Sweet Irony
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
arts (and not-for-profits, generally), it's delicious irony that Noot is
currently under investigation for possible violation of section 501(c)(3) of
the tax code.
knu...@austin.ibm.com
i hadn't realized! how funny! while this is off the topic, do you know
what the other 5 (?) counts under investigation that were dropped were
about? also dealing with his tv education program?
- kim
dogboy
> Given that the Republican Congress has been doing its damnedest to destroy the
> arts (and not-for-profits, generally), it's delicious irony that Noot is
> currently under investigation for possible violation of section 501(c)(3) of
> the tax code.
SO exactly WHAT have the republicans done to 'destroy' the arts.
dogboy
> i hadn't realized! how funny! while this is off the topic, do you know
> what the other 5 (?) counts under investigation that were dropped were
> about? also dealing with his tv education program?
letting an advisor use his office, ( thats considered misappropration of
public resources).
mentioning an 800 number for his tapes on the floor of the congress.
mentioning a GoPac sponsered meeting in a speech.
Thats all that USA today listed. I am sure the other
offenses where equally 'hideous'.
Sorry if thats not what you wanted to hear.
Bang2B
Are you joking? They've done as much as they possibly can.
David
SVKeeley
LIBERTARIANS, SOCIALISTS, AND ANY OTHER BLOODY -IST THERE MAY BE OUT
THERE....
Please take the political posts somewhere else; there are more than enough
venues on the Net for them, we don't need them on alt.arts.ballet.
Whatever complaints can be made about one party's flawed policies and
hypocritical members can be echoed about the other. It never ends and
nobody learns anything because their minds are already made up. You're
just going to piss each other off and make more enemies.
The "gays in ballet" thread (which was at least on-topic) has finally died
down and now you want to start arguing about politics? Well not on my
time! I don't care WHAT side of the issue you're on; I DON'T WANT TO HEAR
ABOUT IT!!! If I did, I'd go to one of the many political groups where I
wouldn't be boring people with better things to do.
Thank you.
_____________________________
Steve Keeley
SVKe...@aol.com
Jerry L. Bevington
banter in another newsgroup, it also rings of a pathetic attempt to
marginalize voices from their own political rights. The days when we
thought we were apolitical because we practiced an art form are past. The
act of participation is a political statement, the act of choreography is
political, the act of reperesenting SAB or ABT or SFB is political.
We all benefit when we understand the interconnection between what we do
and the political consequences either in Washington or in own home town.
How dare you try to silence this process by saying it does not belong on
this newsgroup.
dogboy
Such as? I don't considering allowing a free market to
foster art as opposed to the govt control of it
as harmful.
Bang2B
Mike Rayburn
>Given that the Republican Congress has been doing its damnedest to destroy the
>arts (and not-for-profits, generally), it's delicious irony that Noot is
>currently under investigation for possible violation of section 501(c)(3) of
>the tax code.
The Liberal Debtocrats are the ones that have been doing their best to
destroy this country. As for the arts, like every thing else in the
free market if it's good it will pay for itself. No more free rides
for the crap some call art.
Long live Newt.
v.pagan
Sorry to interrupt, but it is a pity that you did not pay attention to
your history classes.
"The Arts" have never been inder the influence of a free market.
Remember the Imperial Ballet?
Total government control.
Mozart was subsidized by the
Austrian Emperor.
European countries still subsidize the arts--and if you had even a hint
of clue, you would realize that the government doesn't "control" the
arts.
Even in the former Soviet Union, where there -was- gov. control, seems
to me that the results were magnificent. Only those most qualified were
trained, not just those with sufficient financial resources.
Makarova, Baryshnikov, and Nureyev, just to name a few, were the direct
result of "government control".
Worked pretty darned well, if you ask me.
sfbfan@usf
dogboy
>
> Sorry to interrupt, but it is a pity that you did not pay attention to
> your history classes.
I studied Latin American Art History, apparently you skipped that one :)
> "The Arts" have never been inder the influence of a free market.
> Remember the Imperial Ballet?
> arts.
`
<Snip more european stuff >
> Even in the former Soviet Union, where there -was- gov. control, seems
<snip even more european stuff>
Oh pity you, notice that you don't list ANY art that was not
European. Open your eyes there is much more to art than
the perverted self glorifying renditions of the Europeans.
My favorite comment on the above is Botero's "Mona Lisa at
age 12." Are you familiar with it?
How about Cildo Meireles? Think govt support helped him?
It didn't take millions to get FLorencio Molina Campos
to produce art.
More telling is the effect in the Music industry.
The only truely American art form, Music, evolved
in SPITE of govt, not becuase of it.
Perhaps you have been defining art a little to narrowly.
Not suprisingly, a european dominated community funded
by a govt dominated by persons of european descent.
See what all this funding has done? It prevented you
from even noticing the indiginous art of your own contenent.
Thats A PERVERSTION of art, not a preservation of it.
> Worked pretty darned well, if you ask me.
Well if stifling diversity in the arts was your goal.
At Diego Rivera did get a little help, but you seem
to have neglected him in your tirade of euro ingradizement.
Hasta Luego
Jerry L. Bevington
thread and I have to applaud the patience and competence from which they
were drawn. The irony of course is its own sweet addiction--the more we
lick the more sweeter it gets.
I do believe there is a rightful position to stand on that does not
apologize for a euro-centric tradition--especially within its own
self-perpetuating markets--nor feel any sense of shame that the histories
and phenomonologies of another's tradition are new to one's aesthetic. This
does not mean that I can not find bewonderment and joy or at least
fascination in learning another's tradition. Face it folks, the melting
pot is still a social construction and maybe even a misnomer--and thank
goodness. Our roots of communication through movement, seen in one
cultural aesthetic is so limiting. Many on this newsgroup find the
ballet (read: the classical danse d'ecole amalgamation of traditions
synthesized from predominately French, Italian, Russian and USA) a pinncale
testament to the highest form of this communication. Its study is
revered; its practicioneers revered; new developments scrutinized. As
myopic as this is, it is, to my mind, completely justified.
dogboy
> I do believe there is a rightful position to stand on that does not
> apologize for a euro-centric tradition--especially within its own
Certainly if your OWN personal sense of aesthetic is primarily
European.
> self-perpetuating markets--nor feel any sense of shame that the histories
> and phenomonologies of another's tradition are new to one's aesthetic. This
> does not mean that I can not find bewonderment and joy or at least
> fascination in learning another's tradition. Face it folks, the melting
> pot is still a social construction and maybe even a misnomer--and thank
> goodness. Our roots of communication through movement, seen in one
> cultural aesthetic is so limiting. Many on this newsgroup find the
> ballet (read: the classical danse d'ecole amalgamation of traditions
> synthesized from predominately French, Italian, Russian and USA) a pinncale
> testament to the highest form of this communication. Its study is
> revered; its practicioneers revered; new developments scrutinized. As
> myopic as this is, it is, to my mind, completely justified.
Yes it is myopic, but justified if it appeals to you. The problem with
govt funding of the art is that by directing funds only to projects
that appeal to the current dominent culture, they rob support
from other cultures.
In Music there was a primary example of this one Jazz and early
rock were catagorizes as 'race' music and banned. Not only did
this stunt the natural progression of the art in this country,
it aided in culturally oppressing the people, who at that
time were catagorized as intellectually inferior. Suppressing
the art of a culture, whether overtly, or subvertly, by
forceably extracting money and redirecting it to
competing forms, is oppressive, and anathema to me.
Don't get me wrong, I don't judge Latin art as superior
(or inferior) to European art, merely as different and
more relevent to many in the American Southwest.
flipdanc
> RE: SWEET IRONY
>
> From: jbev...@mtholyoke.edu (Jerry L. Bevington)
> Reply to: Jerry L. Bevington
> Date: 8 Dec 1995 14:22:06 GMT
> Organization: Mount Holyoke College
> Newsgroups:
> rec.arts.theatre.misc,
> alt.arts.ballet,
> tx.politics
> Reply to: newsgroup(s)
> References:
> <4a7ppg$q...@anarchy.io.com>
> <4a86k5$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Mike Rayburn
>Art has never been part of the free market.
It will be now and it will have to compete.
Mike Rayburn
Mike Rayburn
>European countries still subsidize the arts--and if you had even a hint
>of clue, you would realize that the government doesn't "control" the
>arts.
>trained, not just those with sufficient financial resources.
>Makarova, Baryshnikov, and Nureyev, just to name a few, were the direct
>result of "government control".
>sfbfan@usf
We all can see how well the Soviet Union worked. It failed because
socialism is flawed. The arts will survive by private funding, no more
government gravy train. We can't afford it.
Martin Brilliant
Now that you mention it, I think the market for art has always consisted
roughly of two parts.
One part is a free market in which the wealthy and the upper middle class
participate. These range from patrons of the arts down to people who can
pay the full cost of tickets (not just a subsidized price). The other
part is the trickle-down from the wealthy to the masses.
In a liberal society, the government aids and abets the trickle-down, and
may even take the role of the wealthy in financing the arts. In a
conservative society, the poor go to events sponsored by the wealthy for
their appeasement.
Mozart and Beethoven, if I have the history right, got some financing from
the wealthy nobility. They also had some profits from shows that were
paid for entirely by ticket sales, but I don't think either could have
supported himself that way.
Marty
Martin B. Brilliant at home in Holmdel, NJ
Jerry L. Bevington
be responsible for mandating mediocrity in the arts for the poor--a
similar trickle down effect. BUT, being one of the poor with tastes way
beyond my means, I certainly always appreciate a ticket I can afford or a
masterclass I can attend or a tour that swings by my area because of
government subsidies. A catch 22 for whoever is feeling good.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
In article <4acki5$o...@anarchy.io.com>, dog...@io.com (dogboy) wrote:
>> ballet (read: the classical danse d'ecole amalgamation of traditions
>> synthesized from predominately French, Italian, Russian and USA) a pinncale
>> testament to the highest form of this communication. Its study is
>> revered; its practicioneers revered; new developments scrutinized. As
>> myopic as this is, it is, to my mind, completely justified.
>
>Yes it is myopic, but justified if it appeals to you. The problem with
>govt funding of the art is that by directing funds only to projects
>that appeal to the current dominent culture, they rob support
>from other cultures.
Hope this helps.
Jon Blake
developed out of the court of Louis in the `18th century I don't find it
surprising or narrow minded that the poster's counterexample were
European. Do I detect the great academic pox of PC invading alt.arts.ballet?
dogboy
Oh I didn't forget that I wrote that. It just doesn't say what you want
to claim I said.
From what twist of logic do you getfrom 'rob support from other cultures'
to fund to the 'exlusions of'.
Perhaps you weren't lying, maybe your just dumb?
> >Yes it is myopic, but justified if it appeals to you. The problem with
> >govt funding of the art is that by directing funds only to projects
> >that appeal to the current dominent culture, they rob support
> >from other cultures.
>
> Hope this helps.
Well it doesn't support your claim at all . and please I have once again
redirected followups to tx.politics. You note that all the
people you annoyed on art.ballet are complaining. WHy don't you
leave them alone.
dogboy
Except some dweeb posted this to tx.politics which is where I was reading
it. I have set the followups ( again) to limit it to that groups.
Only add yours back in if you are interested.
Well, this is a first for me, never before I have been called 'PC' being
a registered republican and all. The discussion was about art in
general. I don't doubt that Ballet may not flourish without
gov't founding. BUt that IMHO invalidates it as a true
representation of our culture, and makes it irrelevent.
You are certainly entitled to your own differeing opinion,
my objection is only when you demand my money against my will to
support your particular favorite form of art.
Bang2B
initiatives. The first was during the tenure of the WPA, which helped
Graham, Humphrey, DeMille, Tamiris, Holm, Weidman, Shearer, Litz, and many
others. The second was after the initiation of the NEA in the mid sixties
producing the enormous dance explosion which has now drawn to a close. If
there's another way to subsidize art and help it be available to all, i'd
like to hear it. I'd also like precedents cited.
David
dogboy
Private funding and ticket/product sales.
You mean you really need me to create a list of artists that
have produced art without tax dollars?
Followups directed to tx.politics, where I am posting from .
Griff Miller
>dog...@io.com (dogboy) wrote:
>>
>>Such as? I don't considering allowing a free market to
>>foster art as opposed to the govt control of it
>>as harmful.
>
>your history classes.
