So, back to the OP . . . FUCK Liddy with a [farm/gardening implement]. But don’t forget to also FUCK the republicans as a group for their long-standing anti-NEA platform.
Hell. I’d vote for Dole in a second, if it weren’t for the fact that she’s so damn right-wing.
“Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!” Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner
Thirty six cents per person actually translates into millions of dollars per year.
I can think of many things more worthy of that cash than some freak who’d rather throw shit on images people hold dear than get a real job.
Cleveland. Well, specifically, Lakewood. Lakewood has a thriving arts community, and I don’t believe any of it is publicly funded. The Cleveland Museum of Art, one of the country’s premier museums, has free admission. It is right up the street from the Cleveland Institute of Art (where my friend Jill works, and which contains the Cleveland Cinematheque) and the Cleveland Institute of Music. And you don’t get much better than the Cleveland Orchestra. So I know whence I speak.
But why on Earth pay for art that nobody likes to be produced? The only way to judge art is via public opinion. The criticism of peers or its adherence to a particular aesthetic is all well and good, but if nobody wants to see or hear it, what is the point?
Well, those are three very different things, and not necessarily intertwined. I find much modern visual art boring, intellectualy lazy and unchallenging. But, then again, I don’t like dance. So it’s all a matter of taste.
I don’t know about that. That’s a highly generalized statement. Steven Spielberg has a great imagination–do you consider him a great artist? OTOH, I don’t think it takes any of those things to put goldfish in plastic cups, not feed them, and let them die and decompose. It indicates to me that the artist is out of ideas.
I don’t think we should use ROme as an example on how to do much of anything except maybe deliver water. However, I think the government should support arts education and let private patrons support individual artists. (And, as Polycarp has proposed, maybe get a tax break for it.)
My friends who are artists don’t receive one red cent from the government.
I think it is terribly unwise to make assumptions like this.
JamesCarrol hit on the most important aspect of this issue-contempt for the public by the artist.
Manure , feces, butchered animals are not expressions of beauty. They are deliberate attempts to piss people off.
Art is a means to nutuer the human spirit. This dammable, mechanized, dehumanizing age we live in has raped away our peace of mind, & even our humanity itself. Art could, in theory , helps us to undo that.
But the artists don’t give a fuck.
They’d rather sneer at the very people who are paying for their projects; the taxpayers; and then deliberately set out to disgust us . And the arts supporters wonder why the public is turning hostile.
Rather than use symbology that the public can understand & interpert, these assholes create private systems of artistic symbology that , unfortunately, leave the ordinary working man out in the cold.
Most days, art museums stand empty. If our artistic community would admit to some reponsibility to their fellow human beings; an obligation to their fellow human beings;
those museums would be crammed with visitors & there would be no call to cut arts funding.
But as of now, art museums dont have comprehensible messages to the common man. They have ego trips in feces & stainless steel; love notes in brass & dead animals between ‘artists’ & critics; & are no better than a private club for arrogant bastards! One that we all pay for.
And yes, I took an art appreciation course at the university. I have reproductions of Alphonse Maria Mucha’s work on my walls. And a lot of resentment in my heart.
We have met the enemy, and He is Us.–Walt Kelly
Bravo, Daniel!
The issue of politicios taking cheap pot shots is one issue…
The underlying issue of the quality of art is another. I really don’t want to get into a hairy, vague discussion of art and vision and whatnot–much less the fun side issues of funding.
But you put your finger on it. With all the jargon and pontificating, from politicans and artists, one thing never seems to addressed: “shock” art may just be a grossly commerical corallary to “shock radio” and Jerry Springer, etc. It may just be bad art.
IMO, the visual arts have attempted a loft disdain for the vulgarities of popular culture while cashing in like f**&^ing bandits using exactly the same means.
Okay, hard questions here: if the role of art is to shock, force a new view of the world, etc. then what is the qualitative difference from, say, Howard Stern or Jerry Springer? Different media, same tactics.
BTW, Stern and Springer do it w/ considerably more wit, style and irony than merchandisers—I refuse to call them artists— who present rotting cow skulls crawling with maggots or religious icons juxtaposed with excrement and sexual images and call it “art”.
If art means anything, it’s seeing more clearly–and making that vision tangible for others.
Want to take bets? Remember the cloying, sentimental, moralistic “story” paintings beloved of the Victorians? Well, the more-shocking-than-the-last “artists” of today will typify our age in turn. And the “vision” and “statement” behind them will turn out to be just as banal and empty.
Woof! Went on a tear there…
Veb
What makes you think art requires beauty? Art is a method of communication. A well-done piece of art can transmit as much information to the viewer as a novel. There are many famous artworks which are heartachingly beautiful, and there are others which are ugly, but for a reason.
