But BECAUSE the thread was moved, not because of the reasons sited for the move.
It was moved. It probably isn’t going to be moved back. How about we work from here?
You have GOT to be kidding me. Some puddle of urine in the middle of a white room IS NOT a progression from DaVinci, its an embarassment that is evidence of the effect of a blind bureacracy churning out funding for utter nonsense. DaVinci was 500 years ago, and Im sorry to say but the art world has made precious little progress since then. There has been good art, but certainly not better art. And THAT is MY humble opinion.
Maybe art has “made precious little progress” because of the lack of funding?
…what fun is the pit if you can toss a few jabs here and there…the point of this site is to fight ignorance…you think that art “…is worthless junk that shouldn’t have left the storage facility.” im trying to straight out this opinion…that many hold…i think its incorrect so im going to do my best to turn some people to what I think is the correct way of looking at it…also if we all agreed all the time on this site and just let everyone express whatever opinion they desired wouldn’t our partial funding of the site be a waste of money?..regardless, that’s off topic!
I think or at least hope they mean that Art shouldent have to rely on public dollars and that it should be funded by the goverment…I hope anyway…
Why?
I love art, and collect it to the extent that I can manage it financially. As far as public funding, I couldn’t care less about what kind of art it is, there is no reason to fund it with public money.
That is really offensive. It has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship. If anything, there is censorship inherent in the act of the state deciding which art will be funded and which won’t.
Even if I loved it I wouldn’t want it payed for by tax dollars. If I feel strongly about art, I will choose to support it. If I don’t, I shouldn’t have to. And as far as there being better things to bitch about, there sure is an awful lot of money being spent on funding art that would be much better spent in a lot of other places.
I’m hoping as well. You know as well as I that it’s nothing close to what we’re going to hear.
This is my first foray into the Pit.
I’m hoping as well. You know as well as I that it’s nothing close to what we’re going to hear.
This is my first foray into the Pit.
mine to…its something that hits home!
Yes, I am saying that art should not be publicly funded, and no, I am not saying that it is because someone might object to it. What I am saying is that I don’t think the state ought to decide which art is worthy of being funded, and which should not.
Because if it was not publicly funded art wouldn’t exist…that is the plain and simple truth…You think ANY artist earns a living from some big payday after selling a work? dream on…the art you own wouldn’t exist in the first place with out the funding.
Would you rather there be no art then? simply nothing…if these things aren’t public funded they don’t exist and then we all live in Delaware (sorry Delaware). It brings culture to the community, and moves people, makes them feel alive…and you or anyone shouldn’t be able to take that away from people, because it doesn’t fit your bill.
What about artists that are turned down for public funding? How do they create their art?
Well, what about if ALL art were funded?
A line has to be drawn, of course. I’m not a fan of the state deciding what is or isn’t something as well, but we’ve been living with the lines drawn amongst the degrees of murder for quite some time, no?
As far as I know, and someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but you go into an interview session, have a sketch or a description of your work, and through that and your interview, you walk away with funding. If that doesn’t work, you can try private funding through similar methods.
Yeah right. Next time I will base my vote for Mayor on their choice in modern art.
I am often apalled by the money that is spent on this shite. The only person who benefits is the ‘artist’. Most people ignore the art or look at it once and say WTF.
Various private sponsors. No, we cannot just fund the arts through private ventures. That doesn’t work because you lose the progressive edge that is the nature of art.
If you think DaVinci is the pinnacle of art, well, we won’t agree on anything.
We don’t have the really bad art, or much of it, from 500 years ago. We just have the great works. If you think that everyone making art then was a superartist, then sure, it would make today look bad. But contemporary art is going to be a mixture of the bad AND the good. Experimentation has to happen. It can lead to horrible results. It can lead to brilliant results. And, frankly, someone who points to DaVinci isn’t going to be impressed with what I consider the brilliant occasional results because your tastes are very different than mine.
They keep trying for the grants…they don’t make a living on it…dont kid yourself.
Was Rodin publicly funded?
I would recommend you read Jubal Harshaw’s rant on art in “Stranger in a Strange land”.
If musicians have to sink or swim by whether their albums or gigs sell, why not ‘artists’?
“Abstract design is all right- for wall paper or linoleum. But art is the process of evoking pity and terror. What modern artists do is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience… Mmm, one does have to learn to look at art. But it’s up to the artist to use language that can be understood. Most of these jokers don’t want to use a language you and I can learn; they would rather sneer because we ‘fail’ to see what they are driving at. If anything. Obscurity is the refuge of incompetence.”
-“Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land,” Heinlein
I see absolutely no reason that this should be the case. Plenty of progressive art has been privately funded.