OT national funding for the arts
Martha Sprowles
I know that this is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree,
but I am stunned by NanLeCro's stance that only art which is palatable
to the masses should receive governmental support.
She ignores my contention that Popular art by its very nature will find
buyers, and artists creating Popular art do not need support from the
NEA. Popular art is popular because it is easy to look at and enjoy. It
is Pretty.
Think about it. Everybody thinks flowers, babies, puppies, beautiful
women are pretty, and many artists have capitalized on this. Some, like
Anne Geddes, have gone further and made an already popularly-appealing
subject (babies) even more appealing to the lazy viewer by making the
babies Cute, sometimes even Coy. Pictures like hers--and knockoffs of
her pictures--are sold everywhere in the US, and sell well.
Mary Engelbreit is another very popular and appealing artist who makes
lots of money by painting Safe subjects in a Safe manner. She is a
multimillionaire--why should someone who is already accepted by the
public receive support from the NEA?
Aubrey Beardsley's work, ironically enough, regained its faded
popularity in the 1960s, when a generation of potheads discovered its
decadent appeal. "Salome," which featured his designs and sets, was a
big-time Head Movie when I saw it in college. If he had been creating
at the time, he would not have needed NEA support, either.
Erté I don't know too much about, other than seeing the dolls and plates
based on his designs which were for sale in ladies' magazines about a
decade ago. I do not believe he achieved an artistic status as a
clothing designer--certainly not in the class of, say, Chanel or Edith
Head, or even Orry-Kelly. So he might have needed some help from the
NEA.
The way I understand NEA grants is that artists and groups can apply for
support for a specific project--the application is made, of course,
before the project is made--and is used to support the artist while he
makes the artwork, or is used to buy materials with which to make the
art. Support for groups is, as I understand it, a little
different--that money might be used, for example, for an orchestra from
Alaska to travel to New York for a music festival. I know a composer
who received an NEA grant; it was $5000, and he used it to pay his rent
so he could devote more time to his art, instead of having to work at
two jobs. I know a novelist and a poet who also received these grants;
the poet got $25,000, and I don't know how much the novelist got.
But the country was not, in any case, "buying" the artwork. The country
through the NEA was making it possible for artists to create. I think
that's a fine objective.
By Nan's lights, artists receiving public money should be making art
that is accessible by the public at large. This, it seems to me, would
require them to limit their artistic imaginations to subjects and
treatments which might not express at all what they are trying to
express. It would be Phoney, in other words, and I would really object
to my tax money's being used to fund Phoney Art.
Martha
PRNancy
Martha wrote:
Keeps coming back to somebody thinking their opinion/taste/education is right
for all. Whether it's deciding if Clinton's immoral or medicinal marijuana is
wrong or art is safe, who's God in the final decision?
N
Wolf Str8
prn...@aol.com (PRNancy) Says:
Keeps coming back to somebody thinking their opinion/taste/education is right
for all. Whether it's deciding if Clinton's immoral or medicinal marijuana is
wrong or art is safe, who's God in the final decision?
I say:
PR! Silly! Nan is God in the final decision and Her sense of indignation with
people whose vices are different than Hers should be Law. It is to Her to
decide when a person 'needs help' and She will use threats of violence (guns in
the hands of the police ultimately) to ensure that people who use non-medically
prescribed opiates go to places like Charter Hospital. There people like Nan
will 'help' them see the light by teaching them the intricacies of making
suncatchers and ashtrays, will make sure the 'patients' are in bed at 10PM and
up when the nurses and orderlies deem it good, will tie them to their beds if
they are not tired, will use various psychological techniques (ranging from
behaviorist approaches to PRESCRIBED drugs to ECT), will talk and talk and talk
to them and rate their behaviors for appropriateness----all for the purpose of
creating tax-paying citizens who don't mind seeing their civil liberties spat
upon and their privacy made non-existent. Viva la Nana! In nome Nana, la
Figlia et Spiritus Sanctus. Amen.
E. Tracy Tucciarone
Curator, Museum of Psychiatric Anomalies
== Wolf...@aol.com ==
Website: http://members.aol.com/WolfStr8/set.html
'This is the strangest life I've ever known'
PRNancy
WolfStr8 wrote:
.
Hey, wait. I wasn't done eating my Gorditos.
As soon as I pledge to warm flatbread, I can hunker down and prepare to be
converted anew.
N
NanLeeCro
>Subject: OT national funding for the arts
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
>Date: Sun, May 24, 1998 08:06 EDT
Martha wrote:
I know that this is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, but I am
stunned by NanLeCro's stance that only art which is palatable to the masses
should receive governmental support. Popular art is popular because it is easy
to look at and enjoy. It is Pretty.