My main gripe with ‘modern art’ is that there is often no point. It’s just a nihilistic temper tantrum.
Modern art is also VERY faddish, and very cliquish. Much like modern fashion, the direction and content of art is controlled by a small number of influential people. This is not a good thing.
Funded art is always inflammatory. When you are comissioned to produce a painting or write a song you are, in a way, freed. It’s a wonderful feeling - being liberated.
Then the evil sets in. One begins to think that a subversive stance should be taken - something that might not be noticed upon first impression, or maybe something so obvious that noone dare think you meant it. Perhaps you might even change society - make them reflect and (godforbid) think outside the confines of the drab!
Funding an artist fuels his/her ego. It is empowerment. Look at Michaelangelo. What thanks did the Pope get for funding his art?
Artists do not need public sympathy or funding. 80% of people can’t form a coherent interpretation of a piece of art anyway.
Sure education would help, but what would really help is if people realized, really realized, what true beauty and horror is and how important it is to seek it. Artists are essential in this quest; fund them and they’ll be impotant. Suffering is the key.
Lissa wrote:
Well, hey, whatever turns gramma on.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Nurture? Or neuter?
Rich
Folks, I changed the name of this title, because, frankly, it’s too much.
Yeah, this is the Pit, but this is not right.
Please be a tad more restrained in the future, okay?
At least let’s not do anything to get the attention of the Secret Service, that’s all we ask.
your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope
(your friendly neighborhood administrator)
Wow, way to neuter my wrath, TubaDiva.
Well, let me express my feelings on the subject= why “I disagree with Ms. Dole’s position on the arts,” and hope she doesn’t acquire greater access to secret service protection any time soon.
Without going so far as to say that the US is a land of fat uncultured pigs who couldn’t tell Rachmaniniff from Roto-rooter and think that the ‘Louvre’ is something that runs down the back of one’s throat when one has a cold, I’d like to state, point blank, that we, as a society, don’t seem to appreciate or patronise “The Arts” as much as many other nations of the world.
Many of us haven’t read ‘the Classics of World Literature,’ have not been to the symphony/ ballet/ opera. We have only cursory knowledge of world history or the great philosophers that have come before us. We couldn’t discuss poetry to save our lives.
Now, of course part of the reason for this is that the Opera is really f*cking expensive. More fault lies in the fact that we aren’t ingrained to appreciate these things from an early age- I don’t know of many districts in which Art Appreciation and Literary Criticism make up a large part of the elementary school curriculum.
I think a large part of our apathy towards the arts and humanities can be summed up by the fact that, well, we really don’t have any history of them.
When Aleksandr Pushkin was born, our nation was less than 30 years old. We as Americans were less concerned with leaving a literary or artistic mark on the world than we were making it through the winter.
Now that we’ve settled down a bit, we can concentrate on forging our way onto the international arts scene. But we have to bear in mind that the age of Baroque has passed, and people just don’t draw Jesus the same way anymore. Not to mention that the noblemen are just not soliciting manuscripts like they used to.
So we need a little time and patience and, yes, funding to spot the path of the Arts for the 20/21th centuries. We need to take a look at the Arts both as they appeared in other nations before us, and as they are emerging amongst us today. We need to think and read and discuss them as children and continue to appreciate them as adults. WE MUST DEVELOP OUR OWN NATIONAL TRADITIONS IN THE ARTS. Because, frankly, all the other countries are laughing at us. They think we’re the big fat oaf of a nation who doesn’t know how to hold its fork at the dinner table.
Frankly, I’m sick of reading articles where the follies of an American scholar are used as an introductory anecdote. I’m tired of having foreign students run circles around me at the university. I am sick of belonging to a nationality recognized throughout the word primarily as the progenitor of MTV.
Yeah, we’ve got lots of bombs and packaged Snak-Kakes, our pop music pollutes the air waves the world over, the youth of the world are shod in our ugly running shoes, but ya know what?
Nobody respects us. Commiting genicide against the indigenous peoples of our nation didn’t alleviate that, forcing every child in America to say the Pledge of Allegiance hasn’t helped, spending billions of dollars to get potheads off our streets didn’t work, heck, even bombing the Chinese Embassy didn’t bring those crazy citizens of Earth to their senses.
Is it really that crazy to think we might not have anything to lose in trying to foster Art Consciousness in this country?
Life is short. Make fun of it.
If you understood what TubaDiva was saying, you would specify that this statement means that you hope that Mrs. Dole does not become President, not that you hope she will become less secure. This is not a slam or an accusation, just a suggestion to try to help out the mods. Now to the slam.
No, “we” don’t need to do anything of the sort. An essential characteristic of being American individuality. Artistically. Spiritually. Intellectually. Economically. We choose how to live our lives and associate with each other. We do not look to the State to do this for us. If an individual chooses to look to somewhere else for inspiration, God bless him. If a bunch of individuals choose to band together as a school to collaborate and advance their ideas, God bless each of them. This “we” speak of is a collection of “me” and “you” and “him” and “her.” We make our own decisions, thank you very much.
