking about the price of beans in Boston, don't yammer about the temperature of spit in Kansas.

Your remarks to Atreal (sp?) were worse; the snarling, hissing snit of a spoiled little brat. Wipe the snot off your nose & grow up.

It's obvious , at this point, that you have lost this debate. Having lost , you lack the maturity to lose gracefully.

I declare victory.

------------------
Attention C#3!The inside of your musty head is a exercise wheel;
in which two gerbils, Vanity and Credulity by
name, tussle fruitlessly over the walnut that
represents your banal & pointless existance.

[andros]

Allah on stilts, Daniel. . . easy there. Does this need to go to the pit?

BTW, Atrael:

Could it be because "the Classics of..yada yada" suck?...(yes I've tried)...The problem with many of these works
is that they no longer have a referance in our modern society.

I have a lot of trouble with this. Because you don't appreciate them, they "suck?" I very strongly disagree with your assertion that the "classics" have no meaning in modern life.

But then, I've read and enjoyed many great classic works of fiction. So maybe it's just a matter of liking or not liking the work?

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[Atrael]

Melatonin--

Ok, fine...whatever you say....it's very clear here that you have absolutely no valid points to make, have few; if any, debating skills, lack an understanding of the issue that you're discussing, and are woefully inept at defending your standpoint. All I can say is Thank God the NEA doesn't have you as a spokesperson.

andros--
You're right...I was perhaps a bit strong in my wording there....my apologies. I, also enjoy many of the "classic" tales. With all the other glaring errors, I went overboard with that statement.

------------------
I haven't lost my mind, I have a tape backup around somewhere.

[Melatonin]

Atrael, the problem is that half of the posts you responded to *were not posted by me* If you want to question my knowledge of or opinions on a subject, at least do me the favor of responding to what I've actually said. Other than the OP, I didn't post anything on the first page.

dpb, love, perhaps you aren't satisfied with my answer to your second question because it wasn't a valid question in the first place?

[Atrael]

Ok Melatonin....You're right...and I apologize for the misunderstanding...didn't mean to put words in your mouth or attribut another's to you.

That being said, only one of my quote's was from the wrong person. The first one about the Vietnam Memorial.

Everything else applied to what you said...
I'll give you the places agian....real slow this time...try not to miss 'em k?


The point: We missed the age of the Rennaisance. This I can state for certain. The 'USA' simply did not exist at that time. Further, my comparative comments will refer only to Russia, as I (surprise! surprise!) know relatively little of cultural history in (Western) Europe.

blah,blah,blah
200 years ago, it was possible for artists to make a living because social groups comprised of nobles (salons) supported and patronised said artists. Getting together to hear the artist read from his latest epic and discuss/criticise was 'hep' or whatever.

What I find interesting about these statements is that they largly contradict themselves. You're citing Russia as your area of expertise, but many of the writer/poets/artist/composers of the time period you refer to lived in....(suspense rising)Europe. So pick your arena please....While there are several great Russian authors/painter/composers/etc., the Rennaisance that you state that we 'missed' was mostly based in Europe.

I'll state again, that I don't necesarily think the NEA is a bad thing. I do believe some money to help museum's is a way to help them keep cost's down, and continue to operate. However, money is not needed for education...that's already part of are school system...no need to put more money there. I don't think money should be given to anyartist to help support them. And without presuming to speak for everyone, I think this is the major bone of contention. Some money to help out museum's so they can be accessable to all is fine. Money given to someone because they need to "find themselves artisticly" is bull.

There are many many actors that hold 2 or more jobs while they search for their "big break"..should we give them money?...Many authors have other jobs to support themselves untill they get published....and manage just fine on their own. Same holds true for most musicians.

Not sure where you lived overseas, but I've been to Madrid, Paris, and Rome. In all these places, I've seen talented artists supporting themselves by selling their work during the day. So why should it be different here?

Again, my apologies for the mis-quoting.

------------------
I haven't lost my mind, I have a tape backup around somewhere.

[Melatonin]

Not to drag this out, but you forgot to apologize to me for insulting Melanie's ignorance of European history as well.

That being settled, I think I've tried to make it abundantly clear that I am not going to make grandios allegedly factual statements about things which I have no knowledge.

Therefore I used the example of Russia. As a result of the blah blah blah I described above, 18th and 19th century Russia produced such talents as Pushkin, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy. I *am not* going to argue with you as to whether these are any good or not.

I don't know anything about the Rennasaince, other than the fact that it happened before the political USA existed.

I know that Russia, which also was most of which was in the stone age at the time of the Rennaissance, managed to evolve a national literature because of the blah blah blah I described.

