I disagree with Ms. Dole's position on the arts.

We need to eliminate federal funding for the arts? We’ll do it gradually by defining what is and is not art?

Life is short. Make fun of it.

With a rake, eh? Makes sense, the dirty hoe …

Yeah, great. Then American ‘high art’ would correspond to something like Joe Camel and the works of Leroy Neiman. . .

This is just now pissing you off, Melatonin? She’s just toeing the Republican Party line. Conservatives have been trying to kill the NEA for years. Anyone remember Mappelthorpe?

How about: “FUCK the Republican Party with all kinds of farm implements.”


“Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

Mmmmmm, farm implements. :smiley:

I’m thinking that the government already does this to a certain degree, because if I glued a bunch of elbow macaroni to construction paper and presented it as art, I don’t think I’d get any federal funding for it.

I say buy each and every american a watercolors kit and a set of pastels and be done with it.
There’ll still be patrons of the arts to support artists whose work is in demand. If their work is not in demand, Oh freakin’ well! So sorry!
I know that 1 percent of the building cost to construct a new building in Philadelphia has to go towards public art. And that money doesn’t come out of my pocket either.

They should scrap public funding for the arts. It never fails to amaze me when Democrats are constantly harping on how the poor need to be helped, but then support something like the NEA which benefits mostly rich folks at the expense of the poor. I mean, when’s the last time a poor guy in the Ghetto hung out in the Metropolitan Museum of Art?

If you like art so much, pay an admission fee to see it, or buy it outright. But don’t make poor people hand you their food money so that you can give it to some clown with no talent to pee in public and call it art.

I believe that Mapplethorpe WAS an artist, and a damned good one. I also recognize that he didn’t need his art to be publicly funded, because he could sell it at high prices. The really talented people will find a market for their work. The rest of the parasites can go work for a living.

The same can be said for public television and radio. There is no longer a need for it. You could make an argument for it back when the airwaves were dominated by the big three networks which had no interest in special programs that appealed to smaller audiences. But now that we have cable, PBS is a waste of public money. There are better arts shows on A&E, better comedies on the Comedy Channel, better science programs on Discovery, better history programs on the History channel, etc.

Great thinking dhanson - let’s get rid of musicians and the symphony - now we have the technology for electronic music!

I think you’re forgetting about something called culture. A lot of people in this world appreciate culture (i.e. art, music, architecture, quality programming). A lot of people get or learn something from culture - they can be moved, angered, inspired. The government recognizes this and makes sure that citizens or those who are visiting the United States get to experience the thoughts, handiwork and talents some Americans have or have had.

Would you really like to live in strip mall McDonald land?

As for PBS: not everyone can afford cable and none of the shows you mentioned even come close to the artistic masterpieces shown on PBS. Why should people have to watch the crap on network TV all the time? And have all of those commercials crammed down their throats?

Have you never had a creative outlet? Is that why you have this attitude?

I’m also not so sure you can really say there are better science shows on the Discovery Channel any more, either. Discovery Channel – and especially its offshoot, the Learning Channel – have slid toward sensationalism and pseudoscience to try and garner a wider audience.

Not that PBS hasn’t done some of the same, mind you.

Yeah, that Quincy. . . man, could he wield a paint brush. . .


Why ruin a perfectly good rake?

We have met the enemy, and He is Us.–Walt Kelly

The History Channel, too. Weekday afternoons, they have an hour block of * In Search Of*. What in the blue hell is this? Only occasionally is history even mentioned on the program, and then it’s some crap about how the Maya got architecture tips from the Space Men. Personally, I’m horrified. It’s like seeing your previously dignified gandmother in fishnet stockings.

I agree w/ Dan: why mess up a perfectly good rake?

Typical politico cheap shot. Hey, let’s address the REAL issues confronting the country. Quick vote: is your #1 concern funding for the arts?

BTW, the Steel Magnolia has also planted her size 6 alligator pump AGAINST all that filth and smut on the Internet. Yep, any school or library receiving federal funds have to use filters if they want Unca Sam to cough up the dough.

Let’s not bother our dim little minds with the fact that filtering products just flat don’t function effectively in multi-user settings. It’s SOFT! It’s a good sound byte! It’s vague!