What a shame. They are the worse for it.
Followups set.
-- "...and this just in: scientists have
Griff Miller isolated the gene that determines whether
Systems Administrator '95 Z-28 or not one thinks Monty Python is funny."
Positron Corporation '85 VF1100S
griff....@positron.com My opinions are mine, not Positron's.
Robert Johnson
> > "The Arts" have never been inder the influence of a free market.
> > Remember the Imperial Ballet?
> > arts.
I don't believe this is true. The arts have been at the mercy of
the free market (like the rest of us) for a couple of hundred years.
Never mind the Imperial Russian Ballet -- one of the greatest dance
phenomena of the twentieth century, the Diaghilev Ballet, was a
private enterprise.
Then dogboy wrote:
> ...there is much more to art than
> the perverted self glorifying renditions of the Europeans.
Where do you get this bigoted shit? You're as bad as the worst
colonial racist in history. Recognizing the beauty of non-Western
art doesn't mean that you have to ditch the creations of Europeans,
which are an important part of the heritage of all Americans, whatever
our ethnic background.
> Perhaps you have been defining art a little to narrowly.
> Not suprisingly, a european dominated community funded
> by a govt dominated by persons of european descent.
> See what all this funding has done? It prevented you
> from even noticing the indiginous art of your own contenent.
The paltry sums spent by the U.S. government to fund artistic projects
is far too little to have brainwashed anyone.
>
> Thats A PERVERSTION of art, not a preservation of it...Well if
stifling diversity in the arts was your goal. At Diego Rivera did get
a little help, but you seem to have neglected him in your tirade
of euro ingradizement.
Si Ud. va a hacer este tipo de critica, me parece que va a tener que
aprender a escribir (o al menos mecanografiar) mejor en ingles. :)
Hasta luego.
Robert Johnson
>The arts will survive by private funding, no more
> government gravy train. We can't afford it.
>
Sad to say, no one is going to stop the government gravy train. The
gravy will keep flowing to any number of special interests. It
would be nice, however, if some of the gravy dripped on hardworking
artists, whose productions invariably return money to the government
in the form of sales taxes, when audience members travel to see
performances, stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc. What we can't
afford is to continue throwing our money into military appropriations
when so many people in our country are hungry and have no access
to health care, and when toxic dumps are piling up all over the place.
The arts are one of the very smallest investments our government
makes, but one that puts money back into the economy. It doesn't
make economic sense to cut arts funding, never mind the fact that
neglecting the arts is a form of cultural suicide. Let's start
by cutting our bloated military appropriations, then we can talk
about cutting arts funding.
Darryl Ohl
>
>ban...@aol.com (Bang2B) wrote:
>
>>Art has never been part of the free market.
>
>It will be now and it will have to compete.
>
>
so-called paintings of the "Starving Artists" (sofa sized paintings from
$19.95, none over 49.00) True art is not commodity, more a measure of
the degree of civilization of any group.
Darryl Ohl
Robert Johnson
> Well, this is a first for me, never before I have been called 'PC' being
> a registered republican and all. The discussion was about art in
> general. I don't doubt that Ballet may not flourish without
> gov't founding. BUt that IMHO invalidates it as a true
> representation of our culture, and makes it irrelevent.
> You are certainly entitled to your own differeing opinion,
> my objection is only when you demand my money against my will to
> support your particular favorite form of art.
If I were Santa, your Christmas presents this year would be samples
of all the "true" representations of our culture which are surviving
without any government funding at all. It wouldn't be my fault if you
barfed up the cookies and milk that you snitched from beside the
fireplace.
As for your objections to people spending your money for you -- what
about MY money? What about MY will? Artists and the public for the
fine arts pay taxes too, you know. I personally am mad as hell that
the government takes my hard earned cash and squanders it on military
appropriations. I want my tax dollars to pay for ballet, not bombers.
that's a big secret!
of that, and ought to be locked-up for it!!!!
that's a big secret!
say...Mr. Keeley, you are on track.
On 7 Dec 1995, SVKeeley wrote:
> ATTENTION! ALL REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, NAZIS, FASCISTS, PINKOS,
> LIBERTARIANS, SOCIALISTS, AND ANY OTHER BLOODY -IST THERE MAY BE OUT
> THERE....
>
> Please take the political posts somewhere else; there are more than enough
> venues on the Net for them, we don't need them on alt.arts.ballet.
> Whatever complaints can be made about one party's flawed policies and
> hypocritical members can be echoed about the other. It never ends and
> nobody learns anything because their minds are already made up. You're
> just going to piss each other off and make more enemies.
>
> The "gays in ballet" thread (which was at least on-topic) has finally died
> down and now you want to start arguing about politics? Well not on my
> time! I don't care WHAT side of the issue you're on; I DON'T WANT TO HEAR
> ABOUT IT!!! If I did, I'd go to one of the many political groups where I
> wouldn't be boring people with better things to do.
>
> Thank you.
> _____________________________
> Steve Keeley
> SVKe...@aol.com
>
>
>
>
that's a big secret!
More important question for Republicans: Does Newt eat Shreddies? I
do. Do you?
that's a big secret!
as damaging as what I have done to the arts...you really should see me on
stage...nasty!
that's a big secret!
I think that I would like to be a saint...up there with
Newtie....mmmm....Newtie and Jeff...patron saints
of....ummmm...bullshit...well, you can only have one of each, so I'll
gladly give it to Newt.
On Sat, 9 Dec 1995, Mike Rayburn wrote:
> dog...@io.com (dogboy) wrote:
>
> >knu...@austin.ibm.com wrote:
> >> i hadn't realized! how funny! while this is off the topic, do you know
> >> what the other 5 (?) counts under investigation that were dropped were
> >> about? also dealing with his tv education program?
>
> >letting an advisor use his office, ( thats considered misappropration of
> >public resources).
>
> >mentioning an 800 number for his tapes on the floor of the congress.
>
> >mentioning a GoPac sponsered meeting in a speech.
>
> >Thats all that USA today listed. I am sure the other
> >offenses where equally 'hideous'.
>
>
> >Sorry if thats not what you wanted to hear.
>
>
> Compared to Clinton, Newts a Saint.
compared to Clinton, Newt can't play a horn, worth a Rat's ass.
'course, neither can Clinton....
>
>
>
The Muse Dude
<sRob...@escape.com> wrote:
>
> Si Ud. va a hacer este tipo de critica, me parece que va a tener que
> aprender a escribir (o al menos mecanografiar) mejor en ingles. :)
>
> Hasta luego.
Don't do this to me. I melt when someone speaks French to me.
TMD
dogboy
> >
> I don't think so, unless you want ballet marketed along with the
> so-called paintings of the "Starving Artists" (sofa sized paintings from
> $19.95, none over 49.00) True art is not commodity, more a measure of
> the degree of civilization of any group.
>
Curious, how are you defining 'true' art. By its price tag? Or
by its size.
Jon Blake
"bombers"; no one said have no military. Surely you must agree that there
is a need for changing our military/defense needs post cold war. Sure
there are still bad guys out there. The current, admittedly polarized,
congressional debate has to do with finding the right balance to get to
that honorable goal of a balanced budget. Your comment doesn't respond to
the point that citizen tax dollars go to many things, some of which an
individual citizen might disagree with. Though more difficult, a
discussion about finding the right balance of tax load and funding would
be worth the effort. But perhaps you are only interested in a polarized
shouting match?
On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Mike Rayburn wrote:
> Robert Johnson <sRob...@escape.com> wrote
>
> >As for your objections to people spending your money for you -- what
> >about MY money? What about MY will? Artists and the public for the
> >fine arts pay taxes too, you know. I personally am mad as hell that
> >the government takes my hard earned cash and squanders it on military
> >appropriations. I want my tax dollars to pay for ballet, not bombers.
>
> Ok lets stop funding the military and see how long we remain a free
> nation. Those bombers enable you to enjoy your freedom and your
> ballet!
>
>
>
Lucifer
> Robert Johnson <sRob...@escape.com> wrote
>
> >As for your objections to people spending your money for you -- what
> >about MY money? What about MY will? Artists and the public for the
> >fine arts pay taxes too, you know. I personally am mad as hell that
> >the government takes my hard earned cash and squanders it on military
> >appropriations. I want my tax dollars to pay for ballet, not bombers.
>
> Ok lets stop funding the military and see how long we remain a free
> nation. Those bombers enable you to enjoy your freedom and your
> ballet!
It has unfortunately become too apparent that for artists, the time now
exists in our society for vigilance against organized nonthinkers that
eventually would silence creative voice.
The following are websites providing insight into the quest for political
power being waged by the 'christian coalition.'
http://apocalypse.berkshire.net/~ifas/
Institute for First Amendment Studies
http://www.netplexgroup.com/americansunited
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://www.intr.net/tialliance/index.html
Interfaith Alliance
I was not aware of their existence until this past weekend. There is some
enlightening material at the sites.
Sorry to burden the group with this. An ounce of prevention is worth a
pound of cure. We may as well face the fact that it is too late for only
one ounce of prevention. The cancer is politically upon us. I am not
speaking of people with honest religious beliefs... I am speaking of
radical religion, demanding that everyone think and act as they do.
dogboy
> Someone wrote:
>
> If I were Santa, your Christmas presents this year would be samples
> of all the "true" representations of our culture which are surviving
> without any government funding at all. It wouldn't be my fault if you
> barfed up the cookies and milk that you snitched from beside the
> fireplace.
Oh I see you claim now, only you and the govt knows what 'true' art is.
If you check the collections in many museums, you will find
that many of the paintings came from private collections.
Would you like some examples?
Oh yes the Museums are funded by the govt, but then again they
don't have to be either. Simply charge admission.
>
> As for your objections to people spending your money for you -- what
> about MY money? What about MY will? Artists and the public for the
> fine arts pay taxes too, you know. I personally am mad as hell that
> the government takes my hard earned cash and squanders it on military
> appropriations. I want my tax dollars to pay for ballet, not bombers.
Personally I'd like us both to keep more of our tax dollars, partucluarly the
2 billion that is going to Europe right now. But the consitution clearly
empowers the govt to " lay and collect taxes .... to ... provide for the common
defense....
Nothing about aesthetic luxeries in there.
Darryl Ohl
I define art as the output of someone (or a group of someones) that
conveys the vision of this person or group with little or no regard
as to what it will sell for, whereas the painting from the "Starving
Artist" group (and their constantly running TV commercial) is done in
assembly line fashion to a price and with merchandisable subjects.
Darryl Ohl
Angus Hepburn
: ban...@aol.com (Bang2B) wrote:
: >Art has never been part of the free market.
: It will be now and it will have to compete.
compete with what for goodness sake! Art doesn't compete! it stands
alone, touching the lives of individuals and societies. And politics
(comments thereon) are integral to art. As are all other aspects of
individual and societal existence. If they aren't (not necessarily all
at the same time) then it probably isn't art. Art comes from the passion
of the individual. Sometimes it is simply a declaration from that
individual and sometimes it is a direct attempt to affect the passions of
others. There is a hugh chunk of theatre that is unashamedly political
and whether you agree with the stand an individual work takes or
disagree, it is important for it to be seen and heard where it can be
talked about and discussed. Commercial financing for the arts has for
some time now been taking a 'politically correct' line which does nobody
any good. Now the NEA is doing the same thing thanks to some bigoted
individuals. I don't agree with or like all that is funded, but that is
no reason why it shouldn't get out and be seen and heard. If it has
something worth saying ity survives...if not, it doesn't. But somehow we
have to ensure that the 'voices in the wilderness are not stifled.
Angus H.
Musicus Dude
wrote:
> ATTENTION! ALL REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS, NAZIS, FASCISTS, PINKOS,
> LIBERTARIANS, SOCIALISTS, AND ANY OTHER BLOODY -IST THERE MAY BE OUT
> THERE....
>
> Please take the political posts somewhere else; there are more than enough
> venues on the Net for them, we don't need them on alt.arts.ballet.
> Whatever complaints can be made about one party's flawed policies and
> hypocritical members can be echoed about the other. It never ends and
> nobody learns anything because their minds are already made up. You're
> just going to piss each other off and make more enemies.
>
> The "gays in ballet" thread (which was at least on-topic) has finally died
> down and now you want to start arguing about politics? Well not on my
> time! I don't care WHAT side of the issue you're on; I DON'T WANT TO HEAR
> ABOUT IT!!! If I did, I'd go to one of the many political groups where I
> wouldn't be boring people with better things to do.
