I’m not just talking about “training as an artist,” I’m talking about a college education. I’m not of the opinion that the government ought to tell people what major they should have, even if the person is being helped with tuition money. And there are lots of jobs a person can get who are trained in the field of art.
I was talking about a specific circumstance in which an artist does not receive funding because the content of the art is offensive to some, and not because it lacks artistic merit. I think that this is a very problematic area when it comes to the government funding art.
Why shouldn’t the government tell people what they can study, if it’s on the government dime? If it is unacceptable for the government to subsidize professional artists, why isn’t it equally (if not more so) to subsidize student artists? Sure, they can use that talent to get a job in advertising, or graphic design, but why should the government foot the bill so they can get a job? No one has a right to a profession, you’ve said. Why should they have a right to the training for that profession?
Why is it problematic? The government is prohibiting them from creating their offensive art, they’re just choosing not to support them. How is that censorship? And why is the preferred solution to this the cessation of all government funding? If the government choosing to not subsidize one artist is censorship, and that’s a bad thing, how is it a better thing if the government decides not to subsidize any artist? If the first is an act of censorship, how is the second not merely a larger act of censorship?
I think it’s quite telling that with the decrease in government funding to grade schools art and music programs we are now seeing a decrease in the ability to appreciate art beyond the immediately identifiable kind. Perhaps some of the debaters in this thread should take advantage of a different kind of government funding and find a community college in their area that offers Humanities classes.
Perhaps then they would be at least able to realize that “Modern Art” as a school is largely recognized to have ended in the 1970’s and that art produced in the last 30 years or so is being badly mislabeled and that Andy Rooney is an uneducated jackass.
I agree with this 100% which is why I tend to oppose government funding. It’s not the money itself, as that is just a drop in the bucket compared to defense, but the fact that so much publically funded art totally sucks. Good art comes from strife and heartache, things that are possibly not true about the life of the twenty-year-old college art student who gets these grants. Sure, different strokes for different folks, but IMO there is way more heart in a painting by Van Gogh, who had strife and heartache out the ass, than there is in “Yellow Peril,” which while a very sharp-looking piece inspires no emotion in me whatsoever. For those who clicked on the link in blinkingblinking’s post, does that thing make you feel anything? What? There is a lot of good new art out there but in general it is not the stuff in front of libraries or museums. That stuff is meant to be as bland and easy to digest as possible. Or maybe I’m just an twat who doesn’t “get it” and I should bow in deference to the art students who obviously know more than I do about what should excite my emotions and thoughts.
Scrolling up, I also agree with Triskademacus that the true art of the people is folk art, not these publically funded steel monstrosities created with great skill but no heart. The true works of art are not being made by art students, or at least, not only and mostly not by art students. They are being made by housewives, retirees, people with a fifth-grade education, people with a Ph.D in astrophysics, mental patients, terminal patients, and anyone else who picks up a pen or paints or clay.
Big, publically funded art projects just put a bad taste in my mouth. They are too oversanitized and designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, while pretending to have much deeper meaning. Almost like a standardization of art. I think we are getting into a situation where we ignore what’s really going on in the art world (i.e. everyday life) in favor of heaping praise on good technical artists who don’t have enough life experience to make truly inspiring art.
read “begins with the oboe, A Histroy of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra” by Richard S. Warren
or “Discord ,The Story of the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra” By John Becker, To see the crucial role the govermment funding plays in these organizations.
Which is really funny, because the people screaming that the art isn’t good enough are then screaming that it’s hurting other artists. With friends like these, artists don’t need enemies.
Sounds a lot like our idiot president talking. It’s not at all about making life better overall, it’s simply about education.
You’re placing a whole lot of importance on teacher-to student based education as opposed to practical application of talent. Both are important in shaping a person’s skill set, but your slider seems to be thrust way on the “education” side. Would that mean that you can get a pig to paint a Picasso with enough time in the classroom? What about a racoon, an animal with opposable thumbs (so it can hold a paintbrush)?
This logic doesn’t make much sense to me. If someone finds a government expenditure offensive, that alone makes it a misuse of public funds? A lot fo people are offended by the war in Iraq. Does that fact alone make it a misuse of public funds? A lot of people are offended by affirmative action, or welfare, or funding Planned Parenthood clinics. Does that fact alone make it a misuse of public funds? I think we need a standard for “misuse” a little more stringent than, “Some people don’t like it,” else we’ve just invalidated the entire concept of government altogether.
But there are thousands of doctors who do live off of government grants. Medical researchers are the obvious example, a great many of whom rely on grants to support their research, but are hospitals also not supported, at least in part, by government money?
I think you’re looking at this the wrong way around. The goal is not to support artists, the goal is to support art. The idea is that art is a necessary component to a robust and healthy society. I’m assuming you agree with this axiom, at the least. The argument in favor of funding is that, absent government support, there will be insufficient art produced to meet this demand, or that the art will be of inferior quality. That’s a debatable point, of course, but not one I’ve seen you address except in passing - more on that later.
