You make it sound like the government subsidizes art and nothing else, which is not even remotely true. Plenty of huge industries get money from the government. I find that more confusing than these art grants, and I expect it’s more expensive.
I only saw a little of this rant, but it pissed me off. What the fuck does Andy Rooney know about art? Nothing, he proclaims. But it doesn’t matter, he’ll go on about how this stuff ‘isn’t art.’ I long for a day when people who admit they’re ignorant will shut the fuck up instead of going on TV to demonstrate their ignorance. I don’t even have an opinion on the artwork, I just Rooney a tiresome moron.
Could you elaborate on this a little bit? Have you made a comprehensive survey of all art produced since Da Vinci?
More to the point: How much do you know about art? This exact same topic has come up many times here on the SDMB, and it’s always someone who admits they know nothing of art, yet feels qualified to make sweeping statements like “modern art is stupid.” Invariably, people who’ve put some study into the subject disagree.
As I see it, there are two possible explanations: (1) Art schools are brainwashing students, or (2) art really does have value, but you won’t see it if you sit on your ass and passively wait for it to present itself.
Come to think of it, mrrealtime, can you, right now, off the top of your head, tell us what’s so great about Da Vinci? How about Michelangelo? Beethoven? Shakespeare?
Uh, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars wrapping plastic around stuff? What more do you need??
Nothing. What makes the House in New Orleans more important is that people can live in the house. Possibly some family. This family might have a certain member who develops some artistic talent. I know, I know, artistic talent in New Orleans, crazy right? Well, if it were making a healthy home for people vs. wrapping an island in plastic, Id go with the home. And no, the world doesnt stop. Real ART occurs when the displaced people take a photograph of the event. Paint a picture. Make up a song on their washed out porch. That, percussion, is ART. Anything beyond technique and history that you get taught in “art school” is pretentious bullshit, and is NOT ART.
Re-meh. You don’t think that a pastor that would have spent the money for whatever he felt needed it? He’d have dipped into the general fund to fund for it if he had to. Do you think that money that was raised for the art and NOT spent was left in a special fund until the next art project comes along?
In one breath, you say that art is good and that it should be public, but that it should be publically funded through a different venue (your post at 8:00), in the next, you say that spending money on art “is a violation of public trust to spend money where it is not needed”. (your post replied to now) Is art needed or not? How do you reconcile this difference?
So do we rebuild New Orleans to look like a munitions factory? The cheaper we rebuild it, the more houses we can build. So is it immoral to use tax dollars to do anything but build identical, stream-lined, mass-produced houses? Or, when rebuilding New Orleans, can money be funneled into hiring archetects, designers, artists, to restore the beauty–not just the functionality–that has been lost?
If you want to quibble about the AMOUNT governments spend on aesthetic concerns, pull out some numbers and we can argue all day long. There is certainly room for reasonable people to disagree. But the idea that governements shouldn’t have any sort of aesthetic concerns strikes me as silly. It’s good for society for some things, at least, to be beautiful.
Nothing that hasnt been said in the hundreds of thousands of scholarly works already published on each and every one of those subjects. I recommend your public library for a start.
My “expertise” is not up for debate here. By stating “my humble opinion” I had thought I implied that it was based on my personal experience in the art I have seen.
Suffice it to say, I have seen enough art and discussed it enough with many “experts” and non “experts” to form a relatively passionate opinion about what constitutes art vs. what does not.
I think the only pretentious bullshit in this thread are your posts man, again…get over yourself. Get a Clue…mabye actually go out and see some art for yourself…(and I don’t mean google it now and look at some tiny thumbnail…
ohhhh ok i get you now!! so. In order for me to enjoy the art, It better not be something I learned in university…im just fooling myself otherwise…it has to come from a tragedy…or be a picture of the tragedy…and if its music if you can write it on the stoop your SOL?
I think the only pretentious bullshit in this thread are your posts man, again..get over yourself. Get a Clue...mabye actually go out and see some art for yourself...(and I don’t mean google it now and look at some tiny thumbnail...
Not to wade willy-nilly back into the shit-slinging, but it’s easy to criticize the concept of Christo’s works, but honest-to-Hephaestus it’s worth experiencing one of Christo’s installations before shooting your mouth off about how much they suck. I know, I know. Concept doesn’t tickle your prostate, must be bad art. But going to see the Gates which definitely baffled a lot of people and certainly didn’t work for everyone who saw it was nonetheless one of the most transcendant spiritual experiences I’ve had in the last decade or two. Right up with going to see some other publicly funded art from a while back, the mosaics at the Roman baths in Bath. Don’t knock it until you’ve stood among its plastic wrapped glory.
So, is it your belief that exposure to art should be a privilege of those who can afford to collect it? I don’t really get the sense that that is your belief, but without publicly-funded art, isn’t there a good chance of that being how matters eventually tend to settle out?
If not, why not? And if so, do you consider that to be an overall positive effect for the community?
The entire yearly budget for the National Endowment of the Arts, including administration costs and other non-grant functions, is about the same as the cost of 20 hours of our Iraq adventure. Want to trade?
I can think of a lot of things. Hmm…lets say you got $10,000 in the bank, and you can get that Kidney you need to continue living, or a new painting by Jack Shadbolt. Or better yet, you could preserve a school for the arts or a much needed hospital?
No disaster doesnt STOP art, it usually INSPIRES it. You people! Art isnt all about MONEY! Its expression. It doesnt need grants, funding, or anything. It happens REGARDLESS of and usually IN SPITE OF money, grants, funding etc. As long as people can get a few moments between survival, they’ll find a way to make it. They use it to express an idea, protest a government, keep a memory alive, deal with oppression, fight off depression… You dont have to be an “Artist” to make art. In fact, the best artists always dont consider themselves artists, they just do, and make do.
Many, on the other hand, use art as an excuse for being a bum, being lazy, being “eccentric” or just plain nuts, or being utterly pretentious to show how much “better they are” than everyone around them. How they “get it” and you dont. Thats NOT art, its bullshit. It shouldnt be publicly funded, its a total waste of money, and I dont like seeing monuments to it all over the place. Hence the OP.