>
> Thank you.
> _____________________________
> Steve Keeley
> SVKe...@aol.com
Sorry,
But if you don't think this stuff has anything to do with you and ballet,
I would like to respectfully suggest that you pull you head out of your
artsy-fartsy ass and take a good look around!
MD
>
>
Martin Brilliant
> Ok lets stop funding the military and see how long we remain a free
> nation. Those bombers enable you to enjoy your freedom and your
> ballet!
I think federal funding is on-topic here.
Most of those bombers exist because of bad output from the CIA, for which
the traitor Aldrich Ames was largely responsible. They were not needed
for defense against the Soviet Union, and they are certainly not needed
for defense against any lesser power.
It seems strange to me that conservatives who object to "throwing money
at" social problems do not hesitate to throw money at defense. (That's
irony, but not sweet).
A "strong America" without art and without compassion is about as "strong"
as a sick man with a gun. Let's spend less on armaments and more on art,
science, education, and, yes, welfare.
Marty
Martin B. Brilliant at home in Holmdel, NJ
Mike Rayburn
>As for your objections to people spending your money for you -- what
>about MY money? What about MY will? Artists and the public for the
>fine arts pay taxes too, you know. I personally am mad as hell that
>the government takes my hard earned cash and squanders it on military
>appropriations. I want my tax dollars to pay for ballet, not bombers.
Ok lets stop funding the military and see how long we remain a free
Mike Rayburn
>In article <4aiv2l$4...@cub.flex.net>, mray...@flex.net wrote:
>It has unfortunately become too apparent that for artists, the time now
>exists in our society for vigilance against organized nonthinkers that
>eventually would silence creative voice.
>The following are websites providing insight into the quest for political
>power being waged by the 'christian coalition.'
>http://apocalypse.berkshire.net/~ifas/
>Institute for First Amendment Studies
>http://www.netplexgroup.com/americansunited
>Americans United for Separation of Church and State
>http://www.intr.net/tialliance/index.html
>Interfaith Alliance
>I was not aware of their existence until this past weekend. There is some
>enlightening material at the sites.
>Sorry to burden the group with this. An ounce of prevention is worth a
>pound of cure. We may as well face the fact that it is too late for only
>one ounce of prevention. The cancer is politically upon us. I am not
>speaking of people with honest religious beliefs... I am speaking of
>radical religion, demanding that everyone think and act as they do.
Lucifer?
dogboy
>
> > ...there is much more to art than
> > the perverted self glorifying renditions of the Europeans.
>
> Where do you get this bigoted shit? You're as bad as the worst
> colonial racist in history. Recognizing the beauty of non-Western
> art doesn't mean that you have to ditch the creations of Europeans,
> which are an important part of the heritage of all Americans, whatever
> our ethnic background.
Admittedly came down a little hard. However, that is a constant theme
amongst most Latin American Artists I know. They
want to establish their OWN aesthtic, and are constantly butting
up against Euro Centrism in universities, and when seeking funding.
It is a real problem, just as it was a real problem for
Black entertainers in the 30's. IMHO, govt involvement only compounds this.
> The paltry sums spent by the U.S. government to fund artistic projects
> is far too little to have brainwashed anyone.
I disagree, although its getting better, the exposure to
non european arts in this Countries educational system is
pathetic. WHile the exposure to European art is dramatic.
Having grown up with a different aesthetic, I felt
a great DEAL of pressure to conform. IMHO that is not
a good thing. While it would probably occur with or
without govt intervention, it is IMO grossly unfair
to extract tax dollars from one cultural sub group
to extoll and glorify the aesthetic of another.
> > Thats A PERVERSTION of art, not a preservation of it...Well if
> stifling diversity in the arts was your goal. At Diego Rivera did get
> a little help, but you seem to have neglected him in your tirade
> of euro ingradizement.
>
> Si Ud. va a hacer este tipo de critica, me parece que va a tener que
> aprender a escribir (o al menos mecanografiar) mejor en ingles. :)
Pero es tan defacil a deletrear en engles. No hay reglas consitente.
A los menos, no necesito hablar en frances'. :)
En Verdad, cual es mas importante? Forma o sustancia?
Muchacho de perrito :)
Street Cents Writers
>
> In article <4ai9r7$f...@beyond.escape.com>, Robert Johnson
> <sRob...@escape.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > aprender a escribir (o al menos mecanografiar) mejor en ingles. :)
> >
>
> Don't do this to me. I melt when someone speaks French to me.
>
> TMD
TMD, I guess you'll have to wait a little longer to melt, seeing
as it's Spanish, not French. (My apologies if you already know
this and were making an in-joke of some sort.)
LCM
Rima Cooke
writes:
>As for your objections to people spending your money for you -- what
>about MY money? What about MY will? Artists and the public for the
>fine arts pay taxes too, you know. I personally am mad as hell that
>the government takes my hard earned cash and squanders it on military
>appropriations. I want my tax dollars to pay for ballet, not bombers.
Leigh, here's another T-shirt quote for you!!
"Ballet, not bombers"!!
dogboy
Angus Hepburn (na...@tribeca.ios.com) wrote:
> Mike Rayburn (mray...@flen.net) wrote:
> : ban...@aol.com (Bang2B) wrote:
>
> : It will be now and it will have to compete.
>
> compete with what for goodness sake!
Other art. Those of us who have had pompous University
professors proudly proclaim what 'is' and is not music
while watching the watching the same struggle with a
chart that required improvisation in spite of their
'technical' proficiency, understand.
< pompous but empty rhetoric snipped>
> comes from the passion of the individual.
So then my tax dollars should not be required.
> Sometimes it is simply a declaration from that
> individual and sometimes it is a direct attempt to affect the passions of
> others.
Which of course is why many of us object to govt funding of the same.
I would prefer that my govt reach its people on an intellectual
level and not an emotional one. We have seen what effects art
as propaganda can render, and they are NOT always positive.
> There is a hugh chunk of theatre that is unashamedly political
> and whether you agree with the stand an individual work takes or
> disagree, it is important for it to be seen and heard where it can be
> talked about and discussed.
Why?
> Commercial financing for the arts has for
> some time now been taking a 'politically correct' line which does nobody
> any good. Now the NEA is doing the same thing thanks to some bigoted
> individuals. I don't agree with or like all that is funded, but that is
> no reason why it shouldn't get out and be seen and heard. If it has
> something worth saying ity survives...if not, it doesn't. But somehow we
> have to ensure that the 'voices in the wilderness are not stifled.
> Angus H.
Angus, I can agree with this last statement. BUt I don't understand why
private foundations can't do the same.
< followups redirect4ed to tx.politics do to the frequent complaints
about the newsgroups. Add yours back in ( and take responsibility for the
same) if you do not want to follow on tx.poltics >
Leigh Witchel
>Robert Johnson (sRob...@escape.com) wrote:
>>
>> > ...there is much more to art than
>> > the perverted self glorifying renditions of the Europeans.
>>
>> Where do you get this bigoted shit? You're as bad as the worst
>> colonial racist in history. Recognizing the beauty of non-Western
>> art doesn't mean that you have to ditch the creations of Europeans,
>> which are an important part of the heritage of all Americans, whatever
>> our ethnic background.
>
>Admittedly came down a little hard. However, that is a constant theme
>amongst most Latin American Artists I know. They
>want to establish their OWN aesthtic, and are constantly butting
>up against Euro Centrism in universities, and when seeking funding.
>It is a real problem, just as it was a real problem for
>Black entertainers in the 30's. IMHO, govt involvement only compounds this.
>
Agreed. But ask any Latin American artist who is trying to produce work,
are they going to ask you to cut government funding? Or just make sure
they are represented among those funded? One thing I have seen in my
grantwriting for companies is that most funders (because of their liberal
backgrounds, actually) take cultural diversity *very* seriously. This
most decidedly includes the NEA, which sadly has been hamstrung in that
effort. In fact, the NEA seemed to be much closer to the vanguard in
this effort than a lot of local organizations, because it had managed to
hire nationally recognized people with broad areas of knowledge. Yes, like
all agencies, it had its screwups, but before you go out and blast its tenure
for being ethnocentric, I suggest you seek out the artists themselves and
ask them.
>> The paltry sums spent by the U.S. government to fund artistic projects
>> is far too little to have brainwashed anyone.
>
>I disagree, although its getting better, the exposure to
>non european arts in this Countries educational system is
>pathetic. WHile the exposure to European art is dramatic.
>Having grown up with a different aesthetic, I felt
>a great DEAL of pressure to conform. IMHO that is not
>a good thing. While it would probably occur with or
>without govt intervention, it is IMO grossly unfair
>to extract tax dollars from one cultural sub group
>to extoll and glorify the aesthetic of another.
>
But the solution you're suggesting reminds me of someone who, aggravated
about his stammer, opts to remove his vocal chords. This country has a
very ambivalent attitude towards art and its consumption. If you'd like
to see people even comfortable around art (ANY art...) the first step is
exposure to it.
Also, speaking of previous points on this thread....we've got 240 million
people to keep sort of happy somehow in this country (and hopefully, fed
and sheltered) Not everything we do is everyone's job, or obligation,
but it seems to me, with that many people within the system, arguments
of funding or not because "I want/don't want it" seem specious. I don't
drive on the Interstate near your town. Why should I help fund it? I
don't even drive. But I do, and one of the reasons I do (other than I'm
forced to ;-) is that in a system this large, I don't know what product
that's essential to me is being transported on your roads to my town. In
the same way, art in this country is a bargain basement investment, that
produces quality and independence of thought (Look at all of your
education...did it corrupt you? Doesn't seem like it hampered your
critical facilities) Like education, it is an investment in the quality
of a nation. You may not be able to point to a direct reward, but the
indirect ones are there, and at less than a dollar per citizen, pretty
ding-dong cheap. Maybe we should just make the budget larger so there's
more room for more art of all kinds, rather than cutting it all out so no
art survives.
Government is, I hope, a group effort by a bunch o' people to do things
together that they couldn't do alone. Like build roads...and defend
themselves. It's much more efficient to cooperate on these efforts, and
in a lot of cases, there is a drive in humanity to work in a community.
To assume that all art is solitary expression (eg painting, writing which
are where most of your examples come from....) is to be intellectually
biased, although perhaps not culturally so. Some of the art we have
enjoyed most in the world necessitates a group effort to create (and
support) it. A lot of what you've mentioned to this point implies that the
only art that should survive is that which can be made independently by
the artist, or with private patronage. I'll bet that kills a lot of the
heritage you're trying to foster.
>>
>> Si Ud. va a hacer este tipo de critica, me parece que va a tener que
>> aprender a escribir (o al menos mecanografiar) mejor en ingles. :)
>
>Pero es tan defacil a deletrear en engles. No hay reglas consitente.
>A los menos, no necesito hablar en frances'. :)
>
>En Verdad, cual es mas importante? Forma o sustancia?
Depends on what you're doing. Form can be substance :) But I'd like to
take this opportunity here to say "sin verguenza!" if only because I know
what those words mean in Spanish, and now I feel much better even if the
comment was not pertinent.
>
>Muchacho de perrito :)
>
Hombre de big schnozzo.
LAW
--
"Beautiful costumes and grandiose musical ambition serve only to
underline the sadness of the enterprise: like a wan girl in a fabulous
prom dress, the work's lack of personality leaves you looking over its
shoulder for another partner." E. Zimmer, Village Voice, 7/4/95
dogboy
Brilliant <ma...@mars.superlink.net> writes:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Mike Rayburn wrote:
>
> I think federal funding is on-topic here.
>
>
> It seems strange to me that conservatives who object to "throwing money
> at" social problems do not hesitate to throw money at defense. (That's
> irony, but not sweet).
Huh? the topic was art not social problems.
> A "strong America" without art and without compassion is about as "strong"
> as a sick man with a gun.
Why this ridiculous assertion that without govt funding there would
be NO art. There would most certainly be art, there has been
as a part of Human existence for 20,000+ years, much of it
( the better part IMHO , YMMV ) sans govt subsidy. While it is
probably true that certain art forms will probably be
diminished in stature relative to more populist forms
without govt intervention, that is merely reverses a substitution
of art that reflects the current status quo for art that
reflects the population at at large. A
positive thing in my eyes. Remember, eliminating
GOVT subsidy of art, is NOT intended to eliminate art, it
is intended to allow YOU do direct YOUR dollars towards
the art that inspires YOU.