Martha actually wrote this:
Popular art is popular because it is easy to look at and enjoy.
It is Pretty.
Martha:
Are you brainwashed or are you brainwashing?
Martha writes:
By Nan's lights, artists receiving public money should be making art that is
accessible by the public at large.
Martha: Should ART be only accessible to the anointed few?
In your statement, you seem to clearly have a problem with the public and their
rights in terms of expectation for their invested interest. I don't like my
tax dollar affording your taste in Art, why should the public indulge you or me
in our tastes?
This, it seems to me, would require them to limit their artistic imaginations
to subjects and treatments which might not express at all what they are trying
to express. It would be Phoney, in other words, and I would really object to
my tax money's being used to fund Phoney Art. Martha
Speaking of the *Art of Being Phoney*, Well done, Martha.
Your artfulf persuasion conveys your low regard for the "People" and their
invested interest in Amer Arts. Your essay convinced me the only FAIR answer
is private patronage. Each interest group, e.g.small minority elitist
in-groups, should sponsor the art and artists of their choice - private funds.
Except for "national treasures", e.g. the Ballet and Opera, long-term
traditionals, etc., dump the Snob Dictatorship of NEA. Pretty art for the
ignorant masses: Let them buy VELVET with their tax savings from not supporting
the NEA
Save the Ignorants from supporting Art for Superior Others - and the Ignorants
will have more money for their legal drugs.
For all thing great and altruistic, from Nan
-------------------------------------------------
Senate Confirms Ivey To Head NEA
.c The Associated Press By CARL HARTMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - A country music expert won Senate approval Friday to head the
National Endowment for the Arts.
He is William J. Ivey, 53, who has directed the Country Music Foundation in
Nashville, Tenn, since 1971. President Clinton said he was delighted with the
Senate approval, which came in a voice vote without a committeee hearing or
debate on the floor.
``Mr. Ivey possesses a deep understanding of and commitment to American
creativity,'' the president said in a statement.
The NEA has long been a target of conservative critics, who complain that about
such grants as one to photographer Robert Mapplethorpe, who pictured homosexual
scenes.
Last year, House Republicans tried to cut off funds for the NEA but failed and
instead reduced its appropriation to $98 million, from $98.5 million. The
Republican leadership has promised conservative Christian groups another
attempt at a cut this year.
Clinton has again asked for $136 million this year.
Ivey, a guitarist as well as a college teacher, was in a fund-raising drive to
put up a new building for the Country Music Hall of Fame and Museum in
Nashville when the president named him to the new job. He had served on 15
panels dealing with NEA grants. A former chairman of the National Academy of
Recording Arts & Sciences, he is recognized as a leader in preserving historic
records of classical as well as popular music, the NEA said.
``Now when you talk about American art or American culture,'' he told The
Washington Post in April, ``it doesn't really matter whether you're talking
about country music or classical composition or choreography, you can start to
see an essential Americanism. I think the outside world sees that, understands
it and buys into it.''
Ivey is expected to be sworn in next week. He succeeds Jane Alexander, who
resigned from the NEA to return to the stage and take a leading part in
``Honour,'' an Australian play that opened on broadway in April. She received a
Tony nomination as best actress earlier this month.
AP-NY-05-22-98 1656EDT
Copyright 1998 The Associated Press.
Popular art is popular because it is easy to look at and enjoy. It is Pretty.
By Nan's lights, artists receiving public money should be making art that is
accessible by the public at large.
Absolutely. The people have earned that right.
This, it seems to me, would require them to limit their artistic imaginations
to subjects and treatments which might not express at all what they are trying
to express. It would be Phoney, in other words, and I would really object to
my tax money's being used to fund Phoney Art. Martha
Speaking of the *Art of Being Phoney*, Well done, Martha.
Your art of persuasion aims too high, methinks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance...Coleridge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NanLeeCro
>Subject: OT national funding for the arts
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
>Date: Sun, May 24, 1998 08:06 EDT
>
It would be Phoney, in other words, and I would really object
>to my tax money's being used to fund Phoney Art.
>Martha
Dear Martha,
I expressed the very same attitude you express in your above quoted statement
when I was an Art Minor in high school.
More enlightened than before, I am alert to my tax money, as a nearly lifetime
WORKER among the masses, used permissively to fund phoney "real" Arts. In the
same permissive manner the govt. fostered generations of unmarried teenage
mothers on SSI/SSDI/Soc Sec Welfare. Fraudulent and parasitical recipients
deplete Soc Sec funds of the REAL workers, a process like the Arty Elite
promoting singular agenda, e.g. "sexual orientation" projects, which are
explicit purient and pornographic expressions of no enduring artistic worth.
