O.K., I’ll say it: “Dude, Where’s My Car”, Brittney Spears, Baywatch and Jerry Springer aren’t high culture.
France?
Uh, yeah - you can get porn all over the world now. Big whoop.
Excuse me for suggesting that the U.S. actually take an interest in supporting anything other than the banal. So I guess if Joe Sixpack don’t like it, it ain’t no good, huh?:rolleyes:
Blowero:
I’m not much of an art historian, but I’m trying to think of the great artists and writers of the last 100 yrs or so and how many of them needed government handouts. The ones that come to mind for me are: Monet, Cezan, Renior, Pissaro, Picaso, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald, JC Oats, G.G. Marquez, Solzhenitsyn… Can you remind me of what government grants they received to produce their art?
It’s hard to define what is great art and what isn’t, but let’s take something like the Nobel prize for Literature as an example. Got any recent Nobel winners who needed governement subsidies to produce their works?
I’m trying to understand what great artists there are out there that can’t survive the “cruel, base market”. And anyway, isn’t the inherent nobility of struggling in poverty one of the key inspirations of great art? One thinks of Van Gough-- no lack of visibility for his stuff, is there?
I guess i’m just looking at this from the wrong perspective, but I see art - in all of its forms - as beneficial to any society in which I wish to live. Accordingly, I do not object to relatively small governmental expenditures in furtherance of art.
IMO there are all kinds of things that could be cut drastically, before the NEA’s $120mill looked like anything other than pocket change. Heck, here in Chi, the city and state spent more than that to build a couple of sports stadiums for privately owned teams in the past few years.
As folks have said, citizens/taxpayers do not get to pick and choose which programs they support - other than indirectly through the ballot box.
Of course, no one has yet addressed exactly what NEA funds go towards. Instead, the misperception is perpetuated that the NEA’s primary business is commissioning specific works.
But I urge you to look beyond the NEA. For example, I suggest tax incentives for donations is a far larger subsidy that the NEA’s grants. Do you favor removal of those? Having an art or music department in a public school or college is a public funding of arts. And in my opinion, a better use of my tax dollars than - say - a tremendous amount of the more expensive technology curriculum my middle school and high school kids receive.
BTW - hey Brick - did you say you collect Giglis? I thought we were talking art here! 
As I said above, it’s really not a big deal to me that we susbsidize art-- especially at the low levels that we do. But some people in this thread seem to be claiming that the subsidies are essential for art. That somehow we wouldn’t have good art if it were left up to the market.
As for art classes in public schools-- it’s a legitimate subject to be taught like any other. Of course, then one gets into the whole subject of whether there should be public schools or not…
I’ve speculated about a couple of things with regards to Piss Christ:
That’s because the government isn’t doing enough to promote art. Besides, huge amounts of tax dollars are spent on stadiums etc. for local sports teams.
And Van Gogh lived in the lap of luxury while he was alive, right? :rolleyes: That remark makes several arguments in favor of more support for art and art education.
Whadaya mean “as opposed to”? Art just needs a little boost because it can’t always compete with the latest blockbuster films or the WWF.
Would you rather kids spend their weekends hanging out in movie theaters and video arcades or art museums?
Once, when I was in junior high they bused us downtown to see the orchestra. I was like “why can’t they take us to a rock concert instead?” Well, I was wrong wasn’t I?
Oh, I see, the point is to target individuals to take their money away, with art being just an excuse. They’re not saying, “the governement raises hug amounts of cash anyway to spend on good things, and art is a good thing, so how about spending a little on that as well?”. How much cash is “separated” from the average taxpayer for the NEA anyway?
Oh well, if the US is too poor to support the arts, so be it. Wouldn’t want to be “elitist”, now.
You need to prove that (the first sentence), not just state it. And I agree that tax dollars should not be sepent on sports stadiums. But like I said, it costs about the same to go to the opera or to go to the game. Yet people overwhelmingly choose to go to the game.