< followups directed to tx.politics at the request
of several other readers. Please add back whatever newsgroups
you think are relevent. >
dogboy
>
> Agreed. But ask any Latin American artist who is trying to produce work,
> are they going to ask you to cut government funding?
>Or just make sure they are represented among those funded?
Depends on the artist and the Govt. I think Cildo Meireles
would have preferred to cut govt funding. Diego Rivera was
probably happy to receive it, but if you look closely at some of
his work, you'll notice he found his own way to laugh at the
Eureopeans. Did FLorencio Molina Campos receive any funding?
( I don't know acctually, I am asking, certainly not much).
> One thing I have seen in my
> grantwriting for companies is that most funders (because of their liberal
> backgrounds, actually) take cultural diversity *very* seriously. This
< snipped for brevity, but a valid point>
I think the danger you miss is exactly what you discribe, if artists
allow themselves to become dependant on the govt for handouts, what happens
if at a latter time the govt decides to have more control over content?
Artists that are dependant on govt charity will be subservient to the
will of the govt. Whether it be sexual censorship ( as we have
seen become an issue) or other. Can you imagine the impact of
a Joe McCarthy if the arts depended COMPLETELY on the govt for
support? Who would have dared to speak out then?
> But the solution you're suggesting reminds me of someone who, aggravated
> about his stammer, opts to remove his vocal chords. This country has a
> very ambivalent attitude towards art and its consumption. If you'd like
> to see people even comfortable around art (ANY art...) the first step is
> exposure to it.
Now it is more the anger of one who knows he has the ability to
walk on his own, but is constantly carried by others for his
'own good' regardless of the fact that he 1) has the ablity, and
2) may choose to go in a different direction. For he knows
well and good that if he does not use the good muscle in
his legs they will atrophy, and he may not be able to run when he
needs to.
> Also, speaking of previous points on this thread....we've got 240 million
> people to keep sort of happy somehow in this country (and hopefully, fed
> and sheltered) Not everything we do is everyone's job, or obligation,
> but it seems to me, with that many people within the system, arguments
> of funding or not because "I want/don't want it" seem specious. I don't
> drive on the Interstate near your town. Why should I help fund it?
IMHO the interstate should be funded by a combination of highway
taxes, fuel taxes, and tools. Thats a good example of how
govt subsidy perverts the markets. Consider how grossly
inefficient the personal automobile is in terms of energy
resources and environmental damage. It would be MUCH better
(IMHO) if drivers were forced to bear the ACTUAL costs of driving
directly. Odds are good that more people would opt for mass transit,
which of course would be better for all of us in the long run.
Instead the mass subsidy of the car, has made a few people
Very wealthy, and the landscape and air have suffered as cities
are engineered for the motor comuter with acres of paved parking.
> I don't even drive. But I do, and one of the reasons I do (other than I'm
> forced to ;-) is that in a system this large, I don't know what product
> that's essential to me is being transported on your roads to my town. In
The manufacturer or reatailer already pay the truck driver, and he
already pays for the fuel. Why shouldn't the use of the road be
one of the costs? ( actually to some extent it is).
> the same way, art in this country is a bargain basement investment, that
> produces quality and independence of thought (Look at all of your
> education...did it corrupt you?
Absoultely, I speant YEARS trying to prefect technique and when I
was out in the markets, yet it was spontenuity that kept me solvent.
Perhaps had I focused more on what I had a talent for and less
on what artificial standards the established art community
foisted on me, I may have had a longer career. ( although
in truth I proably just sucked as a Piano player :) ) .
> Doesn't seem like it hampered your
> critical facilities)
Thanks, but indeed it did. I have a whole collection of CD's that
I find I really hate, but teachers told me were 'good'. Its taken
me nearly a quarter of century to UNLEARN what I learned in
my formal music education. Perhaps I am just bitter :).
> Like education, it is an investment in the quality
> of a nation. You may not be able to point to a direct reward, but the
> indirect ones are there, and at less than a dollar per citizen, pretty
> ding-dong cheap. Maybe we should just make the budget larger so there's
> more room for more art of all kinds, rather than cutting it all out so no
> art survives.
cwI diagree, IMO, we should all budget personally
for that art which we feel reflects
OUR aesthetic, and let the artistic community adjust to the indivduals
which comprise the community at large, not simply those running
the established interests. Perhaps you have forgotten that
merely 30 years ago, a mini cultural revolution was required to
change some of the entrenched narrowmindedness of American culture.
>
< more good stuff snipped for brevity>
> enjoyed most in the world necessitates a group effort to create (and
> support) it. A lot of what you've mentioned to this point implies that the
> only art that should survive is that which can be made independently by
> the artist, or with private patronage. I'll bet that kills a lot of the
> heritage you're trying to foster.
Hard to say, would Diego Rivera and Frieda Kahlo NOT have painted without
the large contracts? From what I know of them they would have painted
if they had to use their own blood for pigmant, and their hair for
a brush. However, it is likely that rather than bury his aztec
heritage subtly and obscurly in the background, he would have
developed it. One problem with money and art, is the temptation
to sell out 'just a little' bit for the money. It matters not
whether the money comes from govt or the wealthty. Better
IMHO to encourage popular arts that feed off a large number of
small contributers. YMMV.
> Depends on what you're doing. Form can be substance :) But I'd like to
> take this opportunity here to say "sin verguenza!" if only because I know
> what those words mean in Spanish, and now I feel much better even if the
> comment was not pertinent.
And I'd like to take this oppurtunity to thank you , especially for the
reassurance that not everyone with a love of art is narrow mindedly
committed to their own view of what it is or should be, and ,
while we may have differing conclusions, it is a pleasure to
explore the alternatives with someone, like yourself, who
has a broad enough perspective to consider the views of
someone with whom he does not agree.
Robert Johnson
>
> > nation. Those bombers enable you to enjoy your freedom and your
> > ballet!
>
>
> Most of those bombers exist because of bad output from the CIA, for which
> the traitor Aldrich Ames was largely responsible. They were not needed
> for defense against the Soviet Union, and they are certainly not needed
> for defense against any lesser power.
>
> at" social problems do not hesitate to throw money at defense. (That's
> irony, but not sweet).
>
> science, education, and, yes, welfare.
>
> Marty
I'm with you, Marty. Hey, let's >>keep<< funding the military at
current levels -- and see how long we remain a free nation. The
Founding Fathers (may they rest in peace) were opposed to the
maintenance of a standing army, and our nation managed to preserve
its freedom without one for most of its history. The grossly
exaggerated military spending of our times, and our commitment to
a huge military establishment are a cancer that grew out of the
Cold War. That little game of political chicken is now >>over.<<
Repeat, >>over<<. Yet our political leaders refuse to deal with
reality, refuse to invest in retooling our industries and retraining
our workforce to meet the challenges of the future. Instead they
keep pouring money into the military, enriching a select group of
manufacturers and distributors at the expense of the nation as a
whole. How long can our democracy endure with this kind of a strain
placed on our economy, not to mention our cultural life? The Cold
War killed the Soviet Union -- and it may yet kill our way of life
if our government doesn't reorder its priorities and start investing
in the future, in new industries, in education, in science and the
arts. Even in the ballet. :)
Robert Johnson
>
> Don't do this to me. I melt when someone speaks French to me.
>
TMD melts when he/she hears French. Doggie boy melts when he hears
Nahuatl. That's what makes America such a great "melting" pot.
Everyone's got the hots for culture. The great Mexican choreographer
Jose Limon summed up the whole situation in his pas de trois
"La Malinche," in which the Conquistador and El Indio vie for the
heart of our continent. What I don't undestand is why everyone thinks
culture should be a cheap date. Take your honey out in style!
Muse Dude
<sRob...@escape.com> wrote:
Duh...could you be more specific?
MD
Robert Johnson
is that the artists most likely to be put out of business by the
elimination of government support are "los marginados," those with
small constituencies and organizations riding the economic edge. The
big boys will keep playing ball. The latino artists whom you
mentioned, with the possible exception of Diego Rivera, are not
exactly household names, and are not likely to be supported by the
great bourgeois public that sits enthralled before each new episode
of "Roseanne" and "Married...With Children." Most of the politicians
who share your view that government support for the arts should
be eliminated are opposed to government funding of the arts because
they believe that the government gives undue support to minority
artists, whose work represents communities that do not share
"mainstream," "family" values. If the NEA were only funding the
status quo, then there would be no reason for politicians on the
right to attack it.
You're right that eliminating government support for the arts will
not kill the arts. Destroying the NEA will only kill the smallest
and most vulnerable cultural institutions, the ones that
represent "marginated" communities and promote controversial points
of view. Eliminating government funding for the arts, unfortunately,
will also send a message to everyone in this country, including
private-sector funders who now match NEA dollars three to one, that
art isn't important at all, and doesn't deserve anyone's time or
money. Thus private support for the arts will not increase to
compensate for the government's abdication, but will decline.
Eliminating government support for the arts will not reduce your
tax burden, or mine. The result will simply be that our taxes go
straight into the Congressional pork barrel without any benefit
to us. We get nothing in return except an elaborate "defense" from
an enemy that no longer exists, plus mounting piles of nuclear
waste.
Scott Walters
> Robert Johnson (sRob...@escape.com) wrote:
> > Someone wrote:
> >
>
> Personally I'd like us both to keep more of our tax dollars, partucluarly the
> 2 billion that is going to Europe right now. But the consitution clearly
> empowers the govt to " lay and collect taxes .... to ... provide for
the common
> defense....
>
> Nothing about aesthetic luxeries in there.
I could write reams about the need for the spiritual and ethical defense
of our country today. We have attended to the political and economic life
of our nation to the exclusion of our spiritual and ethical life, and now
we are reaping the rewards: ignorance, crudeness, crassness, and random
violence. The arts provide "empathy training" and empathy helps to stop
people from regarding other people as objects that can be abused at will
and without concern. Keep worrying about those evils "out there," bucko,
while the heart is chewed out of the American body politic.
Scott Walters
dogboy
>
> I could write reams about the need for the spiritual and ethical defense
> of our country today.
So could Pat Robertson. I'll thank you both to care after your
own souls and leave mine to me.
> We have attended to the political and economic life
> of our nation to the exclusion of our spiritual and ethical life, and now
> we are reaping the rewards: ignorance, crudeness, crassness, and random
> violence.
I am sure the religous right agress with your analysis, just not
in the prescribed solution. One reason those of us
who don't feel the need to foist our own particular brand
of morality/spirituality/relgions/whatever are quite
grateful for the first ammendment. However, IMHO,
there is nothing magical about adding one or more dieties
to moral diatrabe that makes it any more or less acceptable.
Amy Reusch
>> >
>> I don't think so, unless you want ballet marketed along with the
>> so-called paintings of the "Starving Artists" (sofa sized paintings
from
>> $19.95, none over 49.00) True art is not commodity, more a measure of
>> the degree of civilization of any group.
>
>Curious, how are you defining 'true' art. By its price tag? Or
>by its size.
>
I gather you've never been subjected to any of these "Starving Artists"
so-called paintings, or you'd know the author wasn't refering to either
the price or the size.
~ Amy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Reusch
Dance Videographer
currently in Chicago
eye4...@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dance Links, alt.arts.ballet's collection of Web Dance Sites:
http://bohr.physics.purdue.edu/~jswhite/dance_links.html
Leigh Witchel
>Leigh Witchel (d...@panix.com) wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. But ask any Latin American artist who is trying to produce work,
>> are they going to ask you to cut government funding?
>>Or just make sure they are represented among those funded?
>
>Depends on the artist and the Govt. I think Cildo Meireles
>would have preferred to cut govt funding. Diego Rivera was
>probably happy to receive it, but if you look closely at some of
>his work, you'll notice he found his own way to laugh at the
>Eureopeans. Did FLorencio Molina Campos receive any funding?
>( I don't know acctually, I am asking, certainly not much).
>
I doesn't take much :) Also, this is your golden opportunity! Tell me
about Cildo Meireles and Florencia Molina Campos! (Of course, what I
really want is more outreach programs so that their work would be
familiar to me ;-)
>> One thing I have seen in my
>> grantwriting for companies is that most funders (because of their liberal
>> backgrounds, actually) take cultural diversity *very* seriously. This
>< snipped for brevity, but a valid point>
>
>I think the danger you miss is exactly what you discribe, if artists
>allow themselves to become dependant on the govt for handouts, what happens
>if at a latter time the govt decides to have more control over content?
