I’ll restate mine. Shakespeare already existed and already wrote what he was going to write. It’s done. It exists. A talented person could spend years studying Shakespeare and then write something that would fool most people. But why in the hell would anyone, ever, want to do that? Brilliance in art doesn’t come from simply sounding exactly like someone else. There’s a reason that we know Rembrandt’s name and not the names of all of his students who could paint just like him.
Once you have the template, the original artwork, you can duplicate it. You can make machines to duplicate it. That isn’t art.
The idea that a great number of artists couldn’t replicate the Mona Lisa is just laughable. Look at the damn painting sometime. If DaVinci hadn’t existed, you wouldn’t be impressed with someone painting that now. You’d bitch about how her color is off, how her proportions are odd, how the background images are almost Photoshopped in. Art that is not a product of its time is irrelevant. Works cannot be shuffled around in time and retain their importance.
Yes, many artists can sound, look, read like someone else. That they don’t isn’t a lack of ability, it’s a lack of desire. It makes no sense to subsume art into the creation of things that already exist, in meaningful forms. It’s a fun parlor trick, but it’s pointless otherwise.
I can’t count the number of challenges or exercises I’ve participated in where we wrote Prufrock in the style of Ginsberg, or Chaucer in the style of Li Po. It takes some skill but it doesn’t take genius–it takes nothing like the creation of the art in the first place took.
Late to the game, but with all this “go to your public library and look it up” flying around, I just thought I’d point out that your public library is paid for with at least some government funding, and it’s full of things people don’t like. I don’t think there’s a single book in here that everybody can agree on. Should we stop funding public libraries because not everybody likes all the books?
Hell, I regularly process magazines I hate, deeply and personally. Brio is morally and aesthetically offensive to my very being. I still think it’s right and proper that our county council funding pay to buy it.
So, when someone gets government funding to go to medical school, is that getting funding to go into a particular profession or not?
And since it doesn’t seem to be sinking in despite others saying it, art grants don’t allow some sort of life of leisure in perpetuity while the artist lounges around sneering at the proletariat. A friend of mine just won a $5000 grant which enables her to take a leave of absence from her job for the summer to work on a very exciting project. Poetry writing isn’t her profession. There’s no money in it. (Excluding things like the Poetry awards, but those are too rare to matter and go to people who aren’t hurting in the first place.) I’m sure you’d just as soon the art die out since it’s not commercially viable.
…enjoy your 9-5 job chachi, you sound like one bitter bloke.
Now. If people cannot create anything that measures up to what Bach, or Mozart, or even my favorite composer Beethoven could create, Could you please…tell me what is so significant about these composers? Why do we hold them in such esteem…what are the qualities that they had that no one since them have been able to trump…I think you’re talking straight out of your asshole…After all composers like Brahms, Chaikovsky, Mahler, Stravinsky, Puccini, Bartok, these composers must of just had that knack…didn’t study music for a day in their life? They must of been born masters. I mean. there’s noooooooooooooooo way they studied bach, beethoven. and mozart in their training and then were creative enough with the tools they gained and made it something of their own…not as you say…tossed it aside and created cacophony. It’s getting back to the idea that this all a progression again…this conversation is like a hamsterwheel…oh!
KNOW THE SHIT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU ACT LIKE AN AUTHORITY, FUCKFACE. (How’s that for capitalization?)
Well, Malacandra, you got him to use some capital letters; too bad they are mostly in the wrong places. Now, if we could just work on sentence structure and coherence of thought…
Indeed. It’s hard to think of a style of art more tradition-bound and rigid than Byzantine iconography, but it’s still perfectly possible to tell a mediocre iconographer (such as the guy who produced this, who is known for being technically skilled but highly lacking in vitality or “spirit” – his works are just paint-by-numbers reproductions) from a very good and creative iconographer (such as Vladimir Grigorinko, currently painting the interior of St. Seraphim cathedral in Dallas) from a true master and innovator (such as St. Andrei Rublev, who many consider to be the greatest iconographer of all time).
To those of you who are saying there’s no point in working in a style that’s already been done, are you honestly saying that you can’t see a difference between this and this?
I think the issue here that is really bugging me the most is the total disapreciation for art in ones life. Maybe even the lack of realizing how much art effects one persons life in the run of a day. There are a lot of comments about how modern art is shit, money needs to go else where, shouldn’t get paid for through Govt, “artists” need to get real jobs or go back to school…etc. Try to think of life without some of this art. and be honest about…Think about the buildings you work or frequent, with out this funded art. Think of Orchestra concerts you have attended. Without government supporting these arts it wouldn’t exist. all of this has such impact on your life, let you are so quick and ignorant to pass huge sweeping judgments on what you think art is you don’t realize how ignorant it is. Even if that isn’t the original post. Peoples Blissfully ignorant comments on what artists make, and how lazy they are and how worthless their creations are for everyone that sees them. That is what is killing me in this thread.
