[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
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.
[/QUOTE]
You’d be guessing wrong.
Don’t get me started on Terri Schaivo’s life. If art is as necessary as you say, then it will exist. It does exist. Books, film, media…it all exists, and most of it exists without the help of government funding.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Being an artist IS a profession, though.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and if you can support yourself with art as a profession, great! But if you can’t, why should it be funded with my money?
A question that might have some relevance in this thread–
Should science be government-funded? What kinds of science should we fund? How about biochemistry? Particle physics? Personality theory? Sociology?
Some research projects have little practical or medical value–they simply contribute to our understanding of the world. All science has aspects of artistic endeavor; some projects are “as much art as they are science.” How many of you will cut funding into research that studies female hispanic gang members, or that searches for neutrinos, or that studies polymerase function? Because I could argue that these pursuits are not essential to public health.
They do, however, inspire us and educate us. Would you cut them as well?
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Yes, and if you can support yourself with art as a profession, great! But if you can’t, why should it be funded with my money?
[/QUOTE]
Because art is worthy of being funded with government money.
Because art creates debate.
Because art just plain looks good.
Because it celebrates achievements.
Because it exposes frauds.
If I recall correctly, did we agree on how the (US) postal system works with private carriers and the federal branch of the post office?
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Yes, and if you can support yourself with art as a profession, great! But if you can’t, why should it be funded with my money?
[/QUOTE]
It should be funded because it enhances, makes. and is what your life is…wether you like it or not…it shapes and makes you…in this case, shapes you into a useleess old bag who wants to live in a suburb forever…
Im gone to bed, you’re beyond ignorant…go live in lego land.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Yes, and if you can support yourself with art as a profession, great! But if you can’t, why should it be funded with my money?
[/QUOTE]
Additionally, ALL art should be funded. If you can personally bankroll it, that’s fine and dandy. That is the exception, not the rule.
[QUOTE=nameless]
A question that might have some relevance in this thread–
Should science be government-funded? What kinds of science should we fund? How about biochemistry? Particle physics? Personality theory? Sociology?
Some research projects have little practical or medical value–they simply contribute to our understanding of the world. All science has aspects of artistic endeavor; some projects are “as much art as they are science.” How many of you will cut funding into research that studies female hispanic gang members, or that searches for neutrinos, or that studies polymerase function? Because I could argue that these pursuits are not essential to public health.
They do, however, inspire us and educate us. Would you cut them as well?
[/QUOTE]
It may be preaching to the choir, but I wouldn’t cut them. As it stands, I feel they’re rather underfunded, especially when you compare it to the massive budget for defense.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
It may be preaching to the choir, but I wouldn’t cut them.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’m your choir. 
I am curious what mrrealtime and Sarahfeena would do. Only what the market will bear? You’ll be missing out on some cool findings that way. Only if it saves lives? Ditto. Choose wisely.
Joining in late, but count me as another person who has major issues with the concept and the practice of publcially funded art.
I totally oppose censorship. I fully support the right of any person to make whatever artwork they want no matter how much its existence might offend others. But…
If the artist excepts a commission he accepts the terms of the commission. If I tell a painter I want a picture of fuzzy kittens riding a pink unicorn, he might vomit or he might take my check or he might do both. But if takes the check (with or without the vomiting) he’s accepting his agreement to the terms. If he’s unable to silence his artistic integrity and paint my picture, he’s free to say no to my offer.
And as far as I’m concerned, the same deal applies if the person holding the check is a representative of the government (and government). They’re the customer (and through them the public is the ultimate customer) and the customer has a right to decide what he wants. If the artist can work with that, fine. If not, no problem and good luck to you in finding another customer.
So to sum up, I see no reason why any artist should feel he has a right to government money while feeling the government has no right to say what that money is spent on.
And, of course, there’s the whole seperate issue of whether any art should be paid for by the government. Is art a public need that justifies the spending of public money? As I said, that’s a whole different question.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Joining in late, but count me as another person who has major issues with the concept and the practice of publcially funded art.
I totally oppose censorship. I fully support the right of any person to make whatever artwork they want no matter how much its existence might offend others. But…
If the artist excepts a commission he accepts the terms of the commission. If I tell a painter I want a picture of fuzzy kittens riding a pink unicorn, he might vomit or he might take my check or he might do both. But if takes the check (with or without the vomiting) he’s accepting his agreement to the terms. If he’s unable to silence his artistic integrity and paint my picture, he’s free to say no to my offer.
And as far as I’m concerned, the same deal applies if the person holding the check is a representative of the government (and government). They’re the customer (and through them the public is the ultimate customer) and the customer has a right to decide what he wants. If the artist can work with that, fine. If not, no problem and good luck to you in finding another customer.
So to sum up, I see no reason why any artist should feel he has a right to government money while feeling the government has no right to say what that money is spent on.
And, of course, there’s the whole seperate issue of whether any art should be paid for by the government. Is art a public need that justifies the spending of public money? As I said, that’s a whole different question.
[/QUOTE]
All or nothing conundrum. If you ask me, it’s “all”.