>Artists that are dependant on govt charity will be subservient to the
>will of the govt. Whether it be sexual censorship ( as we have
>seen become an issue) or other. Can you imagine the impact of
>a Joe McCarthy if the arts depended COMPLETELY on the govt for
>support? Who would have dared to speak out then?
>
I trust art to promulgate free speech, honest. Also, at the rate the
government funds in America, we need not fear that state of dependency
;-) Also, I come from a form (ballet) that has been dependent upon the
largesse of patrons (pick your patron) since day one. My feeling is that
this sort of art form has political repercussions for you (just like
organized religion, eh? Just a personal aside...grand gestures or
anything that smacks of elitism makes you yak, doesn't it?)
The form changes subtly and gradually to mirror the political climate in
which it resides. At its outset, you had the hierarchical ranks (corps,
soloist principal...) which emulate the structure of monarchy. This
altered subtly in America to become more of an adulation of 'merit' than
of monarchy (the ballerina is singled out to go faster, turn more, jump
higher, etc., rather less than for her aristocratic qualities.) This does
mirror certain aspects of the mythology of the country. In countries
with a more socialist tendencies, you'll see a lot fewer 19th cent.
classics, or radical reinterpretations of them.
But right now, government patronage is the patronage we have. Individual
patronage has been more or less replaced by corporate patronage.
Corporate patronage is as great a leveller as any you'd ever want. I
actually think it would hurt the people you strive to protect, though.
Here's my reasoning.
In the US right now, the NEA, paradoxically, is often in the vanguard of
recognizing exciting new artists. Funders at lower levels and corporate
funders rely upon their "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" especially
if the Arts is not the funder's area of expertise. It's a way of
knowing who's out there, without spending all of your time researching
artists, especially if your time also has to go towards feeding the
hungry, sheltering the homeless, protecting the weak....you get the idea.
Corporate funding is predicated on a free-market drive. Fair enough.
Funding is looked upon as investment and advertisement. Absolut funds
dance companies whose audience matches their demographics. Phillip
Morris expiates its tobacco earnings with "guilt money". We get dance,
they get cachet. Strange bedfellows, eh? Is it any stranger than gov't
funding? I think it has even less chance of funding outside of the
mainstream of culture, because it relies upon commercial motivations, at
its core, even though there is certainly some altruistic intent.
>> But the solution you're suggesting reminds me of someone who, aggravated
>> about his stammer, opts to remove his vocal chords. This country has a
>> very ambivalent attitude towards art and its consumption. If you'd like
>> to see people even comfortable around art (ANY art...) the first step is
>> exposure to it.
>
>Now it is more the anger of one who knows he has the ability to
>walk on his own, but is constantly carried by others for his
>'own good' regardless of the fact that he 1) has the ablity, and
>2) may choose to go in a different direction. For he knows
>well and good that if he does not use the good muscle in
>his legs they will atrophy, and he may not be able to run when he
>needs to.
>
I don't totally buy that. :) Although it reminds me of EM Forster's "Two
Cheers for Democracy". It also reminds me of someone practicing
starving, in case they might have to some day. ;) Don't worry, when you
have to starve, you'll know how, sadly enough.
[Interesting highway chat deleted for brevity]
>
>The manufacturer or reatailer already pay the truck driver, and he
>already pays for the fuel. Why shouldn't the use of the road be
>one of the costs? ( actually to some extent it is).
>
Possibly because I don't believe in manufacturers and producers being the
only people who decides where roads go :-). What if they decided that
the quickest way from point A to point B is through a Virgin Forest?
(I'm going to stop with this metaphor right now, elsewise we'll start
arguing about roads :-) But in the same way, I don't trust corporate
and market impulses to be the best ones for the gathering of knowledge,
or its LONG TERM benefits. Corporations are like guys :-) They think
about NOW, baby, NOW!
>> the same way, art in this country is a bargain basement investment, that
>> produces quality and independence of thought (Look at all of your
>> education...did it corrupt you?
>
>Absoultely, I speant YEARS trying to prefect technique and when I
>was out in the markets, yet it was spontenuity that kept me solvent.
>Perhaps had I focused more on what I had a talent for and less
>on what artificial standards the established art community
>foisted on me, I may have had a longer career. ( although
>in truth I proably just sucked as a Piano player :) ) .
That stinks. But did that have anything to do with government funding
;-) Or just the rigidity of your teachers? Rigidity can be funded by
any one of a number of means, and seems to flourish with very little care.
I'd hate to think we'd lose another means of getting art out there for
people because we were afraid they'd do it wrong.
>> Doesn't seem like it hampered your
>> critical facilities)
>
>Thanks, but indeed it did. I have a whole collection of CD's that
>I find I really hate, but teachers told me were 'good'. Its taken
>me nearly a quarter of century to UNLEARN what I learned in
>my formal music education. Perhaps I am just bitter :).
>
darn. Rebels always have to go through an annealing process, and their
forge is the authority they despise. Even in a negative way, it's a
learning process, and necessary. I still think it has little to do with
gov't funding, though ;-)
[big snip]
>
>And I'd like to take this oppurtunity to thank you , especially for the
>reassurance that not everyone with a love of art is narrow mindedly
>committed to their own view of what it is or should be, and ,
>while we may have differing conclusions, it is a pleasure to
>explore the alternatives with someone, like yourself, who
>has a broad enough perspective to consider the views of
>someone with whom he does not agree.
Smoochies!
OK. We both love art. I'm more than willing to give you space on where
its support should come from. I'm not married to the idea of government
support. I am married to the idea that art should be a basic part of
people's lives, if only because it makes them more informed human beings.
(a good enough reason, that.) I think you'd buy that much as well.
What do we do now? I'm worried about your bedfellows on this issue.
Quite frankly the budget cuts in the social programs have proven
themselves not to come from a libertarian insistence (which is your
impulse) but from a moral imperative that I haven't seen you express,
namely that Art is dangerous, especially Art that WE don't recognize.
It's the same one that causes xenophobic legislation against Hispanics in
this country. If the cuts came from a libertarian rather than a moral
desire, why would there have been a proposed INCREASE for the military
that wasn't even requested by the military? Your allies on this issue
are going to turn around and bite you on the ass when you're most vulnerable.
Again, what can we do? To me, there are two issues here. How do we get
people value art, and to think critically about life in general? It's
obvious to me that it starts with education, whether private or public.
we probably shouldn't even get into this topic, 'cause it's a novella in
and of itself.
dogboy
> recognizing exciting new artists. Funders at lower levels and corporate
> funders rely upon their "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" especially
> if the Arts is not the funder's area of expertise. It's a way of
< some deletia to be addressed later >
> What do we do now? I'm worried about your bedfellows on this issue.
> Quite frankly the budget cuts in the social programs have proven
> themselves not to come from a libertarian insistence (which is your
> impulse) but from a moral imperative that I haven't seen you express,
> namely that Art is dangerous, especially Art that WE don't recognize.
I'll address the balance of your fine post when I can give it the thoughtful
consideration it deserves, but I think you miss the crux of the issue here,
and it is important enought (IMO) to warrant special attention.
IF the NEA is dependant on govt handouts, then the NEA can be controlled
by the govt.
That is EXACTLY what the CC is trying to do, CONTROL art
thru govt by threatening to cut the ambilicol cord if it doesn't
conform.
What then is the solution? I think it is obvious, cut the
cord and tell the CC to take a flying leap, art doesn't
need their patronage. A little like what we all did when
pop said, "dam it, you'll do as I say as long as you live
in my house." Say goodbye. This does not imply the
relationship has to be vitrolic, only indpendant if
it is to have a free enviornment to flourish in.
I do not know enough of the funding of the NEA
to make intelligent commentary, but there is a defender of it on the
net who know more of it than I ( and who is a bit more liberal than me too),
Andy Hall who seemed to feel that it could survive with private funding.
I am going to add one more xpost to talk.politics.misc, and hope he
joins in. He's another that I often disagree with but generally
learn from .
dogboy
>
>
> I'm with you, Marty. Hey, let's >>keep<< funding the military at
> current levels -- and see how long we remain a free nation. The
> Founding Fathers (may they rest in peace) were opposed to the
> maintenance of a standing army, and our nation managed to preserve
> its freedom without one for most of its history. The grossly
> exaggerated military spending of our times, and our commitment to
> a huge military establishment are a cancer that grew out of the
> Cold War. That little game of political chicken is now >>over.<<
> Repeat, >>over<<. Yet our political leaders refuse to deal with
> reality, refuse to invest in retooling our industries and retraining
> our workforce to meet the challenges of the future. Instead they
> keep pouring money into the military, enriching a select group of
> manufacturers and distributors at the expense of the nation as a
> whole. How long can our democracy endure with this kind of a strain
> placed on our economy, not to mention our cultural life? The Cold
> War killed the Soviet Union -- and it may yet kill our way of life
> if our government doesn't reorder its priorities and start investing
> in the future, in new industries, in education, in science and the
Perhaps you should check where the money in budget goes before
sounding off.
Through most of the 50's ( peak cold war time) military spending was between
50 and 70% of the federal budget.
In the 60's it was between 40 and 50%, due to the Vietnam war.
By the time Nixon left office it was down to 31%. It was done to 24%
when Ford left. For all his talk of peace, it only dropped
another 2% under carter to 22%. After Reagan Bush , it
was down to around 20% ( although it did spike up to 28% under ronnie).
Thats about where it stayed for the first two years of the
Clinton presidency. althouth the 95 estimates ( yup the first year
of a GOP congress) show it to be down to 16.9%. Did you know that
the budget of the dept of HHS exceeds that, as does the IRS.
It seems govt is doing just what it should, gradually defunding
the military, now thats its function is obsolete. And if you pay attention
to which years get the dramatic drops, you'll learn which party
to vote for if you want to see it continue. :)
Source: Clintons proposed budget for 1996, historical tables.
Numbers for 50's and 60's are from the outlay by function and supefunction.
Numbers for the 90s are from the outlays by dept.
( not available for years before 62). The numbers are slightly lower
in the dept figures as they break out military and cival defense
separately).
dogboy
> The sad thing about your point of view, Dogboy, (lo que mas me hiere)
> is that the artists most likely to be put out of business by the
> elimination of government support are "los marginados," those with
> small constituencies and organizations riding the economic edge. The
Hmm, care to support this conjecture? The whole history of
black American Music from the cival war to the 60's tends to
refute your theory.
> big boys will keep playing ball. The latino artists whom you
> mentioned, with the possible exception of Diego Rivera, are not
And of course Diego Rivera prostituted himself for the
govt over and over. Is this your vision of artistic freedom?
> exactly household names, and are not likely to be supported by the
> great bourgeois public that sits enthralled before each new episode
> of "Roseanne" and "Married...With Children."
Regardless of your personal taste, now which do you figure
better reflects the culture of working class America, swan lake,
or Roseanne. Truth may not always be pretty, but that is
irrelevent to questions of veracity. Obviously you would like
American art to conform to your own personal tastes and standards.
But that by its very nature is elitist.
> Most of the politicians
> who share your view that government support for the arts should
> be eliminated are opposed to government funding of the arts because
> they believe that the government gives undue support to minority
> artists, whose work represents communities that do not share
> "mainstream," "family" values. If the NEA were only funding the
> status quo, then there would be no reason for politicians on the
> right to attack it.
More conjecture, but can you support it with something? Of course
my take is that art free from govt funding is art free from govt control.
Look at the outrage over Maplethorpes work. But note, that beyond
witholding funding the CC is powerless. Now can you imagine if the
arts degraded themselves to the point where they required
govt funding what the situation would be? Do you really want
to be depandant on a politic that gives serious consideration
to Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson for the lifeblood of art?
Leigh Witchel
Robert Johnson <sRob...@escape.com> wrote:
>Eliminating government funding for the arts, unfortunately,
>will also send a message to everyone in this country, including
>private-sector funders who now match NEA dollars three to one, that
>art isn't important at all, and doesn't deserve anyone's time or
>money. Thus private support for the arts will not increase to
>compensate for the government's abdication, but will decline.
And thank you Robert, for saying what I realized I had forgotten in my
related post.