Artistically, the result has been some of the best art in history, IMHO. You’re just not looking in the right places. Come out of the Big Building With Fountains on 5th Avenue long enough to join me at a blues club. Or a jazz club. Pick up some of the southern authors of this century. If art is about communicating ideas, I’d put American music and literature against any in the world. Visual arts? I don’t know, myself. But someone else will probably debunk you on this one, too.
Again, “we” who? The State? I think that’s an awful idea. The State can’t even do a good job funding basic sciences, a more objective field. What in the world makes you think they’d fund good art?
Fuck ‘em.
I’m tired of hearing that a few more bucks and a boneheaded bureaucrat out of Washington will solve your problem. So we’re even. Again, there’s plenty of great art in this country. If the “international arts community” wants to snort at it, let the stuffy bastards snort. If you want to buy into their game, do it on your own nickel. My give-a-shit factor about our standing among a bunch of academics and bureaucrats in Europe is exactly zero.
Don’t worry about it. The far-right Freedom Party just got second place in the Austrian elections, and the righties are stirring again in Germany. In 5-10 years, it’s not a bad bet that they’ll at least be pretending to respect us.
Maybe the next time we send our sons and daughters to save the Art Capital Of The World from destruction, you can get someone to bring you back a Rembrandt.
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
Shit, I was a little worried that I was going to come off as an self-hating American basher. Really, I’m not. I eat at McDonalds and I watch ‘Friends’ in syndication at 11pm.
Now, I had no intention at any point in my previous post to claim that the US has made no strides in any of the fields of the arts. (Just couldn’t think of any in which we have at that point.) Nor was I trying to accuse us of being a nation of cretins who all need to be sentenced to a state-mandated ‘Doubleplusgoodthink Course in Art Appreciation.’
What I perhaps failed to harp on enough is the fact that we are a very young nation, and thus have several centuries less of our own art to appreciate. Now, since every nation’s favorite art is its own, we aren’t left with much to discuss over our espressos at the book club meeting.
Sensory input is neccessary for sensory output, in order to further the arts and humanities, it is neccessary to look at what has happened before: not just at our own very young traditions, but also at those of other nations.
I happen to believe, point blank, that mankind needs art. It would follow that I believe that the US, as a society ( no particular reference to the individual who wants to live in an arsenal powered by a solar generator in Idaho) needs art. Yes, we have made broad strides in bringing such genres as jazz music to the world, but it can’t stop there.
ALl this rhetoric is really founded on my closet-Nationalism. See, I would like to proud to be an American. Not just because we build fast cars or secretly control the IMF or have a kick-ass national defense system. Not just because our economy is solid enough that the amount of American dollars in circulation abroad rivals the amount circulating here.
See, none of these things are really important to me. Following your logic, the values that I, as an individual American, hold dear are the foundation upon which the very cornerstones of This Great Nation were raised. Well, the federal government spends a lot of money already on stuff that is not important to me. What I am concerned with is the fact that Ms. Dole is so set on diverting the chump change they spend on something I care about back to defense.
As for your attitude towards the rest of the world and their values:
" Fuck ‘em."
Well, I’m sorry. I just can’t share your opinion.
How about being proud of being an American because you are part of the first nation on Earth to proudly declare that individuals have a right to live their own lives and pursue their own notions of happiness?
America has made plenty of contributions to the arts. Much of it is in ‘pop’ art, but that’s because, as you said, America is a young country. America has fine traditions in music and literature.
I think you are picking up too many echoes from the professional Euro-snots that hold their noses up in disdain at McDonalds and then sneak in the back door for their Big Mac fix.
I’m getting mental whiplash here.
Is it not appropriate to recognize the grim financial realities underlying art? Patronage has always been needed; artists need food, shelter and time to pursue their art. Most certainly older countries have longer histories that included mega-rich folks who could function as patrons and suport art. Though, in fine human fashion, it usually to a couple of generations to get cultured enough to be “new money” vs “old money”, i.e. to let time blur the realities of the rapacious predators who made the pile of loot in the first place.
Even then, a lot of the rich-arts patron types weren’t exactly overloaded with taste. Hey, time tells. But time also winnows out the true geniuses who worked around, above and beyond the constraints of their funding sources. (Some vanity portaits are works of deadly, subtle satire.)
BUT—yeah, I’m finally getting to the point here—our rich folks don’t suport art. Hey, it just isn’t the “done thing” any more. You don’t see Bill Gates, Buffett, etc. suporting the arts. I strongly suspect that’s partly due to a lack of grounding in the arts.