Because of few such projects deemed worthless, inciting the indignation of the
public, worthwhile projects are in jeopardy of funding. To support unpopular
and criticized projects is to only further diminish the the people's spirit for
arts funding. Insulting "taste-masters" kill-off the people's spirit for tax
supported arts funding. It is called "cutting of the funds to spite a cause
for the "true taste" of a very few." from Nan
NanLeeCro
>Subject: OT national funding for the arts
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
>Date: Sun, May 24, 1998 08:06 EDT
I know that this is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, but I am
stunned by NanLeCro's stance that only art which is palatable to the masses
should receive governmental support. She ignores my contention that Popular
art by its very nature will find buyers, and artists creating Popular art do
not need support from the NEA. Popular art is popular because it is easy to
look at and enjoy. It is Pretty.
MAD ABOUT MAPPLETHORPE [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
(8/1/89)
Andrew Ferguson
Assist. Manag. Editor, National Review
[Extracted from NATIONAL REVIEW, 8/4/90]
Washington, D.C. -- Bureaucrats in the arts, like their brethren
elsewhere, are the Greta Garbos of democratic society: all they want is to be
left alone. They labor in a tiny vineyard, a hermetic
subculture of thousands of artists and dozens of customers; here, a
show of fingerpainted toilet seats hung on the walls of a county
welfare office; there, a nude dance performed in the basement of a
Presbyterian church. Their obscurity is their happiness--that, and
the $150 million they annually dispense through the National Endowment for the
Arts.
Every so often, however, there's a leak in security.
Controversy--the bureaucrat's nightmare of nightmares--inevitably
ensues... then Congressman Dick Armey of Texas heard about Robert
Mapplethorpe. Mapplethorpe died in March of AIDS, celebrated, as he had
been for a dozen years or more, as a major artist. The Christian Science
Monitor (even!) had early on tagged him "one of the most original of America's
younger photographers." Mary Baker Eddy, phone your arts
desk: Mapplethorpe's leitmotif was "homoerotic and sadomasochistic
imagery"--one of his more celebrated pieces, for example, showed a man
urinating into a pal's mouth, while another featured the artist himself,
doubled over and pantless, with a bullwhip dangling from his orifice of
choice--as well as photos of "children in erotic poses," a form of personal
expression more commonly known, when not federally funded, as child
pornography. These pictures and more coagulated in a
traveling show sponsored in part by the NEA, to the tune of $30,000. The
exhibit--which also included, for aesthetic effect, scores of pictures of
flowers--was scheduled to arrive at Washington, D.C.'s Corcoran Gallery in
July.
On June 8, Congressman Armey and 108 co-signers sent a letter to Hugh
Southern, the acting chairman of NEA, asking, in effect, what the hell was
going on. Noting "this is not the first time we have had concerns about the
NEA funding inappropriate materials," the congressmen said they understood that
"the interpretation of art is a subjective evaluation, but there is a very
clear and unambiguous line that exists between what can be classified as art
and what must be called morally reprehensible trash."
Had it not been backed up by the power of the purse, the letter
would surely have been laughed off as the thundering of Neanderthal lunatics or
the posturing of pols (which in some cases it doubtlessly was). Under the
circumstances, however, the Corcoran decided not to show the Mapplethorpe
exhibit after all, reasoning that the proximity of Mapplethorpe's subidized
shutterbuggery to irate congressmen might endanger NEA funding.
The Corcoran's decision sparked the predictable outrage from the
Washington arts crowd: "appalled . . . rightwing . . . outright cave-in . . .
censorship of the most vulgar kind . . . McCarthyism . . .
muzzle freedom of expression"--the heavy breathing almost drowned out the
cliches. A hardy amalgamation of artists and gays and lesbians and aesthetes
gathered outside the gallery, chorusing, "Shame! Shame!" Cocktail parties were
held. There was talk of boycotts, although of what, precisely, no one seemed
sure. The directors of the hapless Corcoran seemed at first surprised, and
finally hurt: all they had tried to do, after all, was keep the money flowing
to the very same people who now reviled them for their prudence.
In the wake of Mr. Armey's objections, Sidney Yates (D., Ill.),
the art establishment's mouthpiece in Congress, has undertaken to ban indirect
funding from the NEA, a practice which he blames for the Serrano and
Mapplethorpe contretemps. Conservatives on the Hill have greeted the reforms,
along with the Corcoran's self-censorship, as a small victory.
