In what world are movies not art?
Do you think TV shows and video games and lawn gnomes and car decals and tattoos and translation and cooking and historical re-enactments and computer programming and games of chess and war tactics and comedy and mathematical proofs are art?
Because I think they are every bit as deserving of the label “art” as painting, sculpture, and poetry.
So if all those things are art, then they all deserve government handouts ?
I am not sure what world you live in, but in this world movies are not art. Try watching a Police Academy movie or Streetfighter (the Movie).
Cooking, chess and computer programming are obviously not art. If they were, then they would be clasified as such.
While we’re making up numbers, how about we start up with “eleventeen kajillion dollars”?
In a real-world type scenario, it’d obviously operate on a sliding scale of funding. So I’d think right now, at least.
It amuses me no end that Christo and Jeanne-Claude are being held up as some sort of nadir of publicly funded art. To set things straight:
They fund their recent projects like the Gates themselves (through sale of sketches and earlier works )
They actually had to pay the Parks Department to host the Gates (see next cite)
Their artwork is actually having some real, charitable benefit in the world.
So in summary - it cost the city nothing, the city in fact made money off the thing (never mind all the extra visitors it no doubt attracted), and it’s still benefiting the “real world” by funding environmental education.
That it was a stunningly beautiful piece, IMO, is just icing on the cake. I wish I could have seen it in the flesh, the best I have are some great photos a friend took.
So a hearty “Fuck You” to everyone who thinks it’s all about “wrapping shit in plastic” -you’re ignorant, and if Art can’t relieve you of your ignorance, you’re beyond help. I bet the much-vaunted “art” y’all say you have for private viewing is a set of tacky gilt-framed Kincaides and velvet Elvises.
Nothing much to add here, except I like the sort of implication floating around that we could all paint like Leonardo or compose like Wolfgang Amadeus, if only it wouldn’t be artistically invalid to do so. :dubious:
I don’t have figures for Wrapped Coast (although once again, it was, as you admit, self-funded), but I do have the NY Times estimates for the value to the city of the Gates installation:
$254 million that wouldn’t have been in the economy of NYC if those tourists didn’t come to look at the Gates. Not to mention the site fees paid to the Parks Department. That’s quite a statement, if you ask me. Not sure how many tourists travel to the Louvre just to see the Mona Lisa, but I’d say the pretentious* plastic-wrapper rates quite highly as a popular artist too.
*Oh, he is pretentious, no doubt, I’ve seen interviews - but he’s also right.
Who the heck said that? Someone back on page one said something to the effect that while those guys are talented it wouldn’t make sense to keep composing/painting/etc. like them. Who wants to live in a world where every painting looks like the Mona Lisa and every song sounds like this? Big difference from “every bozo could paint like Leonardo if it wasn’t for the man holding him down.”
Weren’t a lot of those gaudy animals in the Rooney piece painted by people in the community? I know in Buffalo (buffalos), Syracuse (horses), and in Moorestown, NJ (dogs) the plain white scluptures were made, then the rights to paint them were auctioned off to people and groups who wanted to paint and had the money. I can’t remember where the money from the auctions went.
Just out of curiosity, should the government pay for or help pay for college through grants and low-interest loans? If so, how is that different?
How many people are doctors because the government helped pay for their schooling?
Title of an essay by Charles Lamb, published in 1831.
Barrenness of the Imaginative Faculty in the Productions of Modern Art
He’s writing of the art produced in the previous 50 years, ie 1780-1830.
Plus ça change et plus c’est la même chose.
It’s only meaningful to argue that it’s pointless to paint like da Vinci or compose like Mozart if, in fact, the ability to do so is there. I suspect that in the vast majority of cases this is not in fact the case.
You needn’t reproduce Leo’s best-known works or Wolfie’s famous tunes. You can compose what the latter might have done but for his tragically early death, or the former had his amazing genius not spent so much time finding other outlets.