No. Van Gogh represents the epitome of the “struggling artist”, and yet his paintings sell for millions of dollars today. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t profit from that while he was alive, but we have not been deprived of seeing his paintings thru lack of government funding during his lifetime. Most of what we think of as art (other than big budget film making) requires very little investment on the part of the artist-- paints and canvas, or a blank sheet of paper. No reason the artist can’t support himself or herself until that artist can make a liviing off the art itself.
I don’t think your perspective is wrong at all. I don’t believe that art has to necessarily be commercially viable to be worthwhile. I’ll just give you one small example, since that’s what I’m familiar with: I’m an orchestral musician, and I can tell you that a symphony orchestra is generally not commerically viable - it must have support besides ticket sales to survive. Obviously, a group that employs 75-100 highly-trained musicians is not going to be able to compete with a pop group that employs 4 musicians and can sell out an entire stadium. We could let the symphony orchestra go the way of the dinosaur, but I personally think this would be very sad indeed.
The way these groups fund themselves, other than ticket sales, is by soliciting funds from private business. Even so, orchestras are going broke all over the country as we speak. Government grant money is available, and could be more available were it not for what I perceive as a pervasive attitude in our society that such things aren’t worthwhile for the government to get involved in. I find this a horribly unfortunate situation.
I think you need to see the democtractic process as a two-way street. I oppose gov’t funding of the arts, but am willing to accept that in a democratic society sometimes the majority comes out conter to my preference. I accept that. However, if the majority decides not to fund the arts, or not to fund the type of art you prefer, you gotta say “that’s life”, too-- not to say you shouldn’t lobby or whatever to get what you want. Maybe I’m reading more into your post than is actually there, but you seem to be implying that there is something inherently, objectively good about the art you prefer, and that society is somehow incorrect for not agreeing with you.
If orchestras are failing, it simply means there is more supply for that type of music in this country than there is demand. At least for the live version. Orchestras will continue to fail until supply equals demand, but a negative growth rate rarely can be extrapolated to zero. Here in the Bay area, for example, the San Jose symphony is always in dire straights. Yet the SF orchestra is doing OK. Maybe this metro area simply can’t support two major Symphony Orchestras so close together geographically. Is that good or bad? Who the hell knows, but letting people decide for themselves seems like the best way to find out.
Does “accepting” something mean I’m not allowed to discuss it?
It doesn’t have to be only the art I prefer; there’s a lot of stuff out there that’s over my head, I’m sure. To me that doesn’t mean it’s not art. I’m not a big poetry fan, but I recognize that some people do appreciate it, and it’s spiritually uplifting for them. Obviously not everyone is going to agree on what is good art, but I do think there is a very real difference between entertainment for the masses, and true art that challenges our perceptions and makes us think about the human condition. And without art, I think a culture dies. That is my opinion, and you are of course free to disagree.
That is obvious. And what I said was that I think it will be a loss if we allow that type of music to die out.
San Francisco is a fabulous, world-class orchestra; IMO one of the top ten in the world. They sure as hell better be doing o.k.
Many major orchestras have had serious financial problems; not just orchestras that are existing in the shadow of another close-by organization.
Look, you don’t have to talk down to me - I understand how economics works. We’re not discussing what causes something not to be economically viable, we’re discussing whether governments ought to support the arts. In my opinion, they should. YMMV.
Blowero:
It was not my intention to “talk down to you”, and I apologize if my post came off that way. However, when you state that you believe the government should subsidize a certain form of art, in this case symphonic music, because it will otherwise “die out”, that is factually incorrect.
And of course you are free to hold whatever opinion you think is correct. But frankly, if it just comes down to an opinion, there really isnt a debate.
Prove it.
Computers trace their history to a variety of origins: defense spending in WWII Britain for code-breaking was a huge factor and the US govt has been supporting research in computers since the late 40s. COBOL was developed by the Navy. The internet was developed with DARPA funding to create a robust communication network in case of nuclear attack. The Space Program produced a lot of integrated circuit technology.
This is not to say that a robust private sector and free markets did not play a huge role as well.
I think a lot of NEA sponsored art sucks, but the amount of money involved would just be a rounding error in most government programs.