Cite??
this is the exact bullshit that made me post in here…
One reason would be exactly the same reason we fund football stadiums, as mentioned above. A campus or a downtown that is aethestically pleasing encourages economic vitality–if I was looking to move my company into an area, I’d be much more likely to go to the place that looks prosperous and beautiful than to a Soviet-looking downtown. Furthermore, many cities profit tremendously from tourism, and I think it’s responsible use of tax dollars to fund things that help develop a city’s persona in order to encourage tourism. Lastly, I think people are probably more respectful towards govenment when it presents itself with some degree of pomp and circumstance.
Expressions are contagious. Not everyone passes by art and says “What the fuck is this monstrousity?” Many appreciate in silence or smile in appreciation. Some stand and study it for a while, much like they do in an art gallery.
What do the proponents of not publically funding art think of Christo and Jeanne Claude’s work?
Yeah, art has often relied on patronage of some kind or another - while I’d be thrilled to see more private patronage (with the caveat that I’d be concerned that the artists not get stuck painting prettified portraits of their patrons (omg the alliteration, my apologies)), public funding picks up where that role left off. Without a bunch more lombards that’s what we’re stuck with if we want to see many future Michaelangelos.
Caution, post contains hyperbole.
I never said they did make a living at it. All I am saying is that I don’t believe that they have a right to make a living at it. Lots of people want to do things that they can’t make a living doing, so they fund themselves by having jobs. And I know something about this…my brother is an artist who works at a regular job, an incredibly boring job, for a paycheck. He makes just enough to scrape by, and spends the rest of his time creating. LOTS of people do this. He has never applied for a grant, and even if he never sold a work in his life, he would never stop the creative process.
I never said that art should not be displayed in public…I said that art should not be publicly funded.
It would be great to have this kind of public art, funded with money raised specifically for that purpose, rather than tax dollars.
This reminds me of a local church whose pastor wanted to commission a great work of art for over the altar. He got volunteers to raise a million bucks for it. More power to him…good for him, good for his parish, good for the artist. But as good as it is, it doesn’t mean that that money should be taken from the regular donations used to support the parish and the good works the parish does. A special fund raising effort was the right way to do it.
This is where it hits home…Your talking to a profesional musician who makes his income playing mostly “art” or “classical” music…the majority of this money comes from grants…even if its not a grant directly to me…its a grant to a composer who wrote the work…i recorded an album this year on money via the goverment. Would I have been able to record it other wise? probably not…is it selling millions and am i making a killing on, Deff not…Is it turing some people on and inspiring them or even introducing them to some new music…deffiantaly…and this is how it works. It is No different for a Artist and a piece of art…we’re all in this together. and if some how the money is gone for this, we’re all workin 9-5 in a cube and there’s less and less art, music. creativity…etc…
I have serious problems with funding football stadiums. In my mind, it is very hard to justify, even on grounds of bringing in tax dollars, which is the typical argument. I do agree to an extent with programs to beautify cities, but this isn’t exactly the same as funding art. Many times, private enterprise is encouraged to take on these beautification projects, including designing attractive buildings, creating free space around the buildings, etc. I certainly agree that HAVING public art is a terrific thing, but I believe that there needs to be a different method of funding it than using tax revenue.
Its sad that a couple of idiots would rather spend hundreds of thousands of dollars wrapping some island in plastic instead of building a house for someone in New Orleans, or Indonesia, or even fund an ACTUAL artist. Hey, its a free country. Pointless waste is free to thrive.
Meh. Money is collected from the congregation to be used by the church. I don’t see a huge reason he had to hold a specific drive for it, unless he thought that he’d get more money by holding something for a specific cause (like PBS does with their pledge drives.)
The pastor didn’t do it because he felt money should be cordoned off specifically for that function. He did it because he knew he’d get more money. If he ran more drives for all sorts of projects, he’d run the risk of crying wolf.
I fail to see exactly what your problem is with public funding of arts.
How are these people inspired then? how did they or your brother get into art...perhaps a piece they saw or witnessed throught granted money? If effects alot of people alot of ways..this is why the art exists..inspiration...The OP seemed to be talking specifically about public art–not just publically funded art–which is always going to be part of city beautification programs. While it is true that cities work with corporate sponsors for these things, the basic fact remains that you have to be ok with the idea that community aesthetics are a area in which government has the right to operate. If nothing else, are you ok with taxes funding the saleries of the people that organize the corporate sponsors, select the art, etc? Without some level of government involvement, that sort of thing couldn’t happen.
You know, I do a job. If no one wants my work, or thinks Im worth paying for, I go hungry. The government doesnt bail me out with some “hey its OK, whatever it is you are doing, its worth paying for” kind of make believe money. The same was true in DaVinci’s day.
As a taxpayer, I’ll certainly help subsidise helping young people get the opportunity to prove themselves, but keeping some bum on subsistence to “do his thing” that honestly no one is really interested in (not enough to part with thier hard earned cash), why should you be able to take my hard earned cash through a govornment grant? If no one wants your work, you need to look at another career, perhaps go back to school. Going commercial is not “selling out, dude”, its doing what all good artists did throughout the centuries to make ends meet and settle up with society so they could wank in their garage all they wanted with their “experiments”.
Then how?
what a hump.
Just because a tragedy hapened somewhere means EVERTHING in the ENTIRE world shuts down?? Art stops when there is strife?
What makes them idiots?? What makes their creations any more important then a house in new orleans…how are those 2 things even related??
Meh yourself. I think the reason he did it was twofold. One, you are right…he raised more money that way (so he was able to spend MORE money to fund the art…see how that works?) And two, the parishoners donate money to the parish with a tacit understanding that it will be spent for certain things…like, running the parish & feeding the poor, etc. To spend a million bucks (more than they take in a year, most likely) on art would be considered an unacceptable usage of these funds.
My problem with it is that there are much, much better uses for the tax dollars, and it is a violation of public trust to spend money where it is not needed.
Andthts exctly it, for one person who consiers it a Bum. “dong his thing” 5 might thing its right on and are so imprssed and inspired by it…everyrything is not for everybody all of the time…If you thin that great artists throught the centuries just paid the piper to makle ends meet then your dumb as shit…if we all created what we thoght the public wanted we are all living a lie in some bullshit utopia…i’ll bring back my FIRST post, we never did our thing we would all be Mozart (in the music world) and who wants that??
Aren’t we also assuming that if you don’t make a wild commercial success early in your days, that you’ll never come up with anything?
I agree with your assessment of how some would blacklist “sellouts” because they’ve gone commercial. If you can be creative and happy nad make the world better AND get paid, then you’re having a good life.
A large part of (if not the majority of) Leonardo’s work was commissioned by either the church or the government. It has always been the case that governments, with greater or lesser success, attempt to beautify the public space. One can certainly make an argument that they shouldn’t, but it’s not something new.
They are related because every tax dollar that goes to fund this kind of art is a dollar that could be spent helping people rebuild the houses in New Orleans. There are endless people in need of food & shelter, and there are not endless dollars to help them. So why should money be funneled towards people who are perfectly capable of earning a living?