Yes, but the government is not reponsible for the doctor to be able to support himself in that profession after graduation. Education is one thing, what you do after you complete your education is something else. If the person CAN’T support himself as a doctor, then he has to find another way to support himself.
I have never been under the impression that artists just lie around. Most work very hard. Most have to have actual jobs to support themselves AND do their art. It is not easy, I completely understand that. But I do not see why the government needs to support their calling to be an artist. That’s all. I have been thinking of writing a book, and I wouldn’t think in a million years of leaving my job and expecting someone to give me money to write it. If it gets written, it will be done in my spare time. And it may or may not get published…the overwhelming likelihood is that it will not, and that’s the way it goes. I’m sure your friend’s project is a worthwhile one, but that doesn’t mean that the government should pay her to do it.
The government is also not responsible for the artist to be able to support herself in that profession after graduation. Grants are one thing. What you do after getting one is something else. If the person can’t support herself as a doctor, then she has to find another way to support herself.
It’s just that the money to artists comes after they’ve become artists and the money to other vocations comes before they become that vocation. And Jesus, artists at least have to prove that they are artists already, and the money they get is much much MUCH smaller.
First of all, I don’t think anyone here does not appreciate art. I support the arts myself, buy donating to museums, getting subscriptions to the symphony, etc. But I don’t believe that art would not exist without government funding. And, incidentally, for me it doesn’t really have much to do with whether or not it is art that I, personally, appreciate. BUT, I do think that funding art publicly is problematic from this standpoint. If government funding is used, then I think there is a responsibility to fund art that will be appreciated by the general public, which seems to me is a good way to water down art into something bland and meaningless. I also think that it is very touchy in a society like ours to have a situation where a piece of art may offend someone. Should the government have to fund all art regardless of this possibility that it may offend, and if not, isn’t this censorship?
If your attending any symphony orchestra concert, it is Govt funded…and would not exist other wise. Kudos to you for subscribing, I wish there were more that did.
Right, but, let’s say, hypothetically, that Mr. Artist gets gov’t funding at a level which enables him to persue his art as his living. I guess that means he can support himself as an artist, because he’s found a way to get paid enough for his art to live on. I’m not sure how it is that “being paid by the government to produce art based on grant criteria” is any different than the myriad other “payment for services” arrangements we call jobs.
Let’s take the following scenarios:
[ul]
[li]Government decides it wants to pay for specific artistic projects (a sculpture, let’s say)[/li][li]Government pays individuals or organizations, who must use said money according to guidelines set out by the government, to produce a product for the community (previously mentioned sculpture).[/li][/ul]
Or…
[ul]
[li]Government decides it wants to pay for specific infrastructure projects (roads, let’s say)[/li][li]Government pays individuals or organizations, who must use said money according to guidelines set out by the government to produce product for the community (previously mentioned road).[/li][/ul]
Now, one might argue (as is happening in this thread), that the government has no business hiring artists for anything. I happen to think it’s a silly argument, but one could certainly make some sort of case for it. However, to imply that simply because the work is of an ‘artistic’ nature, that being paid by the government for it doesn’t make it a job is ridiculous. You may disagree with the necessity of the job, but to constantly insist that it’s not a career because either the government is paying the salary or because other people do the work for free just makes no sense.
Am I getting a slight misapprehension here? Usually (other than “Artist in Residence” programmes which aren’t all that frequent, or often gov. funded), Government doesn’t pay an artist - it’s usually for a particular work, which then belongs to the gov.
In a very real sense, the gov. is buying a physical thing from the artist, something that the gov. wants. The administrators of public space have determined that some art would pretty the place up/make a meaningful statement/give everyone in town a laugh.
It’s no different from the gov. buying, say, a tree for in front of the Town Hall. And someone like mrrealtime objecting because the city bought an oak (which he considers an ugly tree) rather than a beech (which he considers a beautiful, classic tree). If I came into the Pit ranting that my City council had put in a row of ugly cottonwoods rather than cherry trees, I’m sure I’d be a laughing stock.
And that’s what the OP was - “Waah, not everyone shares my [lack of] taste” “Modern Art is ugly”. It’s gotten hijacked into an argument about liberal vs. libertarian models of artist funding, but that wasn’t how it started - it was the kind of art that was objected to.
If you ask me, the OP is a discredit to the exclusive club of posters called “mr”.
Well, let’s say something ought to be appreciated by, oh, 55% of the general public. After all, the government does plenty of things that are supported by a narrow majority of the people (and sometimes by only a minority). That’s sort of how the government works.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that most art funded with public money is appreciated by at least a large minority of its audience. This isn’t true always. Pieces of garbage will get through, as they will in any system. How is the system broken? Is there a cite that the M.O. for gov’t funding of art is to fund projects that aren’t appreciated by the general public?
You’re asking about funding all art, which, as Little Nemo pointed out to me, some folks in this thread are advocating. I happen to think that that is clearly an impractical and pretty silly proposition, but if we step away from that extreme, can you show how our current system isn’t exactly that which you describe above; namely, selective support of the arts based on concrete goals and aesthetic value?
