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.

[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)