Now, applying that to your dogwalking analogy - is dogwalking a necessary function of the public? Will society as a whole suffer if there is insufficient walking of dogs? If there is, then yes, the government should pay you to walk dogs. That’s what the government is for: to meet the needs and requirements of society that cannot be adequately fulfilled by private individuals. Since there are no good arguments (as far as I’m aware) as to the critical necessity of well-exercised canines to the social good at large, I’m afraid you’re SOL on the dog-walking subsidy.
Since you’re the one advocating a change to the status quo, I think the burden falls on you to provide evidence that orchestras (and museums, and galleries, and what the hell, let’s throw libraries in there, too) can survive without government aid. Certainly there are some that could, and already do. But a total revocation of all government monies seems certain to result in massive closures of such institutes across the country.
Let’s put it this way, since you’re a lover of the symphony - would you be willing to risk the total destruction of every orchestra of which you are a patron, to test out your theory on the economic viability of the symphony as a private endeavor? Personally speaking, I’d rather have some numbers at hand to support my position on a drastic, possibly destructive change in the sphere of social policy, before I started advocating such a position as desirable.
I am not assuming everyone dislikes “Yellow Peril”. It has been well documented that the majority of Melburnians dislike it.
I do not give a flying fuck about your opinions on art.
As I have said numerous times here, I do not like this ‘art’ to be funded from taxes. If you want it, then get it privately funded. My opinions on whether I like the ‘art’ or not would not change my mind about not wanting it funded by taxes.
Is that so difficult for you to understand? And also try to use a few apostrophes in your rants.
Try to think of life without this art. I wish I could. These are huge pieces. If you go somewhere near them they dominate. That is the problem.
If I want to see painting, I go to an art gallery. If I want to listen to music, I have many classical CDs. It is not forced upon anyone.
I am not advocating a world without art. I am advocating a world without tax funded monstrosities. I do not like the fact that I cannot go to a place without being assailed by them.
Give me a goddamn cite. I want you to find a cite that says the majority of melburnians dislike it…now a cite doesn’t consist of a wikipedia article that says a Newspaper called it the “yellow peril”, just so you know.
Its not about me getting you to enjoy art I dont give a fuck what you like or don’t like! . You’re probably a fucking drag to hang around with judging by your worthless bullshit posts and your inability to look over some bullshit punctuation and then try to derail a topic with it…go bugger a kangaroo
Yeah beware the attack of the killer artwork…its actually taking over my life!!!
ahem, ok seriously
Are you retarded?
And about the orchestra, You buy classical music cd’s? excellent…how much do you think that orchestra makes off a recording? How does new music get recorded? if everyone just listens to their cd’s of music that’s already been recorded…sure that is extremes but do you see the point? Cd’s will help a orchestras financial situation…but it will not match the money it makes from the Govt…its really a small insignificant piece of that pie…
I know exactly what you mean. It got completely out of hand in one city. Some clown got this idea for a massive iron monument to commemorate the anniversary of a political event – big deal in their history. A bunch of the avant garde (pretentious lot) supported his plan. Others were horrified and a petition of protest with over three hundred names – some of them rather famous – was submitted. They were overruled. One translation of that petition reads as follows:
Strangely enough, Andy Rooney approves of Picasso even though he doesn’t necessarily understand him.
You are arguing against a point that I did not make. That’s very illogical. I’m also thinking that you use the term modern as if it means the same as abstract or representational. Would you clarify?
blinkingblinking: I cannot see Peter Singer agreeing that we should spend millions of dollars on public ‘art’ while people are starving around the world. Although I have never read his particular opinion on this topic.
I’m a fan of Peter Singer. Always glad to meet another. I can’t image that he would suggest abandoning funds for art anymore than he would suggest that we abandon money for education. But, I’m no expert. I’ll see if I can find anything.
I share your opinion of the movies you listed. But I’ve seen movies that are art just as I’ve seen individual photographs that are art. You’ve probably seen some too and just not thought of them as art.
Because “lameness” doesn’t endure well. It’s a dead end. No new movement will spring from it. It doesn’t provoke or excite or challenge the intellect. I read somewhere that when Ernest Hemingway was young and living in Paris, he used to study a certain painting by Cezanne – I think it was Apples and Oranges. He felt that it taught him something about composition – about writing.
Thomas Kinkade (I’ve corrected my misspelling) would inspire heavy sentiment and shallowness. If I were trying to inspire students in a very basic high school composition class, I would still give them a good piece of art to work from – never something that was “lame” or mediocre.
The fact that you cannot go anywhere without being assailed by them? Isn’t that your problem? Isn’t that just you being a Mini-Rooney and saying “Hey you hippie artists! Get offa my lawn!”
Sounds like your problem to overcome. Not something to deprive the rest of society from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkingblinking
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.
Holy fuck, are you for real? Movies aren’t art? Tell me this was ironic, or a typo, or something, because otherwise, The Stupid inherent in this post just broke my brain.
Miller, I think that if you keep saying that Police Academy movies are art, then maybe your brain was broken long ago.