Apologies for not getting this in sooner 
Ah, so the problem is with “those lazy artists” (not your quote). Your relative might juggle a job and make some art in his spare time. Not everyone is the same, darling. You can’t take a familiar situation and dreamily say “Wow, everyone’s situation must be eerily similar!”
I don’t mean to call you naive. Your statements are awfully close to that territory, though.
no because you’re putting words and ideas in my mouth, and you continue to do so without accepting that your as dumb as a bag of hammers that won’t let it go and go on with the real topic…
now go pound sand.
Thanks much for the cite. It should have been on the first post.
Right, but from the beginning this rant was about funding public art, not funding artists. Again, we can quibble about how much money should be spent, but can we agree that spending money on art for the pucblic is an acceptable government act? That access to art is an social good?
nope, just the examples I listed, and the art in the context of the report by Andy Rooney, which you can now watch. Like he says…he doesnt like them. I actually liked a couple of them, that he didnt like. The point is, what I like or dont like doesnt matter with respect to publicly funded art, unless I am in the majority of taxpayers paying for it. Thats how a democracy works. Now that doesnt mean that people who want to wrap some plastic around some islands do not have the right to do so (they do and thats a good thing), they just dont get a penny from me, or any other taxpayers, to do it (and thats a good thing too).
See, this is my point…he probably did have a certain amount of money to work with to put a cross above the altar, but he wanted to commission a dramatic piece of art, rather than something run of the mill. He raised the money independently, and was able to get that work of art funded.
No, I don’t think art is a necessity on the level of schools & hospitals.
I assume you’re Libertarian?
(it has nothing to do with the conversation, just wondering)
Whatever. You haven’t made one good point, and your method of argument is to call people twats. And I’m the one who has a problem? :rolleyes:
So, the art you like, is good art…but the art provided in the examples is bad art…and should not recieve money…what if someone hates the art you like, but loves the art in your examples? should that be put up? this is the heart of the issue…your ideas on what is good or bad are now law, nor are anyone elses…you cant call someone elses work shit because you dont agree with it…
You are right, I never said anything about artists being lazy. I am just saying that no one has a RIGHT to do a certain thing for a living. It’s as simple as that. You can call it naive, but people have to make choices. If you can’t make it in your chosen field, then you should find another one. Art does not have to be a profession.
Why? If it’s such a great thing, then let’s go ahead and spend the money! Why should regular people have to depend on the largess of some fat cat to have attractive public spaces?
get back to the topic, you Twat (dont blame me if yours hasent seen the light of day in a while)
((i loooooveeeee the pittt))
But if he had to make up a difference, I’d think he’d dip into the general fund. I’m willing to guess that the general fund and this art fund were the same fund.
What is life without expression, Sarafeena? What was Terri Schiavo’s life without the ability to express herself? How can art not be necessary? Writing isn’t necessary? Films aren’t necessary? Media isn’t necessary? How does information spread? What takes the place of art? Religion? Give me art, any day of the week. I’ll take the Pepsi fucking challenge any day of the week.
My point is that everything else is left up to the market in today’s society. Why not let ‘art’ survive in the market place ?
I would like to see ‘art’ funded the same way feature movies are. If you can get people to finance it, then construct it. Then get people to buy tickets to see it.
My prediction would be vast sums of money lost. Very few art works made. That would actually force ‘artists’ to make something that many people would appreciate, rather than the very few.
It really isn’t, though. Remember the way the government bailed out the airlines after September 11th?
Being an artist IS a profession, though.
Don’t forget how laissez faire policy helped spur the Great Depression under the same vein of thinking because the “invisible hand” would dictate everything.
now, i apoligize for the huge generalziations comming here…
Why do people like movies over art? why do they like movies over books??
Because it dosent require any sort of thinking or interpertation or anything like that its all givin to them and you sit and its told to you…thats why!!..people dont want to think, or make decisions for themselfs they want it told on the big screen…does that mean art is any better or worse than movies and should be put away and forgotten because it is not the publics favorite…i hope not…movies can run on that system, art, no way
That happens right now. There are plenty of private art collectors funnelling money to particular artists. But most of these collectors aren’t buying art for public display. They’re buying it to keep in their private collections.