(My opinion follows)For whatever reason (war poverty famine whatever) we did not have blah blah blah in the 18th and 19th centuries. We did not have much of anything, including a national identity. THIS IS MERELY MY EXPLANATION FOR WHY WE DO NOT HAVE AS LONG AND VARIED OF A CULTURAL HISTORY AS OTHER COUNTRIES. (sorry)

(This is fact) The financial and social structures that were in place at the time an place I mentioned with citational voracity are no longer there.

(Fucking A, *where* have I heard this before?)

(My opinion) What I propose is some form of support must be substituted (or, in the case of the NEA &H, simply *not* revoked) for them, in order that the US may continue to develop our own artistic tradition, or even catch up to and overtake those damn foreigners and bang our colective shoes on the table to make a point about it.

(Fact) So that my kids can watch PBS instead of the He-Man cartoon on TV. So that I, and ten of thousands of others, can complete our higher education without turning to something silly like Speculation, Gambling, or Table dances. So that authors like David Foster Wallace can survive into publication.

No, I'm not talking about Sculpture or Paintings. I never was (before you object, go and *look* at my posts). Yes, I have personal interests in maintaining public interest in the arts and humanities. (Who doesn't have personal interests?)

(Fact) Lots and Lots of people benefit (both as doers and specatators) from public interest in the arts and humanities, and in connection from the NEA, the NEH, and other funds and organizations set up and maintained with the help of government money, tax breaks, and YES, private donations. The vast majority of them have the same aversion to shit as the rest of the population.

(opinion)The thing that REALLY REALLY REALLY bothers me, enough to put the graphic and bloodthirsty image that was once the title of this thread into my otherwise chaste mind, is the fact that Elizabeth Dole could pronounce, with no debate, no second thought, really no consideration whatsoever, in a press conference, "We need to *stop* funding the arts. We will choose what is and is not art." (obviously not a direct quote, that was a couple of weeks ago).

What a simple solution. Without a backward glance at all the implications that those two slimy sentences carry. I understand that for her it may just be the party line, and for some people it may just be a whole bunch of political baggage. But there are people out there *whose lives are/ would be directly affected* by the implimentation this earth-shattering line of bullshit.



------------------
"There is nothing you ought to do, for the simple reason that you know nothing, nothing whatever- make a mental note of that, if you please."
-V. Nabokov

There you go again Mela-asshole. Dragging in Public Broadcasting again. The subject is art funding, not public broadcasting.

As for your kids; how the hell can you possibly have kids? The last two or three posts sound like they came from a hysterical 13-year-old; not a parent .

A small clue for you , child. On this site, shrillness & zealotry do not constitute an argument that will persuade anyone.We demand a higher standard than that.



------------------
Attention C#3!The inside of your musty head is a exercise wheel;
in which two gerbils, Vanity and Credulity by
name, tussle fruitlessly over the walnut that
represents your banal & pointless existance.

[Melatonin]

While not pertinent, I'd like to gently remind you that every "hysterical thirteen year old" is a potential parent.

Wait, what was that about shrillness and zealotry? Surely you don't think any of these lines contribute to your platform?!

"Melatonin: Stuff your crap."
"Sue me, swine."
"Melatonin, take :1-a deep breath 2-your Prozac 3- a flying leap"
". . .you snotty little ass."
. . .your crap about how my remarks support your asinine views--BULLSHIT!"
". . .your pathetic , elitist garbage. . ." "Melatonin, you are a sorry piece of shit."
". . .the snarling, hissing snit of a spoiled little brat. Wipe the snot off your nose & grow up."
"Mela-asshole. . ."


I made the OP. I know the issue; it addresses a number of different problems. That is what concerns me. You, however, seem to be obsessed with feces.

Why is that?

[cleosia]

In response to dpb's answer:

"There you go again Mela-asshole. Dragging in Public Broadcasting again. The subject is art funding, not public broadcasting."

Does not PBS programs get some of their funding from the NEA. I can't tell you how many times I have heard, "This program is made possible by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts." So PBS is involved in the debate.

Christine

[tracer]

dhanson wrote:

The whole interplanetary space program costs us about $5 per person per year. Do you think you get more than 40 cents per month entertainment just from following it?

Well, that U.S.-to-metric SNAFU on the Mars weather observing probe was quite entertaining, that's for sure.

It does bug me that only $5 of my tax money per year is going to unmanned space exploration (whence NASA gets most of its data) while close to $20 of my tax money per year goes into that damn space shuttle.

------------------
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.

[Felinecare]

So now that's Dole's dropped out of the race do we get the original thread title back?