It's an essential point. If you want the private sector to fund
something, they must somehow be convinced of its value. Government
funding in the States has never supported the Arts, it never will (our
budget is $172 mil. on a national level. I believe the budget for the
city of Berlin alone is higher, to show you how much less we spend than
other nations. And yes, we still have Art, thankfully!
But do we have the notion that Art is of value? This is a nation in
which the color of money is what denotes respect. The NEA is more than
the money it gives out, which within our nation's budget is minimal. It
is a symbol of a commitment to culture, and whether we like it or not,
yes, a political imperative. I think it's more open than a left/right
thing, but because art is about expression, there will be a lot of things
said to which somebody's going to take offense. The very acceptance of
that right is a political act. Such is life, even for those of
us who aren't particularly political.
I understand your distrust of government. It never is the most efficient
method, it seems. But we need another proven model of support. I believe
you will find the expressions you dearly cherish strong enough that their
creation will still occur by fiercely committed artists. But what of
their consumption? What is Art without dissemination? How else could I
come to know Florencia Campos if her work is not available to be seen?
No, the NEA is not perfect. But its use as a political pawn seems to be
in its destruction rather than in funding the "wrong" people. How sad.
We need to make art available. Tons of art. Art of all sorts. Art that
I like and art that I don't. Art that encourages critical thought, art
that informs and inspires a citizenry. Art need not have a message to do
this. All it needs to do is make you think, and in the age of commerical
TV, this skill needs as much refreshing as possible.
Thinking about it, I'd love for you to look at what pops into your head
when the word "Art" is mentioned. Writing, music, painting (Or just a
guy named Art?).....the reason that I ask is I'm guessing it's a solitary
form, like writing or painting....not a communal form like theater. But
I may be wrong. The reason I ask is because of your political
bent...most of the artists you talk about are figures outside of
society. They are wonderful, but art operates within the realm of the
community as well as outside of it. It's communicative. Some of your
insistence on its independence from the community, its "rugged
individualism" seems to come from this perception. You'd be
surprised...there's actually a lot of government funding for art from the
margins, as well as art from the center. It's what brings it to wider
audiences.
It's just that I imagine you see the artist almost like a stylite, above
the community, preaching down from a pillar. I'm vain enough to believe
in the special vocation of the artist, and also of the sacrifices and
rigor necessary to perfect that calling. I don't want the money for a
new car. I just want to pay my dancers so that after 12 years of
training, they make the same as someone at McDonalds. Or that they can
save some money for when they have to go on to a new career, at appx.
30. I don't want to be so disjointed from the community that along the
fearful respect one accords some sort of odd anchorite or hermit, comes
the relief that they aren't part of one's day to day life. And yet, I
have no desire to produce art diluted by the short term demands of a
marketplace dumbed down by commercial interests.
It is patronage, not the marketplace, that allows artists working in
larger (in terms of resources) forms to follow instinct and vision. It's
been coming from the government as society alters in this country. The
NEA, as I said is not perfect. It's not half bad though. Art stands at
the vanguard of the battle to prevent us from become a nation of
narcotized TV watchers. You've got cogent ideas, tell me how you would
preserve these functions.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
+>the shelves. He also was known for circulating his messages on
+>currency. A true testimony to the creative spirit of a true artist.
+>He succeded in his art not becuase of govt, but in spite of it.
Often, I'll hear people argue against the wearing of seat belts, citing
anecdotal evidence of someone they knew who was saved by being thrown clear of
a wreck. This ignores, of course, the majority of cases in which people were
saved by *not* having been thrown out of the car.
Your arguments in this thread have for the most part been articulate (and you
*know* I don't say that lightly), but in this case you're confusing the
exception and the rule, I think.
dogboy
>
> Your arguments in this thread have for the most part been articulate (and you
> *know* I don't say that lightly), but in this case you're confusing the
> exception and the rule, I think.
Jeff, there are literaly thousands of examples of artists defying the
govt to produce their art, as any rider of the NYC subway could tell you . :)
Whether they achieve fame as Solzhenitzan and Meireles did, is less relvent
to the value of their artistic work as it is to the success of the culture
or particular polticial ideology they were attempting to communicate.
But gosh, aren't you going to comment on the 30 or so typos I made in the
first paragraph of that post? That was was even hard for me to
decipher :), Bet you can tell at which point I finished my coffee.
jonah
OK, I have been reading this mindless tribble for a while now... and I
think that no body realises the importance of the NEA from a Rural
America stand point. This is important, and I think all you city people
should hear this one out.
Chico is a small city in the middle of California. It is surrounded by
rice and almond farms. We have a very nice little University with a very
nice little theatre program that provides artistic events for the rural
northern part of the Sacramento Valley.
Chico State and the University could not provide any of it's students
with working artists in the field without having NEA granted programs
passing through it's doors.
Now granted, some of those artists go bizerk, but the ones who do are
usually never asked to come here to Chico State. They lose money and
exposure because our community found that it was not important to support
their work.
NEA grants are usually very small amounts of money. (Americans don't
realize how small amount of money this is when it is compared to the
millions of dollars that are spent in European Countries on the arts. I
mean we are the only first world country that doesn't even have a real
Nationally funded theatre, presenting works constantly through out the
year, like other countries.) However these grants are used to give an
artist or a program credibility and and "seed" money. An NEA grant to an
artistic program attracts other grants... Including State grants,
Foundational grants, and funding from colleges and universities. In
comparison this NEA grant is a very small amount of money, but it helps
generate more money. It does create opportunities for urban artists to
work when there isn't enough money in smaller towns to put together the
art that they deem important.
NEA grants usually don't even come close to covering the cost of a
production. It is the funds that come in *support* of that NEA grant that
usually do cover those costs.
I got most of this information from listening to the Faculty, Staff, and
Politicians around our area.
I find it more Ironic that some very vocal anti-intellectual politicians
point there fingers at federally funding any art. But I would like to
ask all of those folk out there to please, think again. Think of the
values we instill in our children by taking them to the Nutcracker this
Christmas. A Nutcracker that wouldn't be there without the NEA seed
money in our local community. Think of all the values we are instilling
in our children as they attend educational events provided by the cast of
this NEA sponsored show. And I do mean children of all ages,
experiancing the dream worlds the NEA sponsors.
Why hurt these kids when some artist from another community outside
produced a very small show that was highly publicized because a couple of
the people where offended. Those shows could close in a week and lose
money, as well as credibility.
Artists are easy prey, especially to the general public that doesn't
understand how the NEA works in their community to begin with.
- Will Rontani
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
jo...@ecst.csuchico.edu "God's change of plans angered Jonah"
- Jonah 4:1
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"See me feel me touch me heal me" - Tommy
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
dogboy
>
> I doesn't take much :) Also, this is your golden opportunity! Tell me
> about Cildo Meireles
A concetual artists from Brazil suring some of it smost repressive
political times. He found a myriad of way sto 'insert' his art
and circumvent the censors. Among his methods, inscribing messages onto
Deposit bottles and returning them into ciruclation, the message would
not be very visable until after the bottle was filled and back on
the shelves. He also was known for circulating his messages on
currency. A true testimony to the creative spirit of a true artist.
He succeded in his art not becuase of govt, but in spite of it.
> and Florencia Molina Campos! (Of course, what I
> really want is more outreach programs so that their work would be
> familiar to me ;-)
Campos was an argentinian who turned down offers of money from
Disney to do aninmations becuase he felt that Disney's films debased
his culture. Compare him to Rivera, who gratuitously accepted
hugh sums of cash to glorify a govt that , well quite frankly,
should not have been so glorified. Now, who has greater artistic
integrity. The information is out there, it just requires you
to be proactive and seek it.
>
> I trust art to promulgate free speech, honest.
Reflect for a minute on the art produced druing the age of exploration,
glorifying the catholic church while it sluaghtered millions.
( an interesting book by Dr. John Philips," Eve, the history of an idea")
points to the use of dome dirogatory gestures by Michaelangelo in the
sisteine chapel, his claim, he was mocking the pope, as he was
bitter at being request to paint and not sculpt . ( not my area of
expertise so I will only repeat the comment). If true, I would see it
as more evidence of govt suberting art.
> ;-) Also, I come from a form (ballet) that has been dependent upon the
> largesse of patrons (pick your patron) since day one. My feeling is that
> this sort of art form has political repercussions for you (just like
> organized religion, eh?
Only if the patronage is coercive, there is a difference between tax
dollars taken at gun point, and money given freely by inspired
patrons. And collectively a large number of small contributers
can be just as effective as a few large contributers. Most
theories of modern business focus on the markets as the
driving force.
> anything that smacks of elitism makes you yak, doesn't it?)
Well you've pegged me closer than most, but its not quite the
elitism, that yanks me, its the self rightous and narrow minded
accceptance of it by some that drives me nuts. My politics and purpose
are that of opposing the status quo, to make people think. In truth
I was realluy shocked at how narrow minded many an the artistic
news groups where. It sort of explains the starving artist thing
for me. I mean, if an 'artist' is going to self rightously
accept and promulgate the status quo, he/she will be relageted to
simply immulation, and reproducing more of the same. It seems to
me that to succeed as n artist, one must break the mold and produce
something new, and different. Thus the majority of artists, while
technically proficient seem to lack the creative energy to produce
anything NEW or original.
<snip of some interesting stuff about ballet that I didn't know, please
don't take this as criticism, but movement and dance are incomprehensible
to me as art, that is not a judgement, simply a fact about how well
the medium and I interact. Music is my predominant art form, with static
visual arts a second. With that in mind I hope yuo will forgive my
ignorance of the ballet, it and I are simply on different wavelengths).>
> I don't totally buy that. :) Although it reminds me of EM Forster's "Two
> Cheers for Democracy". It also reminds me of someone practicing
> starving, in case they might have to some day. ;) Don't worry, when you
> have to starve, you'll know how, sadly enough.
Ithink the point was more, if you don't forget how to work, you wont
have to fear starving. :)
> Possibly because I don't believe in manufacturers and producers being the
> only people who decides where roads go :-). What if they decided that
> the quickest way from point A to point B is through a Virgin Forest?
The markets would evaluate which was a better use of the forest,
a road or a forest by how much people where willing to sacrifice to
preserve it. ( see the Nature conservancy).
> (I'm going to stop with this metaphor right now, elsewise we'll start
> arguing about roads :-) But in the same way, I don't trust corporate
> and market impulses to be the best ones for the gathering of knowledge,
> or its LONG TERM benefits. Corporations are like guys :-) They think
> about NOW, baby, NOW!
True a topic for a different thread, but I do agree with you 100%.
The short comings of a free market are that they fail miserably
at long term planning. It is one of the reasons I am a moderate
conservative and not a libertarian. Long range planning regarding
construction and the envrionment are important. I am not sure that
long range planning in the arts is conducive to creativty. Shouldn't
the art of now be relevent to now?
> That stinks. But did that have anything to do with government funding
> ;-) Or just the rigidity of your teachers? Rigidity can be funded by
> any one of a number of means, and seems to flourish with very little care.
> I'd hate to think we'd lose another means of getting art out there for
> people because we were afraid they'd do it wrong.
Actually it is the self rightesouness I was objecting to. Self righteousness
that flourishes with the support of a powerful status quo, ( the govt).
Remember Joe McCarthy?
>
> OK. We both love art. I'm more than willing to give you space on where
> its support should come from. I'm not married to the idea of government
> support. I am married to the idea that art should be a basic part of
> people's lives, if only because it makes them more informed human beings.
> (a good enough reason, that.) I think you'd buy that much as well.
And I am not opposed to the idead of communal support of art, in fact
I agree it is a neccesary thing. I am simply opposed to COERCIVE
communal support of art.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
+>Jeffrey E. Salzberg (JSal...@uh.edu) wrote:
+
+>Jeff, there are literaly thousands of examples of artists defying the
+>govt to produce their art, as any rider of the NYC subway could tell you .
..and TENS of thousands who don't.
+>But gosh, aren't you going to comment on the 30 or so typos I made in the
+>first paragraph of that post?
As you know, I don't comment on mistakes which are obviously typos; I comment
on mistakes which are obviously signs of ignorance.
Mike Rayburn
>Robert Johnson (sRob...@escape.com) wrote:
The Founding Fathers (may they rest in peace) were opposed to the
>> maintenance of a standing army, and our nation managed to preserve
>> its freedom without one for most of its history.