Exactly my thoughts as well. Popular art is not necessarily good art. Art that is popular and desired by the masses today is not necessarily the art we will look back on with reverence. Not only does it take people with extraordinary vision to fund art, but those people are going to make mistakes and fund art that is disliked today, and forever.
Art had to move on from DaVinci and Michaelangelo. They were going for realism, we don’t need realism anymore, we have the photograph, we have computerized machining. Photographs can BE art, but paintings and sculptures have to be something other than literal. Look at what Picasso did by the time he was 15, do you want 70 more years of portraits and scenes of people hanging around the town square? I don’t care how technically proficient a person is, that’s boring. If he kept painting that stuff year after year, we would never have heard of the guy.
Don’t like Vault? What would YOU have put there instead, a guy on a horse? If it looks a lot like a real guy on a horse, that would make it good art.
Arguable, but making a huge assumption: that what is valued about the work of either is founded solely on their ability to produce realism. What about composition and form? Even great photography doesn’t rest on the fact that you can press the button and have the camera produce a flawless image of what was in front of it at the time. Does David have no significance other than that it is an anatomically accurate rendition of a young man?
Tust me, people can…you dedicate your first years of studdy at a music school to being able to follow rules that allow you to compose a Choral identicaly to Bachs…we have progressed past that is all…we write different music now…with different compositional methods…they broke the ground but anyone can copy and compose like them, if they have the tools (look at John Williams)
I had actually forgotten that this art was not publicly funded. So, you validated my point…it IS possible to have well-regarded and expensive public art without the taxpayers having to fund it. Outstanding! I am all for this.
Saying stuff like"this one is shite and everyone hates it" “this one is also shite” These are ignorant comments…which is the whole reason im still in this post…your assuming everyone thinks its shit…and a waste of money…Its you assuming you can deem what’s good. or bad art and can make huge generalizations on the opinion of others because of it. That’s the opinion that needs to stop…i don’t give a flying fuck if you like it or not…hell, i might hate the art being discussed…but that doesn’t give me the right to say its shite and the whole of place where I live agrees…im not that IGNORANT.
I don’t have a problem with people going to college on a low-interest loan, and majoring in art. It’s different because the person is getting an education, not being paid simply to create art which may or may not be of any value.
Well, there’s another argument against such funding.
Did they spend a few years before on writing sentences that get punctuation, instead of a multi-line run-on with pauses for breath indicated by ellipses? How about spelling? Capitalization? Or is this something else that gets tossed aside?
The thing is, you see, possibly any eejit that’s had a musical education can learn to follow the rules that Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and others discovered, worked out, laid down, or however you like to put it. But this doesn’t make for the ability to produce anything that measures up to the work of those towering geniuses. The lack of ability to follow where these predecessors trod, though, does not mean that there is anything wrong with the toolkit that they built up. It is not an excuse for tossing aside all that the masters learned and did in order to create a cacophony and call it brilliantly innovative.
Ditto for the visual arts. If you can paint and sculpt like the old masters and yet have nothing in you that enables you to produce anything novel or ground-breaking, the fault is not necessarily in the medium. It may be just a want of imagination. This is why I, who know all that Shakespeare did about grammar and punctuation, and considerably more about spelling, will never produce anything that will stand the test of time as his works have. It is not that the medium is exhausted. It is that I am too deficient in my faculties to have anything to say. The remedy, if there be one, does not lie in discarding grammar, spelling and punctuation.
You sneeringly said that people don’t have the right to have jobs if they can’t make it on their own. Grants and low-interest loans are a way for people to get jobs they can’t afford on their own. Is it fine that people get monetary help to pursue careers they couldn’t afford without the help?
I was in no way sneering. All I said is that no one has a right to a particular profession. I believe that making college educations available is a valid way for society to try to better itself by helping people become equipped to support themselves. If they major in art, that’s great. If they are lucky, they will make it as an artist. Or, they can teach art, work at museums, do graphic art, or probably a hundred other things in order to support themselves, and hopefully pay those low-interest loans back. Funding art is a completely different issue.