Melanie, only $5000/year? That’s about, umm, let’s see… $5000/year more than I ever got.
Granted, I’m not an artist and have never claimed to be. But maybe for $5000 I could give it a shot. I think I could turn out items similar to a lot of the dreck I see now.
As to why I don’t like “modern, interpretive, offensive art,” how 'bout, it’s offensive?
“The only way to judge the quality of art is public opinion bullshit disgusts me.” Huh? How else do you propose to judge the quality of art? Especially art that is funded by the public. You want to spend my tax dollars and then I’m not even allowed to express an opinion on the quality of the purchase? You should rejoice that this country doesn’t censor opinionated speech (not much anyway) the way others have in the past (hint: USSR).
And those without an appreciation for the space program or the military might want to take a science history or military history class to learn something about them.
UBeer, of course you can express your opinion - duh, that’s what this forum is about. But do you really think it’s feasible for the public to vote on art displays, monuments, etc? Get real.
A lot of people objected to the Vietnam Memorial - they thought it was tasteless and inappropriate. Does that mean it should not have been built? What a waste that would have been!
I can’t stand most of the politicians in office and a lot of their policies, but can I stop paying taxes that pay for their salaries and their programs? Hell, no. This is America - an easy place to live compared to SOME other countries. We all have to pay taxes for something we can’t stand. Big deal.
I guess the grand point that I’m trying to make is that you could be bitching about a lot bigger things than funding for the arts.
No, Melanie. You don’t have to qualify everything you say. You just need to be prepared for some fallout when you spew elitist comments like that in the ol’ Pit.
Believe it or not, it is possible to “appreciate” art without the snooty accent and the glass of cabernet. And without looking down your nose at the philistines who don’t use terms like “sublime” when referring to a sculpture involving elephant dung.
FTR, I like art. I have studied art history and theory. I have Mappelthorpe’s autograph (don’t ask where). But I don’t think that makes me superior. Joe Blow’s opinion is as important as anyone else’s.
So, again, bite me. Artistically.
-andros-
“Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner
And also FTR, I support public funding of the arts.
But, as I said before (Veb, you listenin’?), Liddy is NOT the antichrist. Well, she is, but he opposition to the NEA, et al., is nothing new. She’s a Republican drone trying desperately to win support against Dubya, and as such is vomiting up all the arch-conservative rhetoric that so many others have hurled before her.
Oh my God!
{quote]If you want to cut taxes, start with the space program or the military -
[/quote]
Are you MENTAL
Oh yes, cut the military, then you artsy types will really have something to complain about when the Commies (or whoever) take over.
And the space program…dont need to worry about space exploration…the planet will be fine, all that global warming stuff is just alarmist crap…it not like we will ever gain anything from space exploration…its just for fun.
Look, I am Canadian, but we also support the srts through govt money…and I think it should stop. Churches, Museums, any other cultural stuff can get by on the support of partons and corporate sponsors. If they cant, then tough.
I dont see how you can justify even $5000 per year for an artist’s grant when there are children going to school hungry. Culture be damned! Social reform is needed!
Lets run things like a business, if the art you produce makes you no money…make something else, or get a job, and make you art at night to be appreciated after your death.
I truly doubt that Van Gogh, Monet or Picasso had much govt funding…and they still managed to create art.You often see corporate sponsors doing sporting events…why not the arts?
**
Clearly the government should support art and offer grants to artists. It’s a sign of a rich, wholesome society (like ancient Rome)**
I would guess you failed history…ancient rome- wholesome???
** and it’s a way to nurture those who may
not have the financial means to explore their talents.** Oh jesus- spare me the sad story! get a job, buy a dictionary and look up ‘HOBBY’
**My friends that are artists never receive more than $5000 a year from the government.**Do you realize that is a years rent for most families?
Its great you are an arts fan, but you might want to take a drive through the real world someday when you dig the art history book out of you arse.
