But all of your objections to federal arts funding applies equally to state arts funding. Lots of people in New York were offended by Cerrano’s picture. Why is it okay for people to foot the bill for art they don’t like if it’s funded by the state, but not okay for people to foot the bill for art they don’t like, just because it’s funded by the feds? And what about the people in Oklahoma who don’t have a problem with Cerrano’s work?
So, is it the first ammendment you don’t like, or just the fourteenth?
You chose the worst possible example-The Eiffel Tower
I thought this was generally known but apparently not. A lot of Parisienne people (from 1889 until now) hate the Eiffel tower. A lot of Parisiennes like the tower but think it is out of place in Paris. If you had ever been to Paris and seen all the other architecture you would see their point.
My friends in Paris confirmed this with me.
I happen to like the Eiffel Tower.
I know it is a free concert. You are a moron, aren’t you.
You are still laughing at your own stupidity. Or are you laughing all the way to the asylum ?
You really cannot see the point? If 300,000 people go every year and enjoy it, then classical music can be sold in huge numbers. Are you too feeble-minded to get that point?
they have committee after committee trying to get private donations…and we like to give too…but its just not enough…i love living here…the community supports the arts, A LOT. its just not enough at the end of th day with concert halls, artistic directors, soloists, etc etc…
trust me, we Canadians don’t just turn our backs on the arts and assume the government covers it all…we try to help…its just a huge endeavor that requires help from all sides.
I can go out on a busy street corner and give away chapbooks of poetry. That doesn’t mean the same people who will take a free chapbook would give me five dollars, or one, or even a nickel. And it doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t find my freebie scattered up and down the street.
No, I think the problem is he isn’t feeble-minded enough to get that point. Lots of people will grab something for free that they’d never in a million years pay for out of their own pocket. If there were such a huge paying demand for orchestral music, why aren’t they going to the symphony in droves already? It’s not like you have to be part of a secret club to get tickets. Anyone can go up and buy one. And it’s not like the public doesn’t know the symphony is out there: 300,000 of them will show up if they can hear it for free, so why aren’t they showing up when they have to pay for it? The answer is, they don’t like it quite enough to pay for tickets.
Now, any chance of you backing up your thesis about the cinema not being art? Of everything posted in this thread, that was far and away the most… interesting idea advanced, and I’m keen to follow up on it.
My point is that classical music is very popular around the world. Thus it does not need Government funding. If you do not like my example, find another example.
But you realize, of course, that the decision to give Andres Serrano a grant was made at the local, not the **national ** level. The National Endowment for Arts gave a grant to the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art in Winston-Salem North Carolina to support a local art competition. SECCA then gave money to Serrano after he won the competition. Clearly at least some folks in North Carolina wanted to support “that kind of art” and if other folks in North Carolina didn’t like it should have remained a local problem.
Most of the NEA grants are like that. They give the money to local art organizations, not directly to the artists themselves.
There is a big difference between saying Movies are art, and “stuff like The Maltese Falcon, Gone with the Wind, The Third Man, Rashomon, Psycho, or Lawrence of Arabia. None of that is art, in your view?”
That is changing position. It is one thing to say ‘Movies are art’. It is another to say ‘These movies are art.’
Read the reasons in the 5 or 10 other posts that explain why a FREE symphony concert is not valid repersentation of weather or not the public will finacially support an orchestra.
<<feels like charlie browns teacher wahwah wah wahwah wah wahwah
Why? Is there something about movies that makes them inherently different from opera or theater?
What about a movie like Ken Russell’s Salome’s Last Dance that’s draws heavily on Wilde’s play? What about Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet? What is it about putting the stories on film that makes them not art?
No, it’s germane to this thread. You seem to have an odd and idiosyncratic definition of what is and is not art, which suggests that your opinion on whether or not public art should be supported isn’t worth much.