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
If the artist excepts a commission he accepts the terms of the commission. If I tell a painter I want a picture of fuzzy kittens riding a pink unicorn, he might vomit or he might take my check or he might do both. But if takes the check (with or without the vomiting) he’s accepting his agreement to the terms. If he’s unable to silence his artistic integrity and paint my picture, he’s free to say no to my offer.
And as far as I’m concerned, the same deal applies if the person holding the check is a representative of the government (and government). They’re the customer (and through them the public is the ultimate customer) and the customer has a right to decide what he wants. If the artist can work with that, fine. If not, no problem and good luck to you in finding another customer.
So to sum up, I see no reason why any artist should feel he has a right to government money while feeling the government has no right to say what that money is spent on.
And, of course, there’s the whole seperate issue of whether any art should be paid for by the government. Is art a public need that justifies the spending of public money? As I said, that’s a whole different question.
[/QUOTE]
And similarly, when the government funds scientific study, should they only have to pay for the results they want?
[QUOTE=mrrealtime]
Second point being, all art is expression, and you dont have to be an “artist” to make it. Anyone can pluck a string, hum a note, or draw with charcoal. Its our great equalizer across all societies.
Third point, An opulent society that funds ambitious art projects is one thing, funding massive art installations while people starve next door is something to be gravely considered.
[/QUOTE]
I’d say that any person making art is an artist. Or when you put it in quotes, maybe you mean, “those jerky pretensious professors at art schools who told me my drawings sucked” sort of artists. You know, the institution is corrupt! Down with the man!
And, we sure as heck are an opulent society. We consume and produce at levels undreamed of even 100 years ago. And the idea that somehow funding the arts is taking away resources from the poor and starving is so mind-numbingly stupid I’m not even sure I should laugh.
No, that’s the subject of this debate, not a given.
Well, I’ll admit it’s doing so here. But why is the creation of debate a government goal? And why must art be publicly funded in order to create this debate? Wouldn’t privately funded art create sufficient debate? Unless you’re specifically talking about the debate over publicly funded art, in which case it’s another circular argument.
If the purpose of publicly funded art is to beautify people’s lives, shouldn’t publicly funded art be that art which most people find beautiful?
Not sure about this one. Whose achievement are you talking about? The artist’s? If so, this seems like saying art should exist so it can exist - another circular argument. If you’re talking about an artist celebrating the achievement of others; how and why is an artwork suppose to celebrate somebody else’s accomplishment?
Some would argue that publicly funding art is perpetuating fraud by promoting the creation of art that would not have existed except to earn its creator a government check.
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I think they do receive tax dollars, and I’m not crazy about the idea of that. But, I think there is an inherent difference in spending Park District funds (at the local level) so that the general public can be exposed to great art, than it is for federal funds to go to supporting artists so that they don’t have to get a job to support themselves.
[/QUOTE]
Not every artist who recieves federal funding has no other source of income. And, if some one or some organization is willing to pay me for a product, that sure as hell sounds like a job to me, eh?
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about people having a ‘right’ to do something just because they want to.
You and others in this thread seem to be operating under the misapprehension that any dolt can say, “I’m an artist,” and get $100,000 a year from the government to sit on his or her ass and do nothing.
People have to apply for government funding for the arts, and, you know, there are people who review applications and make decisions about the potential worth of the project.
There’s great information about grants from the National Endowment of the Arts website, about the application process, the monies involved, and about grant recipients.
The ‘puddle of pee in the middle of the room which earns the urinator a life of leisure’ is the biggest fucking myth about arts funding out there.
I’m sure there are projects of dubious quality that do get funded now and again. Point to a perfect government program where all funding is 100% appropriate 100% of the time and maybe I’d see this a a legitimate concern. Generaly, arts funding is much less, er, cavilier, mainly because there are very limited funds for a large number of individuals and organizations who might like it.
[QUOTE=Least ori…]
I assume you’re Libertarian?
[/QUOTE]
From what little I know about Libertarianism, Id say probably, but I have some capitalist tendancies.
I’m also finding myself in agreement with Epicurianism lately.
To a large extent, yes. The government can tell a scientist that it’s offering him a million dollar grant to research cancer cures. If the scientist doesn’t want to do that research, he can say no. But nobody’s suggesting a scientist can go to the government and say, “I’m a scientist. I demand some money so I can do some science. Maybe I’ll look for a cancer cure or maybe I’ll spend it all looking for bigfoot. Just gimme the money and I’ll decide what I feel like doing with it.”
Uh… maybe I’ve missed something, but generally, artists and scientists both have to fill out grants to get proposals. It’s not a “here’s some money, go crazy” situation as far as I know, although that’s not a guarantee that the government will be satisfied with the results.
I should’ve phrased that as a question. Anyway…
Okay, but what if they say to him “We want you to prove that stem cells aren’t medically useful.”
[QUOTE=Eonwe]
And the idea that somehow funding the arts is taking away resources from the poor and starving is so mind-numbingly stupid I’m not even sure I should laugh.
[/QUOTE]
Any comment in this regard was made in the context of the massive scale of the art installations that involved wrapping entire island coasts in swaths of plastic sheeting. It was privately funded. In my opinion the statement was probably not as valueable as the cost of making it. That is **my personal reaction ** to the works. I did not mean to imply that ALL public funded art was depriving the poor of food. Clearly that is a ridiculous statement.