But do they understand how small it really is? There was
something almost quaint about Mr. Armey's letter, with its talk of a
"very clear and unambiguous line" separating art from rubbish. For it is one
of the primary premises of the art world that this line doesn't really
exist--that it is in fact a kind of cramp in the consciousness of the
unenlightened (read: middle-class American) mind...
* * *
GLC1173
NanLeeCro quotes Martha:
>I know that this is an issue on which reasonable people can >disagree, but I
>am
>stunned by NanLeCro's stance that only art which is palatable to >the masses
>should receive governmental support.
Taxpayers have a right to not be taxed to have their religion insulted - as
in a grant for $50,000 for "Piss Christ."
At what point do you think the taxpayers no longer owe every wannabe
"artist" money - often for work straight out of finger painting in my
kindergarten years? "Discrimination" by grant committees happens anyhow.
================================================
1 of every 83 students from kindergarten through 12th grade
is *currently* on probation in Maryland for crimes ranging from
car theft to sex offenses.
WONDER WHY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE VIOLENT?
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: OT national funding for the arts
>From: nanl...@aol.com (NanLeeCro)
>Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 10:43 EDT
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
>>Date: Sun, May 24, 1998 08:06
Martha Sprowles wrote:
I know that this is an issue on which reasonable people can
disagree, but I am stunned by NanLeCro's stance that only art
which is palatable to the masses should receive governmental
support. She ignores my contention that Popular art by its very
nature will find buyers, and artists creating Popular art do
not need support from the NEA. Popular art is popular because it
is easy to look at and enjoy. It is Pretty.
Martha, I don't think I have ever referred to Art as "pretty" in my entire
life. The purpose of the NEA is not to fund art projects and performances for
the self-appointed elite. The Arts and arts appreciation as well as Arts
education should be for all the people. What you describe as "popular art" is a
genre. Keats says it much better than I could, and says what you would never
say:
As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral!
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,"--that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
For the people, of the people and by the people
is one profound ideal for this Nation to live up to. from Nan
Martha Sprowles
Nan, would you do me the favor of listening to what I have to say?
1. It is important, imho, for the NEA to support unpopular art (which
is not to say that the work is not *judged,* btw; a panel composed of
knowledgable artists and critics decides whether the art is any good or
not) because popular art by its very nature doesn't *need* NEA support.
People *buy* popular art, Nan; that's why it's called "popular."
Artists who do not follow popular tastes have trouble selling their
work, or even getting it seen. This was a problem faced by many artists
whose work now is revered--ever hear of "les Fauves?" Popular tastes in
art are not always for what is good, witness the immense sales enjoyed
by the Keanes a few decades ago.
The artists you have said you like clearly are popular because, if for
no other reason, their work is reproduced on things like collectors'
plates from the Franklin Mint. And there's nothing wrong with that--I
hope everyone who likes that stuff is able to buy lots of it.
But there are other artists whose work may not appeal to the broad
audience Erté's does, artists whose work deserves to be seen at least,
so that the broader population can judge whether they want to buy it or
not. NEA support of such artists benefits all of us because it allows
those of us who do not live near avant-garde art galleries or good
museums of modern art to see and grow by exposure to things we've never
seen before. We don't have to like them; we don't even have to go look
at them. But I believe it's important for there to be support for
experimental artists (in all media) whose work is judged worthy of
support by people who are trained to discern good art. You may not
agree that the art is good, but the people whose job it is to judge have
the credentials and the abilities which qualify them to make this
judgement on your and my behalf. I for one would prefer to have a panel
of artists deciding what is fit for me to see than to have that
judgement made by, say, Exxon--which is what has happened in the arena
of so-called public broadcasting.
2. I really resent your continued personal slurs and false assumptions
about me and what I believe. You seemingly will not do me the courtesy
of--at the very least--ASKING me if I truly believe thus and so. And
it's very tiring to hear again and again that people who like art that
you don't are "pretentious." Please. Nan, you are allowed to like
anything you want, and I don't call you names. If what I say is not
true--that is, that you think art should be Pretty--tell me so. But
because I have been trained to appreciate art that you do not see any
merit in, you call me names? Please.
Martha
Martha Sprowles
NanLeeCro wrote:
>
> >Subject: OT national funding for the arts
> >From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@erols.com>
> >Date: Sun, May 24, 1998 08:06 EDT
> >
> It would be Phoney, in other words, and I would really object
> >to my tax money's being used to fund Phoney Art.