Sounds like revisionist history, popular with liberals. If you find a
real history book look up The Revolutionary War, War of 1812. Civil
War, Spanish American War. World War I, World War II, Korean War,
Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and of course this joy ride Clinton has got
us into, Mission Peace. We have always had a standing army thank God,
to protect this country and yes even pointey headed Liberals like you.
Mike Rayburn
dogboy
>
> What's the percentage of America's little girls who take ballet class
> compared to the percentage of little girls who take comedienne classes? I
A more accurate comparison would be whats the percentage of
America's little girls who tell jokes....., Again, you are
hung up on your formal view of 'established' arts. Why is
a 'class' necessary ?
> Just that you shouldn't lowest common denominator
> our culture like that. It's a lot richer than you might realize.
I guess I don't equate 'lowest' and 'Common' like you do. What
objective criteria are yoy applying that determies the
relative merit of art?
dogboy
> In article <4ar0ar$a...@anarchy.io.com>, dog...@io.com (dogboy) writes:
>
> > Now can you imagine if the
> >arts degraded themselves to the point where they required
> >govt funding what the situation would be?
>
> involved in performing arts. Look Van Gogh was able to do fabulous work
> without any reasonable community support. It would have been absolutely
> impossible for Balanchine to. Don't try to bring up his Hollywood work as
> an example, I think it supports my argument.
Amy, you miss the point entirely. Not your fault, I don't think the
thread on cultural imperitives was posted to alt.ballet, just alt.rec.art.
I am NOT opposed to communal funding of art. I am opposed to govt
funding of art. They are not the same. PBS for example gets 86% of
its funding from PRIVATE sources. THe NEA could easily survice on
PRIVATE contributions. There are 260 MIllion individuals in this
country, and there are thousands of corporate interests. There is
however only one national govt, and if art becomes dependant on it
for financing to the extent those other sources atrophy, artists
will NOT be able to go elsewhere when the funding becomes a source
of countrol.
mad...@ic3.ithaca.edu
On 16 Dec 1995, dogboy wrote:
> I am NOT opposed to communal funding of art. I am opposed to govt
> funding of art. They are not the same. PBS for example gets 86% of
> its funding from PRIVATE sources. THe NEA could easily survice on
> PRIVATE contributions. There are 260 MIllion individuals in this
> country, and there are thousands of corporate interests. There is
> however only one national govt, and if art becomes dependant on it
> for financing to the extent those other sources atrophy, artists
> will NOT be able to go elsewhere when the funding becomes a source
> of countrol.
>
>
What you're missing are two very important points:
1)If you place the responsibility of endowing the arts in the hands of the
260 million people in this country the arts in this nation will crumble.
Do you REALLY believe that my generation and the one after me, a group of
people who have grown up on Beavis and Butthead, Married...with children,
and MTV will be willing to take money out of their pockets to support the
ballet, or the theater, or the opera? If I took a survey of the people
at my college and told them: "You have twenty dollars to blow - you can
either a) donate the money to support the fine arts in our country or b)
donate the money to a rock group." what do you honestly think they would
choose? *(if you picked choice "a" then mabey you should consider
counseling about coming to grips with reality)*.
2) If the national governemt doesn't support the arts of this nation -
hey? why should the rest of us?
The national gov't is setting an EXAMPLE. it is helping to place
priorities and by endownment of the arts it is telling our nation "hey -
the arts are important too". It's really going to be difficult to
convince people of the importance of the fine arts in this nation when
our own government doesn't belive it to be so.
Mariah
Amy Reusch
> now which do you figure
>better reflects the culture of working class America, swan lake,
>or Roseanne.
What's the percentage of America's little girls who take ballet class
compared to the percentage of little girls who take comedienne classes? I
hate to dissillusion you, but just because Hollywood dominates the
dramatic media doesn't mean it's a reflection of truth. Did your parents
resemble Lucille Ball & Desi Arnaz? How about Archie & Ethel Bunker? Or
is the Brady Bunch? I'm not saying that there's not a lot of truthful
reflection in Roseanne. Just that you shouldn't lowest common denominator
our culture like that. It's a lot richer than you might realize.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Reusch
> Now can you imagine if the
>arts degraded themselves to the point where they required
>govt funding what the situation would be?
You can't compare the costs involved in producing visual art to the costs
involved in performing arts. Look Van Gogh was able to do fabulous work
without any reasonable community support. It would have been absolutely
impossible for Balanchine to. Don't try to bring up his Hollywood work as
an example, I think it supports my argument.
~ Amy
Amy Reusch
>Jeff, there are literaly thousands of examples of artists defying the
>govt to produce their art, as any rider of the NYC subway could tell you
. :)
"Come on NEA, I *defy* you to fund me!!!!" I think, Leigh, you described
one of these performances...yes, maybe there are millions of artists in NY
making that statement....
Or are you suggesting that they are turnstile jumpers?... hmm..
or is it the homeless cum musician you're talking about... (anyone see
that trumpet player from outer space who threatens to keep blasting away
until people give him money lately?)
Or are you talking about grafitti? I thought they had pretty much gotten
rid of that with the new cars...
Or is there something I really ought to know about those south americans
performing down there?
Amy Reusch
>I guess I don't equate 'lowest' and 'Common' like you do. What
>objective criteria are yoy applying that determies the
>relative merit of art?
don't be absurd. it's a math term.
Muse Dude
mad...@ic3.ithaca.edu wrote:
> What you're missing are two very important points:
>
> 1)If you place the responsibility of endowing the arts in the hands of the
> 260 million people in this country the arts in this nation will crumble.
> Do you REALLY believe that my generation and the one after me, a group of
> people who have grown up on Beavis and Butthead, Married...with children,
> and MTV will be willing to take money out of their pockets to support the
> ballet, or the theater, or the opera? If I took a survey of the people
> at my college and told them: "You have twenty dollars to blow - you can
> either a) donate the money to support the fine arts in our country or b)
> donate the money to a rock group." what do you honestly think they would
> choose? *(if you picked choice "a" then mabey you should consider
> counseling about coming to grips with reality)*.
>
> 2) If the national governemt doesn't support the arts of this nation -
> hey? why should the rest of us?
> The national gov't is setting an EXAMPLE. it is helping to place
> priorities and by endownment of the arts it is telling our nation "hey -
> the arts are important too". It's really going to be difficult to
> convince people of the importance of the fine arts in this nation when
> our own government doesn't belive it to be so.
>
> Mariah
Thank you Mariah. This is reality. It is why the National Endowment for
the Arts is not a luxury, but a necessity.
I have spent the entire day trying to find what should be an easily
accessible CD here in Milwaukee. I have observed crazed individuals pawing
through the cheapest crap imaginable in CD bins - bloatedly stocked.
However, not one copy of the CD I was looking for. It wasn't because the
stores were sold out. It was because not a single copy of the CD was ever
in stock.
A clerk at one store happily escorted me to the classical music section of
one store chirping..."We even have a recording of 'Handel' by The
Messiahs."
<sigh> There are times when I think all the 'arts educators' in this
country ought to be put on a plane to hell.
MD (presently very unamused)
Stay tuned folks. We got more OJ coming.
Mike Rayburn
>If you place the responsibility of endowing the arts in the hands of the
>260 million people in this country the arts in this nation will crumble.
>Mariah
The dominant culture will always survive and dominant art forms will
survive. Funding inferior art for the sake of the art's survival is a
bankrupt liberal idea.
dogboy
>
> I find it more Ironic that some very vocal anti-intellectual politicians
> point there fingers at federally funding any art. But I would like to
> ask all of those folk out there to please, think again. Think of the
> values we instill in our children by taking them to the Nutcracker this
> Christmas.
I new sooner or later this moral diatrab would pull in religion too.
Sorry, I am not a christian, and I do NOT want to contribute to
the glorification of a moral or religious heritage that has
historically resulted in the slaughter of untold thousands
for the simple crime of refusing to accept it. Once again,
you teach your children your values, and let me teach my
children mine.
Amy Reusch
>IF the NEA is dependant on govt handouts, then the NEA can be controlled
>by the govt.
>
>
I agree, it's time Congress got out of the debate... let's give the NEA a
*true* endowment.... the sort of endowment's universities survive off of.
Give them enough money that they can fund arts off the yearly interest
generated, and get Congress out of the arts critic role. They're not well
suited.
~Amy
Amy Reusch
>Only if the patronage is coercive, there is a difference between tax
>dollars taken at gun point, and money given freely by inspired
>patrons.
Anyone remember the percentages from that Gallup Poll taken last year
about the general American public's support for funding arts with tax
dollars? Wish I did. I *do* remember that the vast majority supported
it, with a great many supporting increased funding with tax dollars. That
doesn't really sound like "tax dollars taken at gun point". Just an issue
for the US.
~ Amy
Mike Rayburn
>I have spent the entire day trying to find what should be an easily
>accessible CD here in Milwaukee. I have observed crazed individuals pawing
>through the cheapest crap imaginable in CD bins - bloatedly stocked.
>However, not one copy of the CD I was looking for. It wasn't because the
>stores were sold out. It was because not a single copy of the CD was ever
>in stock.
You obviously have no idea of how a business works. You don't stock
items that don't sell and take up shelf space. Why don't you stop
whining and just order the item.
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
+>The dominant culture will always survive and dominant art forms will
+>survive. Funding inferior art for the sake of the art's survival is a
+>bankrupt liberal idea.
Well, then, we can all be grateful that that isn't what's happening.
mad...@ic3.ithaca.edu
On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Mike Rayburn wrote:
> >If you place the responsibility of endowing the arts in the hands of the
> >260 million people in this country the arts in this nation will crumble.
>
> >Mariah
>
> The dominant culture will always survive and dominant art forms will
> survive. Funding inferior art for the sake of the art's survival is a
> bankrupt liberal idea.
>
What do you consider to be inferior art forms? If funding of art in this
country is left to the population, the only things that will survive will
be pop music, the ice capades, and trash romance novels. What you are
then terming the "inferior art" is the same art that thousands of us
spend hours in a practice room attempting to reproduce. I'm sorry that I
am better at singing than screaming on a stage, and if trying to make
myself a future is a "bankrupt liberal idea" then I'll wear that crown.
But be careful what dominant culture you're trying to protect here.
Mariah
mad...@ic3.ithaca.edu
The point is not whether or not he could get the item. What he was
trying to point out was the priorities of the people in this country.
When i was out looking for a Beverly Sills CD, I finally found it -
listed under the country music section. the ignorance about classical
music in this country was astounding. Unfortoneately people like you
don't make it much better.
Mariah> >
Jeffrey E. Salzberg
mad...@ic3.ithaca.edu wrote:
+>When i was out looking for a Beverly Sills CD, I finally found it -
+>listed under the country music section.
..adjacent, one supposes, to PDQ Bach's "Oedipus Tex"....
Leigh Witchel
>Leigh Witchel (d...@panix.com) wrote:
>>
>> I doesn't take much :) Also, this is your golden opportunity! Tell me
>> about Cildo Meireles
>
the idea of artist as subversive.....>
> >> and Florencia Molina Campos! (Of course, what I
>> really want is more outreach programs so that their work would be
>> familiar to me ;-)
>
>Campos was an argentinian who turned down offers of money from
>Disney to do aninmations becuase he felt that Disney's films debased
>his culture. Compare him to Rivera, who gratuitously accepted
>hugh sums of cash to glorify a govt that , well quite frankly,
>should not have been so glorified. Now, who has greater artistic
>integrity. The information is out there, it just requires you
>to be proactive and seek it.
>
Between Campos and Rivera? Not sure on the basis of that paragraph,
'cause I think it's a leading question ;-). With only that information,
I'd say Campos. Again, though, we have a very broad question here about
the artist as subversive, which I want to address.
[snip]
>are that of opposing the status quo, to make people think. In truth
>I was realluy shocked at how narrow minded many an the artistic
>news groups where. It sort of explains the starving artist thing
>for me. I mean, if an 'artist' is going to self rightously
>accept and promulgate the status quo, he/she will be relageted to
>simply immulation, and reproducing more of the same. It seems to
>me that to succeed as n artist, one must break the mold and produce
>something new, and different. Thus the majority of artists, while
>technically proficient seem to lack the creative energy to produce
>anything NEW or original.
