You do realise that classical music, particularly symphonic music, has since its beginnings been funded by the government?
Wow, let’s not open that can of worms. It’s an unanswerable question (although the best I can come up with “Art is a way of seeing.”) But that’s not really what I was asking. To continue:
Exactly. What you prefer is perfectly valid, and I enjoy that kind of stuff too, among other things. But it is merely your preference. An opinion. One of many.
I remember when I worked in a video store. We had a “rent 10, get one free” policy. That is, for every ten movies you rented, and they didn’t have to be rented on the same day, we’d put a credit on your account. This was good for a free movie any time you wanted it. Some customers took great pride in racking up lots of credits. They looked forward to that rainy day some years in the future.
But there was one customer who hated the idea of credits. She somehow had it in her head that if she used a credit, she’d somehow end up owing us money with interest, sort of like using a credit card. No amount of explaining it to her would convince her. She was absolutely positive that we were trying to “get over” on her.
Did we change our policy to placate her fears? Fuck no. Some people are just paranoid. It’s a bad idea to placate the paranoid.
So some people think that abstract art is some sort of con. Bully for them. Such people have no place dictating how an artist should express himself. I would like to think that most artists are above that sort of Very Silly criticism.
As well, some people have not clue one how much effort some art requires. To them I would say “If you think you can do better, than go ahead and do so.”
As to your comment that a work of art should stand on its own: Why? That seems unnecessarily restrictive. I love having great art explained to me. It enhances my enjoyment. You seem to be in favor of dumbing things down to appeal to the unwashed masses. And indeed, there is great value in popular and easy-to-understand art. But why should art be boxed in like that? Do you see no value in something that requires a deeper understanding?
Let me give you an example: Years ago I had the good fortune to attend an exhibit of Monet’s works. I saw a painting of a haystack. Big fucking deal. It’s a haystack. Monumentally mundane. And next to it was… another painting of a haystack. And next to that was yet another, and another. I think five or six in all.
It struck me as extraordinarily stupid. Why not paint something more exciting, like explosions or car chases? Surely there was nothing fun about haystacks.
And then a docent explained it. They were not paintings of haystacks, they were paintings of light. They were an exploration of how sunlight transforms mundane objects at different times of day. The docent explained how Monet went out to the same field every day, for months, toting along each one of those canvases. As the day progressed, he would move from one canvas to the next and capture the unique light of that part of the day.
Once this was explained to me, I was transformed. It was like every molecule in my body was rearranged. It was truly awe-inspiring. I was seeing magic.
So yes, Virginia, there is value in art that doesn’t speak in small words.
Then take a closer look. Most orchestras are downright aggressive in their fundraising. And they always – always – hire the best publicists they can afford. They hire true pros.
How so, exactly? I mean, depending on how one looks at it, one could argue that either the war in Iraq, or the funding of Planned Parenthood, leads directly to the death of innocent people. Who has died because Andres Cerrano peed on a crucifix? You keep harping on “offensiveness” as some standard for distributing the government largesse, but you’re using as your example possibly the least offensive thing the government could spend money on: some guy taking a photograph.
Why not the people who decide it right now?
No, not even remotely.
Has anyone actually argued that the government has an obligation to fund artists? I think most people here have just said that its a really good idea. No one is arguing that the Constitution is compelling NEA grants.
Well, when you get around to making that argument, let me know. So far, all you’ve done is state it repeatedly without providing any evidence that this is so.
No, I’m pretty sure that most people around here would put cancer research solidly ahead of interpretive dance. But nice try at playing the martyr.
Leaving aside that massive non-sequitor in the middle of that paragraph…
What leads you to believe that, if the government stopped all arts funding, that the private sector would step up to fill the shortfall? Presumably, the private sector is already spending as much as they’re willing to spend to support the arts. Cutting government funding of the arts would lead, inexorably, to less art being produced. Which, please note, is not the same as saying that no art would be produced. No one has argued that here.
I think you’re creating a false dichotomy there. What publically funded art is not made available to the public at large? Why are you okay with the government spending a large amount of money to support a museum, but not okay with the government spending a very, very, very small amount of money to allow the creation of a new work of art? Aside from the matter of scale, how is the intent behind funding museums any different than the intent behind funding a specific work of art?
I never said you wanted to destroy them. I said that’s likely to be a consequence of what you advocate. Even you have to admit that it’s a possible result: you don’t know for a fact that orchestras could survive purely on private funding. You think they might, but you don’t have any actual evidence that this is the case. Unless you’ve been holding out on us.
Let me ask you this: if I could show for a fact that orchestras could not survive without public funding, would you still call for the cessation of such funding?
Why on Earth would you think they aren’t doing this already?
