Stonebow, thanks for finally giving “the other guys” an intelligent voice.
Sure enough, many people feel this way, but I think you’re intelligent enough to realize that it is only your nagging feeling, and not the reality of the art. I trust you to seek out an education in modern art if you so desire, and not just ignorantly declare that art is not restricted to purdy pitchers of stuff wot looks like things.
:rolleyes:
Not “not.”
Good for them. That thing is hideous.
a lot longer…
I have no idea what you mean…I believe it 100%.
It’s about preparing people for life, and helping to ensure that they can support themselves.
My brother majored in art in college, and he had plenty of training in the practical application of talent. That’s what he learned. Sure, he had other classes, but as an art major, he learned how to paint. And no, I could not have learned it myself if I spent 20 years in college, because I have no talent to begin with.
i dont get the relvance of the seccond half of this, or anything about your brother.
The one in Blackpool is much better 
I think the majority of the people on this board believe that the war is a misuse of public funds. I personally believe that funding Planned Parenthood clinics is a misuse of public funds. None of us have the unilateral power to shut down government spending that we don’t like…that is why we have a democracy. However, I believe there are valid arguments for why we need to be involved in Iraq, and why we need to have Planned Parenthood clinics. There is much less of a valid argument for why the piece “Piss Christ” needs to be supported by the NEA when it clearly offends such a large portion of the population. And, as I said, art is a touchy area…who is going to decide which pieces are OK to fund, and which aren’t? If a grant is turned down due to offensive content, isn’t that censorship?
That is true, but the point I was making about the doctors is that the government does not have an obligation to fund these doctors, because they can’t make a living being a doctor. Of course this is not the reason the government fund the artist…they fund the artist because the government seems to believe that it is an obligation of society to be sure that art is created. In the same way, the government funds the doctors because they want the research done. I would actually argue that both the art and the research would get done without the government’s involvement. At the same time, my opinion is that the research is a better use of revenue than funding art. I know that is an unpopular opinion around here, but that is what I believe. And, no, before anyone accuses me of this, it is NOT because I don’t like art, and I think artists are lazy.
Yes, I agree that art is important. BUT…
I don’t believe that the need for art cannot be adequately fulfilled in the private sector. I sincerely dislike the idea that government is this paternalistic entity that saves the pathetic, unwashed, unsophisticated regular people from themselves. I believe that art would still flourish under patronage from business and other private entities, as it already does today in many instances.
I already mentioned way back in the thread that I believe there is an inherent difference between a museum or library, the intention of which is to enable all to be exposed to art & culture, and spending millions of dollars on large art installations that may or may not be appreciated by the public, or giving a grant to someone to create art that may or may not even be experienced by the public. In these latter cases there is MAYBE some larger societal benefit, but it is nebulous at best.
Again, never said we should destroy the orchestras. I do think it is desirable to raise as much of the funding as possible in the private sector.
They already do raise as much funding as possible in the private sector.
I don’t know if that is necessarily true.
Why would you assume that it isn’t?
I should add that I realize that the private sector doesn’t know what it is doing half the time, either. Our esteemed Mayor Daley here in Chicago raised I think $28 Million for this thing , using all private donations. Personally, I think that if you are going to raise that kind of money to be spent on the arts, it would be much better spent on the library, the art museums, the symphony, etc. I’m quite sure that these types of institutions provide the public a much more worthwhile exposure to art than that bean ever will.
Ah, but what *is * the reality of the art? We have several options, none of which i am happy accepting. I’m not a fan of the idea that ‘everything is art.’ That sort of cheapens the definition of art, and also begs the question, “well, if everything is art, why do you need my money to make it?”
I’d rather my art be inaccessible physically (man, i can’t even imagine how they did that!) and accessible psychologically ( I instinctively understand what it means and why they did it) rather than the reverse. Art should be somewhat arcane in its creation…but it should speak for itself. A term paper explaining the piece makes the actual art redundant.
So, I guess it depends on your preferences. But instinctively, I think people are resistant to the idea of others ‘getting over’ on them, and when you present something as art that requires a trivial amount of effort, or seems like anyone could have come up with, it rankles a bit. Add to that a request for funding of this endeavor, and people can get quite hostile.
Did you not read my post aobut the TSO, The largest private donation they have ever recieved!! in 84 seasons is 5 million dollars!! and they are fighting like dogs to get some money…5 million is small potatos in an endevor like a symphony orchestra season!!!
Well, I’m glad you made it clear it’s just your opinion, because I think that’s a beautiful sculpture - just brilliant! Wow! Thanks for posting that link.
You know…I made it sound more like I don’t like it than I really meant to. I actually think it’s ok, and I have heard that when you see it in person, it is cool the way it reflects everything around it (haven’t had a chance to get down there yet). The problem I have with it is more that it was budgeted to cost $6 million, and it overran to $28 million. :eek: This MAY be more of a commentary on how things are run in Chicago, than on the art itself, but I heard that the main reason for the overrun is because the artist didn’t like that the seams between the individual pieces of steel showed, and it took them a year, and millions of dollars, to polish them so they are less visible at close range. I just think $28 million dollars is an AWFUL lot of $$$, no matter how cool it is, and I’m not sure it’s worthwhile when you compare it to supporting the Art Institute or the library.
The thing is!!! that I can’t tell from that!! how much effort has been made to raise those private donations!!! Seriously, I’m sure they try all kinds of ways to raise $$$. The thing is, Canada is a more socialist government than the US, and I think that when the private sector is used to the government taking care of paying for things (and when taxes are on the high side as a result of this spending), they are less likely to want to pay for things themselves. This could be a contributing factor in the inability for the TSO to be able to raise the money in the private sector.
Good lord. I can’t imagine how to justify $22 million in cost increase on this project. You could probably hire the 50 best metalworkers in the world for an entire year for that much.
But, it’s a gorgeous sculpture. Go figure.
I know, it’s crazy. I WANT to like it…but whenever I see it, I think “$28 million…$28 million…” I just right near the park just yesterday, but I didn’t go see it because it makes me crazy. Someday I will get over it and check it out, but I think it may take me a while.