My 2 cents. I agree that there should be a certain number of people in a society who are granted intellectual free reign. The scientist who does basic research that doesn’t always have a practical application; the college professor who investigates theorectical math;and, yes,even artists. What bothers me is the conceit that today’s art has and the contempt for the ‘unwashed’ who don’t think that what they do is important. I think this is the real root of the backlash we’re seeing now. Somewhere along the way art (and artists) became too self absorbed.
Another reason not to support public funding of the arts - it may not be good for art.
Here in Canada we have a ton of public funding for the arts, and we have Canadian content rules to ‘protect’ Canadian artists from American competition. Guess what? The Canadian Content rules mean that Canadian artists don’t have to compete as hard, and quality suffers. Canadian television is largely a joke. The Canadian musicians that have been successful are generally opposed to Canadian content rules. And arts funding is controlled by a cliquish old-boy’s network which dictates the tone and direction of Canadian art. I have a friend who is a sculptor who does traditional sculptures of busts and things, and he not only can’t get funding from the government, but he has a hard time selling his work because the market is flooded with subsidized crap produced with government money.
In the old world, most art was religious because artists needed sponsors to survive, and the church was the biggest sponsor around. Nowadays, religious art is almost certain to be turned down by government arts councils. There was bias then, there is bias now.
I’m guessing that the average income of a patron of the Metropolitan Museum is at least three or four times the national average. If you are a liberal, doesn’t it bother you even a little bit that these people are getting their tickets subsidized by poor people?
If anyone is interested in a link to the National Endowments for the Arts homepage, click below. http://arts.endow.gov/
Melanie, I must apologize for my previous rants. I was merely reacting to your statements using what I thought I knew about the NEA. After a little basic research, I guess I found that the NEA is not quite what I thought it was.
It appears that the NEA is not really all that expensive (in government spending terms); I thought it was a much larger organization. They claim to get only about 36 cents per person from our taxes. The rest of their funding is from private donations.
Some of their grants go to programs I see little value in, but I guess that is the way it goes with art. Again I apologize. Besides if someone has interests like the saxophone and beer, obviously their opinions are worth consideration.
UncleBeer,
WOW! I never thought that happened. Thanks for doing the research I’m too drunk, I mean lazy, to do. Dhanson: e-mail me your address and I’ll send you the $.36
Kelli and Andros: There’s no need to personally attack me (although I suppose that’s what one does in the pit). I think you should know that I am not an artist - I have a real job and a degree in history. I was also a Young Astronaut in middle school. I just think that not enough people are well rounded and some just plain anti art. That makes me really sad and angry. Didn’t mean to come off snooty.
For the record, I do not object to welfare. I think if a family needs food, clothing or shelter, the government should help them. I do not mind paying taxes. But if you want to get into this with me, start a new thread.
Didn’t think I was attacking you, Mel. Or even what you said. Just how you said it. I’m sure you’re a wonderful person. My knee just jerks a bit when I hear a variant of “intellectual”=“superior” or “degreed”=“intelligent.” Not that that was what you were saying, but it sounded close.
It’s generally a good idea not to take anything in the Pit personally, and please don’t let me (or anyone else here) get under your skin. Dammit.
-andros-
“Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner
Thanks Kelli and Andros- glad the unpleasantness has cleared up (even though we’re in the pit and it should all be unpleasant - I thought this thread should’ve been in Great Debates anyway).
LOL, a Young Astronaut is a faux piece of the space program. It’s where kids learn about space outside of school (after classes or at summer camp). I got a lot of stickers from it. Here’s some info if you are interested: http://www.yac.org/yac/
Andros: Ha ha ha!! Young Astronauts is really a nerdy thing. Make that very nerdy.
This is for dhanson: This is a mostly Republican organization (or so I gather from reading the names). It lists what it believes to be government money wasted. No mention of arts (from what I read)! http://www.cagw.org/about/index.htm