>
><snip of some interesting stuff about ballet that I didn't know, please
>don't take this as criticism, but movement and dance are incomprehensible
>to me as art, that is not a judgement, simply a fact about how well
>the medium and I interact. Music is my predominant art form, with static
>visual arts a second. With that in mind I hope yuo will forgive my
>ignorance of the ballet, it and I are simply on different wavelengths).>
>
I more than forgive it. We chose art forms that resonate for us...not
everyone is drawn to the same form of expression, and I think it's more
than cultural biases that provoke these choices. BUT....I do think your
choice of forms has a lot to do with your position in this discussion.
The forms that mean the most to you are forms that require minimal
resources and cooperation to produce. They are solitary forms, which of
course can be communicative, but could also exist in a vacuum, never to
be heard or seen, or to be heard or seen many generations later when a
cycle of culture has moved towards an appreciation of that artist's
work. But not necessarily his/her viewpoint :). When we look at Frida
Kahlo or Jane Austen or William Shakespeare or J.S. Bach, we are looking
at their culture and milieu through the eyes of ours. It's a perfectly
valid thing to do, it gives the work the meaning we need for our lives
today. Art for "now" relevant to "now" is only a small portion of art.
One of the reasons that the ballet community is the one you're "arguing"
with is that the dominant thought pattern for 20th century is a
"modernist", not a representational viewpoint. That is, that the art is
to be viewed for itself, without cultural references. I'm definitely not
an extremist on that viewpoint, I think pure modernist art to be
hopelessly dry. But I do believe in art for art's sake, and that form
CAN be content. Look at Japanese art. Or a film like "Diva" where style
becomes substance. It does happen.
There are a few points I'm making here. One is the split between the
production of art and its consumption. I think you're insisting that its
production be a subversive act. There's more than a grain of truth to
that, I think, in that a creative impulse is, at heart, a neurotic one
(in a very HEALTHY way :-). At the same time, I feel like you're
insisting on the artist's position as displaced outside of the community,
on his/her martyrdom. Less than that is a sell-out? I'm not sure I buy
that. I'm going to make a bet here. I'm going to name some artists, and
see how much vomit is on the floor around you by the end of the list.
Mendelssohn, Austen, Forster, John Singer Sargent....Have you hurled yet?
What I'm naming are artists who've been accused of being "technicians".
Sometimes even rightly. But I often think it may have been because their
views came from feeling within society, rather than at odds with it. They
are astonishingly perceptive artists, also, even if their
non-revolutionary nature seems weak to you. I think somewhere at the
core of your argument is a revulsion at the idea of the artist as mirror
of their culture, rather than revolutionary.
Let's look at the paragraph about new and different. There is something
thrilling about new and different, to be sure. Working within the art
form, though, I can't tell you how boring that motivation is for art, and
the kind of second rate works it can produce....things kind of like "Ice
cream? Tastes good....Steak? I love it....STEAK ICE CREAM! Great
Idea! Never before seen!"
To be sure, it also produces great works. But the art that endures is a
mixture of craft, art, and inspiration. And craft is a dull, day to day
job. The position of a craftsman is not that of a revolutionary. But
it's what makes you ready for the works that are truly apart from all the
others....
Why not produce only those works? Well, at least in ballet, there is a
necessity for repertory, both for the consumer (they like seeing many
things, it's a varied diet) and the producer. Craft and inspiration are
like muscles...it's their daily exercise that insure their health.
To get back to politics for a moment (I'm moving away from it, because I
actually think the discussion may have run its course, for me. I believe
in government funding not because I am ideologically bound to it, but
because it HAS done a good job for the past 30 years, and at bargain
prices. You help me build a better house, and I'll be glad to move in.
Then I won't mind if you demolish the old one ;-)
Again, we've got 240 million people in the country. Whether we like it
or not, fact is that we are bound together as a nation. At this point,
it's a given. Within all acts performed as a group is an implicit
statement of values. Defense, road-building, communication...you name
it. So where do we draw the line on individual choice. We each do not
get item by item approval of the defense budget. Whether we agree or
not, we place some of our trust in the hands of people who are supposed
to have specialized knowledge within that field, and tell us how our
money might most effectively be spent. (the success or failure of this
hope is another matter) We do not get individual approval over the
research spending of the CDC. Say I am morally opposed to AIDS
funding....I still fund the CDC with my tax dollars. And quite frankly,
were someone I love to become at risk, I would probably be happy I did.
My point is that the system is so large, that for each person to insist
on personal involvement in appropriations becomes ludicrous. At some
point, we've got to trust ourselves to appoint officials that reflect our
concerns. Of course, personal involvement in government is by no means
ludicrous. I just think that we have to accept that the plurality of
desires and thoughts in the nation, that we have to accept the fact that
there is no heterogeneity of desire or goals. Sad that.
Maybe the arts are a fringe group pork barrel. I don't believe that. As
I've said through this piece, I believe they repay in education and
quality of thought. But let's assume they are. They're one of the
cheapest ones out there, then. And the democracy you desire in forms
like ballet comes from making the form widely available for consumption,
rather than democratizing its production.
It's a long issue. I'm not sure where we're going to come to at its
conclusion (if there is one :-)...especially as I think an artistic
viewpoint is inextricably mixed in the discussion)
David L. Cathey
> On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Mike Rayburn wrote:
>
>> >If you place the responsibility of endowing the arts in the hands of the
>> >260 million people in this country the arts in this nation will crumble.
>>
>> survive. Funding inferior art for the sake of the art's survival is a
>> bankrupt liberal idea.
>>
> What do you consider to be inferior art forms? If funding of art in this
> country is left to the population, the only things that will survive will
> be pop music, the ice capades, and trash romance novels. What you are
> then terming the "inferior art" is the same art that thousands of us
> spend hours in a practice room attempting to reproduce. I'm sorry that I
> am better at singing than screaming on a stage, and if trying to make
> myself a future is a "bankrupt liberal idea" then I'll wear that crown.
First, you make the assumption that your art form is considered
"inferior". You and others can and should fund your favorite arts, as
many others fund their favorite arts.
The "bankrupt liberal idea" is that YOUR favorite art form should
be funded by John Q. Public who has no interest in it. Should I be able
to get NEA funding for a photo essay on pidgeon droppings? No? Then who
the hell are you to tell me that MY art is inferior? If your art form should
be allowed to get federal funding, then so should mine. If you think
otherwise, then you are just another elitist hypocrite.
> But be careful what dominant culture you're trying to protect here.
> Mariah
Wise words, which you should consider yourself.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David L. Cathey |Inet: dav...@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260776 |Fone: (214)-578-5036
Plano TX 75026-0772 |http://www.montagar.com/~davidc/
mad...@ic3.ithaca.edu
On 17 Dec 1995, David L. Cathey wrote:
>
> First, you make the assumption that your art form is considered
> "inferior". You and others can and should fund your favorite arts, as
> many others fund their favorite arts.
>
> The "bankrupt liberal idea" is that YOUR favorite art form should
> be funded by John Q. Public who has no interest in it. Should I be able
> to get NEA funding for a photo essay on pidgeon droppings? No? Then who
> the hell are you to tell me that MY art is inferior? If your art form should
> be allowed to get federal funding, then so should mine. If you think
> otherwise, then you are just another elitist hypocrite.
>
But the point is that I'm paying the same amount of taxes as the rest of
the people in this country and my taxes support other people's programs
so why shouldn't theirs support mine? The government doesn't give me a
choice as to whether or not I want to support the military, or whether
or not I want to help pay for welfare, or whether or not I want to pay
for medicare. Those are someone else's programs, but I still pay for
them. They don't say that those programs shouldn't have to be funded by
"john Q. Public who has no interest in it". We simply pay. Is it fair
that i should have to pay for everyone else's programs and for them to
not have to pay for mine? Or me to have to pay for theirs and mine? I
don't think so.
> >
Christopher Comte
: > Now can you imagine if the
: >arts degraded themselves to the point where they required
: >govt funding what the situation would be?
: You can't compare the costs involved in producing visual art to the costs
: involved in performing arts. Look Van Gogh was able to do fabulous work
: without any reasonable community support. It would have been absolutely
: impossible for Balanchine to. Don't try to bring up his Hollywood work as
: an example, I think it supports my argument.
Not to mention the fact that Van Gogh didn't make a lousy dime on any of
the paintings which today auction at Sotheby's for tens of millions of
dollars. Blanchine probably wasn't exactly set for life himself although
I'm fairly certain he came off a bit better than poor Vincent.
Mike Rayburn
>What do you consider to be inferior art forms? If funding of art in this
>country is left to the population, the only things that will survive will
>be pop music, the ice capades, and trash romance novels. What you are
>then terming the "inferior art" is the same art that thousands of us
>spend hours in a practice room attempting to reproduce. I'm sorry that I
>am better at singing than screaming on a stage, and if trying to make
>myself a future is a "bankrupt liberal idea" then I'll wear that crown.
>But be careful what dominant culture you're trying to protect here.
>Mariah
Any art that can't pay it's own way and needs a government handout.
Some in this forum think it's an entitlement.
Bah Humbug.
Mike Rayburn
>>
>>
>>
>The point is not whether or not he could get the item. What he was
>Mariah> >
The point is it's a free market and people buy what they want. The
store will not stock what does not sell. If this store can't sell
classical music they don't stock it.
Christopher Comte
Distribution:
Mike Rayburn (mray...@flen.net) wrote:
: Robert Johnson <sRob...@escape.com> wrote
: >As for your objections to people spending your money for you -- what
: >about MY money? What about MY will? Artists and the public for the
: >fine arts pay taxes too, you know. I personally am mad as hell that
: >the government takes my hard earned cash and squanders it on military
: >appropriations. I want my tax dollars to pay for ballet, not bombers.
: Ok lets stop funding the military and see how long we remain a free
: nation. Those bombers enable you to enjoy your freedom and your
: ballet!
Are these the same bombers that come in 250% over budget, take twice as
long to develop and build than originally estimated and then, when they
ARE finally built either CAN'T stay airborne or DON'T EVADE RADAR DETECTION?
Mike Rayburn
But the point is that I'm paying the same amount of taxes as the rest
of
>the people in this country and my taxes support other people's programs
>so why shouldn't theirs support mine? The government doesn't give me a
>choice as to whether or not I want to support the military, or whether
>or not I want to help pay for welfare, or whether or not I want to pay
>for medicare.
>> >
You do have a choice. It's called the ballot box.Thats how you get
change in YOUR government. If you don't choose to vote then shut up!
dogboy
The term , as used in math has to do with the larest number that
can succesfully be divided in to a larger groups of numbers.
Its use in this context is purely rhertorical, and used to imply
that common is equivalent to lessor. If you wanted to
be semantically accurate, you would need to use the term
MOST common denominator. Now, diffused like that shouldn't
art reflect the "MOST" people, and not an arrogant detached
elitist sub group?
dogboy
> people who have grown up on Beavis and Butthead, Married...with children,
> and MTV will be willing to take money out of their pockets to support the
> ballet, or the theater, or the opera?
THen perhaps you need to consider what art reflects the culture
of AMerica. SOrry if it is not up to your standards, but if
you are not willing to pay for the art that YOU prefer, you have
a lot of nerve asking 260 Million other people to do so.
How now would you feel if the MTV crowd was demanding tax dollars
for a Madonna festival. Or perhaps you can come up with some
OBJECTIVE justification other than Like this type of art better, and think
everyone should think like me.
> If I took a survey of the people
> at my college and told them: "You have twenty dollars to blow - you can
> either a) donate the money to support the fine arts in our country or b)
> donate the money to a rock group." what do you honestly think they would
> choose? *(if you picked choice "a" then mabey you should consider
> counseling about coming to grips with reality)*.
Sounds to me like you want to subert the money that other people want
to donate to art that they appreciate and force them to donate
to art that You appreciate. How is YOUR art better than THEIR art?
>
> 2) If the national governemt doesn't support the arts of this nation -
> hey? why should the rest of us?
Because you like art. And if not, don't.
> The national gov't is setting an EXAMPLE. it is helping to place
> priorities and by endownment of the arts it is telling our nation "hey -
> the arts are important too". It's really going to be difficult to
> convince people of the importance of the fine arts in this nation when
> our own government doesn't belive it to be so.
Sounds to me like you want to govt to play the role of parents.
"Do this honey cause its good for you" Whats next, national bed times
and mandatory high fiber diets.