[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/quote]
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?
[QUOTE=Zoe]
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:
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
It’s a joke, son.
Talk about not seeing the point - Do you really think those 300 000 would all go if they had to pay? I mean, really? I can’t believe you’re using attendance at a free concert to point out that there’s a “market” for anything. All you prove is that people like Classical music, not that they’re willing to pay for it. The two are clearly not equivalent, and it’s the latter point that’s important, and that you still have to show.
I’m still laughing.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks Dad.
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?
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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 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?
[/QUOTE]
i swear to fuck Hellen Keller hada easier time understanding than you do.
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
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?
[/QUOTE]
How do you think you’re proving that point.
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.
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
How do you think you’re proving that point.
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.’
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, why should we find an example to prove your point?
There’s a difference? Really? What is this difference, precisely?
What? No it isn’t. It’s exactly the same thing. What the hell are you talking about?
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
I am have troubling understanding this sentence. What on earth do you mean?
[/QUOTE]
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
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
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.’
[/QUOTE]
But you didn’t say “Some movies aren’t art.”
You said
which is hard to interpret any other way than “I don’t think movies are art.”
[QUOTE=percussion]
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
[/QUOTE]
Do you honestly spell like that? Or is it some feeble attempt at humour?
[QUOTE=blinkingblinking]
Yes that is right. I do not think Movies are art. Good deduction, Sherlock.
[/QUOTE]
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.