Hey, Our Lady of Viagra goes up against the biggies: the arts and libraries. Sheesh.

That said, I’m still waiting for “nude emperor” wake-up call… (Did Hughes, the art critic, ever recover from his motorcycle accident?)
A huge portion of highly touted “modern art” is pure schlock and hype, aimed at dweebs with more money and pretension than discrimination.

Whether governmental or free marketplace, art has been degraded by media campaigns and drivel.

Liddy is a twit.
And as long as we’re misuing farm implements, I think she rates a John Deere manure speader for being a fatuous, opportunistic lightweight.


I’ve gotta agree about The Learning Channel, but then our local PBS outlet used to air ‘In Search Of’, so I guess they aren’t much better. Maybe this stuff happens because the arts majors who staff these networks don’t have a clue about science?

As for ‘culture’, it’s a pretty strange notion that culture is something everyone wants yet no one is willing to pay for. And the examples used weren’t very good. Many major symphony orchestras play without government funding. The Metropolitan Museum of Art gets only a small portion of its funding from the government. Broadway shows don’t get government funding.

I half-agree with dhanson. I do think that, while grants to individual artists maybe aren’t something we should continue, the funding provided by the NEA for arts education, especially in grade schools, are a good idea.

As for PBS, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would call “Are You Being Served?” or
" 'Allo? 'Allo?" masterpieces of any kind.

I’m with Phil and dhanson. I was trying to resist weighing in on this one, and obviously I failed. Why is it some of you want the government to take your money and spend it on what some government goon considers art? Are we not smart enough to decide what art is deserving of our patronage? Why is this “art” somehow more special than the music industry, or other areas where excellent artists find a way to make a living without asking the government to take money from others and give it to them?

The only way to judge the quality of art is public opinion. That does not have to mean a majority vote. If a small minority finds your art likeable, that group can spend their money on your art, and you can make a living. If the only way for you to get money for producing your art is to have the government take my money, against my will, and give it to you, then your not creating marketable art. If you still want to create your art no one is stopping you, but you might have to find another way to make a living. There are plenty of people who create art of various forms as a hobby, and do something else for money. I’m not saying artists should get a real job, that is another thread. But if one can’t make a living doing what one loves, one must find a way to provide financial support and still allow time for life’s pleasures.

I think I’m going to puke. I don’t know where you people live, but every place I’ve lived art has been supported, treasured and appreciated. Maybe I have a better understanding of it than others, but this “the only way to judge the quality of art is public opinion” bullshit disgusts me. Public opinion (by the looks of this forum) is crap.

How come few of you like modern,interpretive, offensive art? These are the thoughts and creations of the people living today who have great imagination, deep understanding of human nature and a medium in which to express themselves. You should rejoice that this country doesn’t censor its art the way others have in the past (hint: USSR).

Clearly the government should support art and offer grants to artists. It’s a sign of a rich, wholesome society (like ancient Rome) and it’s a way to nurture those who may not have the financial means to explore their talents. Do you people think the government is giving away billions of dollars and that these artists live in expansive lofts in SOHO? Well, throw your TV out the window, because it isn’t like that at all. My friends that are artists never receive more than $5000 a year from the government.

If you want to cut taxes, start with the space program or the military - they both receive a much bigger cut than artists. (I’m going to look for the figures).

I would also suggest that you go down to your community college and take an art history course. I used to think like you - since I learned what art is really about I’ve changed my tune.

Oh, and my examples were fine, dhanson. Most of the buildings (except for Broadway theatre which I never brought up) are owned by the city. Did you know that you have to pay admission for 90% of musuems in the US? In Europe, they are free. They have their priorities straight and everyone is always commenting on their wonderful ‘culture’. You sure as hell don’t hear that about Americans. I think that should change - I’m sick of being a part of white trash land.


Who told you museums in Europe are free? I’ve got news for you—they’re not.

“I think it would be a great idea” Mohandas Ghandi’s answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

Melanie, are you seriously saying that the only people who can appreciate art are those who have taken art classes??!?

(at a brief loss for words . . . ah, yes, that’s it)

Bite me.