::scoff::
Art is like education, it’s too important to be caught up in the base, crude realm of the free market. Good art is like cough medicine to a child; it’s something people need, not what they want. It simply can’t survive un-aided in a completely free market. Following your advice would give us Powerpuff Girls exhibits at the Smithsonian.
I’ve never heard that argument about public schools before, and I’m not quiet sure of your point. I’m not talking about funding religions, but government funding going to ideas, symbols, images, and so on, related to religion.
A school isn’t a religion, neither is a painting of a crucifix immersed in urine. But the painting is clearly, and undeniably related to religion, unlike public schools, which, at best, any argument that they are linked to, or advance any religion is highly debatable.
In my opinion, it’s when a supernatural power becomes involved. There must be some sense of a “deity” in any religion, or of an afterlife.
For this reason, secular humanism, in my opinion, can never be termed a religion. It focuses on man, not on a spirit.
Ummm. Yeah. Might want to check and see whose movies, music, and literature are more popular all over the world. Might want to see which country is home to innovative new cuisine. Might want to ask which country is primarily behind the global cutural changes occasioned by the internet.
Oh, right, success with the plebian masses doesn’t count. All that matters are the opinions of those with refinement … refinement being defined as a preference for European culture.
Scoff? SCOFFF?? That’s very good…
The “base crude realm” of the free market is what produced the computer on which you have put forth your esteemed opinion. If anything is to be scoffed at, it’s the attitude that someone like you, as opposed to the people themselves, can decide what people need.
I’m tempted to say: “cite?”, but let’s just say that you need to do more than simply state something for it to be true. Give us some insight into how you came to the comclusion that Europe “kicks the U.S.'s ass” in the culture realm. Or is this one of those things that if one has to ask, one simply doesn’t understand what culture is all about?
I assume you’re being sarcastic … the Smithsonion is chock full o’ cultural detritus.
Well, that’s one possible purpose of art. Of course, our greatest art down through the centuries was occasioned by all sorts of other motives: wanting to instill piety, to uplift and encourage, to frighten, to proclaim status, etc. The idea that art must by it’s nature be confrontational or transgressive is pretty much exclusive to the 20th century. In some countries. In some parts of those countries. It would have been anathema in many other times and places.
Which is not to say that it’s wrong or bad as a motivation … but then again, those are my morals speaking. I do not see how I have any right to impose my morality on someone who has a different idea on “the purpose of art.”
Everyone here is aware that art did exist before government funding, right? That the vast majority of the works in any gallery were made with an eye to selling them for profit?
I know what produced my computer! I didn’t say the free market is bad, I just said it’s too crude to subject art to.
Sorry, Duck, my info was from a print interview with the artist in the mid-80s that was never catalogued on the web. My guess is that he said one thing when the heat was on and he was branded a notorious pervert, and another years later when the heat was off and his past notoriety could be savored. Artists sometimes do that kind of thing.
The problem being that the sole purpose of modern art seems to be pour epate les bourgeousie. And if the bourgeousie object, they must be force-fed - or, more to the point, separated from their cash by force so that “real” artists aren’t subjected to the horrors of having to work for a living.
And I find your attitude that the self-elected art establishment is the adult, and those who find their output to be pretentious trash are children, to be more arrogant even than it is insulting.
Besides, your Power Puff Girls example is mistaken. All it takes is enough art critics to arch an eyebrow and refer to the Power Puff Girls exhibit as “an ironic statement on the insouciance of modern mass culture and its co-optation of the inherent strength of womyn”, and NEA grants will fall on you like autumn leaves.
Regards,
Shodan
And your method, forcing people to pay for something they don’t want, is much more refined and dignified, right?
Amen.
-
Personally, I agree with the Bricker crowd- theres no fundemental rights reason to have the national endowment.
-
But the legislature, acting as the best possible way to distill the opinions of the people, thought it was a good idea and havn’t thought to curtail it. I respect democracy, so I submerge my opinion somewhat. (Just as I respect Pres. Bush’s authority even while working to get him out of office.)
-
Our schools do not teach a different form of religion; they strive to be religion-neutral. This is obvious from the history of public schools, which pretty much all began as Prodestant bastions and graudally became more and more religiously-void at the insistence of Catholics. Theres some court doctrine on this point too, if you wanna look it up, and a delicious law review article whose name I can’t quite remember right now.
-
The absense of religion, science, “Secular Humanism”, Athiesm, or whatever you want to talk about is not religion. If you define religion so broadly as to encompass these things, you define it so broadly that the word has no meaning. Everything is religion and categories based on a distinction are meaningless. Since we live in a world where individual make distinctions between religious and non-religious things EVERY DAY, this broad definition of religion cant be right.
-C
When was there a great deal of government patronage of the arts in the form of supporting individual artists? In the 20th century the Nazis and the Communists did a lot of it but gee, a lot of it stunk and an awful lot was the purest propaganda. The Catholic Church did a bit in the Middle Ages and Renaissance but most of the great art was commisioned and paid for by rich people, some of whom were local bishops using Church money both to decorate churches and their own homes, sometimes with borderline pornography. Titian had a bit of a sideline in “respectable” porn, pumping out at least three nearly identical paintings of Danae lounging nude on her bed. (“Isn’t that painting a bit suggestive, Your Grace?” “It’s a Titian so it isn’t dirty, it’s ART!”) Things haven’t changed that much.
Good point – artists have ALWAYS been at the mercy of market forces in one form or another.
I’ve got a question: how many of the great works of art in history were commissioned by political figures?
Obviously we can’t draw exact parallels between feudal Europe and modern US, but I’ve always suspected that most important works of art were paid for by people who had political power.
Furthermore, Bricker, I’m glad you support the arts so much – but does your support enable lots of poor folks to view the opera, or see paintings in museums, or have sculpture in parks?
One of the arguments in favor of public funding for art is that public funding enables everyone, not merely the wealthy, to enjoy art.
Daniel
Leaves me wondering what was in your 1st post!
Interesting theory, but it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. Going to the opera, for instance, is no more expensive than attending a football game. Somehow I’m having a tough time imagining fans of one of my local teams, the Raiders, agonizing over whether to attend Sunday’s home game or go to see Carmen on Saturday night.
One might just as well argue that subsidizing African safaris would serve the purpose of letting poor Americans experience the wilds of the Serengeti.
I dunno if I’d use the terms “refined” or “dignified,” but it is part of the price of a democratic society that the citizens end up paying for some things they don’t want and/or won’t use. Like the war in Iraq, fer instance – by your reasoning, we should send the bill for that fiasco only to all the folks who supported it…
Actually, I do accept that living in a democracy means that you often have to fund things you don’t agree with. It’s not really a big deal to me that some public funding goes to the arts. But to claim that it is anything but an elitist money-grab does grate on my nerves. Go ahead and fund the arts, but don’t lecture me on how high minded it is and how are that is produced in the private sector is “base”.
But I don’t buy your analogy of the war in Iraq. The constitution clearly states that the federal gov’t can raise an army and clearly gives Congress the authority to delclare war. Having delegated that authority to Bush, there is nothing extra-constitutional about the war, even though both you and I think it was not the correct thing to do. So, this sort of action is explicitly the kind of thing we decided, at the formation of this country, that all citizens will share in the expense of.
One needs to make much more of a stretch to find “raising taxes to fund the arts” in the constitution. Perhaps it’s in there, but not as explicitly as the raising and use of armed forces.