Because if they aren’t, then she wins the debate.
Ha ha! Actually, no one will ever win this debate, because it is a matter of opinion.
In some ways. But whether or not orchestras need public funds is not a matter of opinion. I’m sure their financial records have cold, hard numbers.
True, but I’m sure you know that’s not what I meant. What I meant was that it is a matter of opinion whether or not the government ought to fund the arts, and to what extent. I am of the opinion that IN GENERAL the government funds too damn much. That is obviously not the opinion of a lot of other people, and the problem with winning or losing an argument about it is that it is nothing BUT an opinion.
What percentage of the federal budget do you think would be a reasonable amout to spend on art?
Now, I let this sort of thing slide in your earlier response, but frankly, not only is your condescension wearing thin, it’s quite emblematic of the issue at hand. I run into the same issue when listening to the explanations of professors at my university explain their way out of a +50% failure rate in their classes. They try to defend themselves by blaming the students for not trying hard enough. Not once does it cross their mind that perhaps it is the professor’s own inability to communicate effectively that leads to failure. Same thing with art. If the greater part of your audience has to have the meaning of a piece explained (and I agree, some knowledge of context can add greatly to the enjoyment of a work), perhaps you’re just not very good at making art.
I’ll not concede your example simply because you felt the need to name-drop Monet. I can see several ways of display that would make the artist’s *meaning * quite clear without an explanation- certainly, an added note would add to the enjoyment of a viewing, but it isn’t necessary. That’s my point.
In any case, this difference of opinion is not helped by your oh-so-clever remarks about ‘small words’ and ‘purdy pitchers.’ You’re only reinforcing the belief that artists and their defenders, while trying to make the case for their craft, are simply trying to find a new jargon by which to exclude the very people footing the bill.
And, while we’re busy not opening cans of worms, I won’t address the thought that perhaps what we have, due to financial incentives, a glut of things billing themselves as art on the market…and perhaps a reduction in overall funding would reduce the noise-to-signal ratio. This has been explored briefly in several Intellectual Property debates here.
I wasn’t being condescending, that’s just my warped sense of humor. Sorry if it offended.
I wasn’t name-dropping, I was recalling the best example I knew. The explanation made all the difference for me. I could think of other examples, but I’m embarassed to admit that I can’t recall the artists or titles.
Don’t read too much into the “small words” comment. Once again, it’s my weird sense of humor (which many don’t find humorous). As for “purdy pitchers”, take that as insulting and condesceding as you’d like. That’s how it was meant. It’s a big hearty Fuck You to people who fail to even try to understand art, then condemn those who like it, make it, and pay for it as some sort of elitists.
The federal budget, probably zero.
By which I assume, you don’t have a problem with the govenrment funding arts at a state level?
What’s the difference?
That, I think, is a whole other conversation/thread.
Bullshit.
Oh, please. Seriously. It’s a philosophical concept that applies to art and to many other things the federal government spends money on. I have strong libertarian leanings and I believe in sharply reducing spending at the federal level. I know that you disagree with me. We could have another discussion that goes round and round regarding who is right, but where would it get us?
But it’s exactly on-topic for this thread. How is it not?
Look, if you’re not willing to defend your own statements, don’t put them forward in the first place. If you are unwilling or unable to defend your view that there is a material difference between art funding at the state level and art funding at the federal level, don’t introduce it into the conversation. Doing otherwise is not debating in good faith. “I have reasons for my opinion, but they’re too complicated to go into,” is a cheap cop-out. Put up or shut up: what makes funding the arts at the state level okay, but funding them at the federal level not okay? How do the arguments you’ve used in here against federal funding not apply to state funding?
Or, for that matter, to local/municipal funding, which you seem to be fine with?
The reason I am not terribly interested in going over this again is because it was already covered pages ago, and as I said, I feel that we are going around in circles. But, if you insist I give you an answer…the reason I believe spending is better done at the local/state level is basically the same reason I think most spending should be done at the local/state level: because government at this level has a much better shot at representing its constituency than the federal government does. There was a lot of discussion already about how to fund art that is accessible to everyone. I will again give “Piss Christ” as an example of a work of art that may be acceptable to more liberal, less religious people, such as those in NYC, where I believe the work was exhibited. If New Yorkers want to support that kind of art, they are entitiled to. But I don’t believe that people in another part of the country, who may have different ideas about what kind of art they would like to support, should have to have their taxes go to fund this kind of exhibit. Heck, I believe that if people in Arkansas want to teach “intelligent design” in their public schools, then this is their perogative. I may not agree with it, but my way of dealing with that is by NOT moving to Arkansas. I think this is a much better way of coping with our differences than having the feds run everything, and thereby forcing everyone to live under the same “rules,” as it were.