Now whether that deprives us as a people, or just forces art back to vital roots is another thing.
But the hard reality is that fine art is also a cutthroat BUSINESS, and that’s where I’m concerned that art is being bastardized. How much of “shock art” is genuine vision and social commentary, and how much is aimed at pumping headlines and hype? That, I believe, is the real danger to art. If it ain’t controversial, it’s ignored. So artists, in order to survive and flourish, too often have to sell out to pure sensationalism simply to remain viable.
And, no, not all “shock art” is schlock. I lived in Cinti. during the Mapplethorpe flap. (Anyone remember that it took the jury less than an hour to decide in favor of the art museum?) If you looked at the whole exhibit, he presented a visual specturm of pain, innocence, and some sexual aspects that disturbed people. As far as the infamous bullwhip photo, it’s flat beer compared to some images from antiquity, particularly Roman stuff.
Sorry, I’m tired and blathering. Anyway, I don’t know the solution. But I still maintain that the Emperor is buck nekkid in some instances. I sympathize with those who fiecely defend the arts, because damned few people care. But partisanship can blind even the most passionate defender into fighting for the wrong things and wasting their ammunition.
Veb
I meant ‘nurture’. Sorry, but as a State employee, I’m terminally overworked. Tennessee State government is badly understaffed, with people quitting the very low-paying jobs left & right.
Melatonin: Stuff your crap. The artists don’t respect us, and we shouldn’t pay to have shit rubbed in our faces by American artists.
The French are willing to do that for free.
We have met the enemy, and He is Us.–Walt Kelly
dpd, stuff your own crap.
I am also a state (not federal) employee.
I am also overworked.
People quit my field all the time, not only because it’s becoming increasingly difficult to find jobs, but also because it’s a very high stress field.
I earn less money than everyone I know, including the people I buy my burgers from.
I work at the second largest university in the United States.
Life is short. Make fun of it.
Well, shit, Mel. I go to sleep for a few hours, and now we’re agreeing. That’s no fun! 
As it happens, I don’t really have too big a problem with the few shekels the Feds throw at the arts, particularly because most of it goes to build and maintain facilities and programs to make art more accessible to people of lesser means.
A few thoughts though. The way our system works, money = control, as Tveblen points out. As we see in Brooklyn, even funds meant for upkeep/maintenance mean that the megalomaniacs we elect from time to time get to try to influence content. I think we’ll agree that this is a Bad Thing, and I hope we’ll agree that it’s inevitable. The arts need to be funded, and they need to be more funded. Heck, I part with 3-5K/yr to support the arts. But as we see from healthcare to road construction to welfare to housing, allowing the government to do the job often leads to perverse incentives, wasted resouces and undesired outcomes.
If you really want to help the art tradition in this country, I’d suggest two things to consider. First, don’t let our community be judged by the standards of others. Yes, we’re a young country. But I bet we’ve created more great art in our first 200+ years than any other country did in its first 200. Hell, I bet we’ve even done better over the past 200 than countries that have had several centuries to build on. So don’t let the snooty bastards rest on their collective laurels. Why is Frederick Remington not considered a great artist in Europe? Because his sculpture reflected the (somewhat idealized) American experience? Because he was a White Guy selling to White Guys? Please. Slap the next person who says that for me, will you?
Second, convince the American arts community to give more respect to part-time artists, folk-artists, etc. Living on a university campus or in a Soho loft is not a pre-requisite to creation, and the insular, whining, oh-so-urbane gimme-gimme crowd that inhabits much of the traditional visual arts community has to learn that. To me, a big part of the American tradition is that some of the best ideas have come from the garages of ordinary people. Why should American art be an exception?
OK. Now some asides.
My “fuck 'em” comment was meant solely for the folks who carry the “big fat oaf” theory. My not small experience tells me that this attitude is actually fairly rare in other countries. But for the people who have it, Fuck 'em.
The U.S. does not secretly control the IMF. I do. Really. I didn’t used to, so the whole Asian thing wasn’t my fault. But that is a subject for another thread.
Tveblen suspects that American big-shots don’t contribute to the arts because of the lack of grounding. Let me put forth two alternative hypotheses. First, they don’t because they are so capitalist that they believe that good art will support itself commercially. I make no judgement as to whether that’s a good thing, just suggesting that that may be the thought process here. Second, they don’t because they do in fact have some grounding in the arts, which grounding comes from the same Euro-centric school that I believe is holding back the arts in this country. Hell, they don’t seem to have too much problem with dropping $30 MM on a Renior.
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
Manhattan, I think I’m in love!
All presidential candidates have Secret Service protection – you can thank Arthur Bremer for that one.
your humble TubaDiva/SDStaffDiv
for the Straight Dope
who wants culture to be more than the Norman Rockwell exhibit and the Puff Daddy show.