> >Martha
>
> I expressed the very same attitude you express in your above quoted statement
> when I was an Art Minor in high school.
What is this supposed to mean, Nan? I really hate these personal
insults, and I will not respond to them.
> More enlightened than before, I am alert to my tax money, as a nearly lifetime
> WORKER among the masses, used permissively to fund phoney "real" Arts. In the
> same permissive manner the govt. fostered generations of unmarried teenage
> mothers on SSI/SSDI/Soc Sec Welfare. Fraudulent and parasitical recipients
> deplete Soc Sec funds of the REAL workers, a process like the Arty Elite
> promoting singular agenda, e.g. "sexual orientation" projects, which are
> explicit purient and pornographic expressions of no enduring artistic worth.
> Because of few such projects deemed worthless, inciting the indignation of the
> public, worthwhile projects are in jeopardy of funding. To support unpopular
> and criticized projects is to only further diminish the the people's spirit for
> arts funding. Insulting "taste-masters" kill-off the people's spirit for tax
> supported arts funding. It is called "cutting of the funds to spite a cause
> for the "true taste" of a very few." from Nan
>
Martha Sprowles
Dear Nan,
The National Review. Says it all. Why don't you quote ArtNews or some
other ART magazine, instead of a political journal?
Martha
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: OT national funding for the arts
>From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com>
>Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 08:15 EDT
>Dear Nan,
>The National Review. Says it all. Why don't you quote ArtNews >or some other
ART magazine, instead of a political journal?
>
Dear Martha,
The possible abolishment of or decrease in PUBLIC funding for the NEA is a
POLITICAL ISSUE. Congress has the power, and the people have the voice.
(advise George all caps is shouting or for emphasis) Furthermore, because the
of "nature" of Mapplethorpe's production, it is counter-productive for Gay
Rights. Homophobia can be only fueled and fanned by this pornography, and
stereotype-cast Gays as "all perverted." Mapplethorpe's "leitmotif" does not
serve the Gay cause at all, nor does it serve the cause of ART and the NEA. It
is not serve the advances towards uncloseted acceptance of homosexuality.
True, the production is no worse than if it was heterosexual in theme and
depictation.
"Every so often, however, there's a leak in security." is a very revealing
statement. Your principles and mine will always collide.
"Popular Art" is an art genre. Art for the *populace* should be worthy of the
people's investment and representative of the Nation's BEST cultural values.
Re: "Popular Art: copied from Encarta Concise Encyclopedia
Pop Art (Popular Art) Style, Form, Genre
Pop Art, visual arts movement of the 1950s and 1960s, principally in the United
States and Great Britain. Pop art (shortened from "popular art")
characteristically depicted images taken from mass culture, sometimes with
actual objects incorporated into the artwork. Materials of modern technology,
such as plastic, often figured prominently. The historical antecedents of pop
art include the works of Dadaists (See Dada), as well as the tradition of
trompe l'oeil pictures, a style attempting to achieve a three-dimensional look.
The pop art movement began as a reaction against abstract expressionism, a
style of the 1940s and 1950s.
Pop artists depicted everyday life and sought to provide an impersonal and
immediate perception of reality...
Pop art also appropriated techniques of mass production, including the
production of large series of works, all depicting the same objects. In the
early 1960s American artist Andy Warhol adopted the mass-production technique
of silk-screening. Other important pop artists are Americans Claes Oldenburg,
Roy Lichtenstein, George Segal, Wayne Thiebaud, James Rosenquist, Tom
Wesselmann, and Robert Indiana. British artists include
Peter Blake and R. B. Kitaj.
_______________________________-
Martha Sprowles
NanLeeCro wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: OT national funding for the arts
> >From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com>
> >Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 08:15 EDT
>
> >The National Review. Says it all. Why don't you quote ArtNews >or some other
> ART magazine, instead of a political journal?
> >
> I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance...Coleridge
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Nan,
Thanks for the giggle. I was not, of course, referring to "Pop Art"
when I used the term "popular art." You might be interested to know
that Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein and some other pop artists whose
names I forget gave a lecture at my college, which I attended, and the
high point was when a slide of a large painting of a pocket comb was
shown, and the artist (Warhol?) said, "oh, that's upside down. Not that
it matters much," to great laughter.
I believe that discussions of artistic merit are, of course, fair game
for anyone to partake in (my god, as if this thread wasn't proof of
that) regardless of artistic qualifications/training, BUT to cite as an
authority a political magazine in re: artistic merits seems to me to be
a bit perverted. If you want to discuss what I think is the larger, and
perhaps more legitimate, issue--i.e., should the NEA exist at all, and
should *any* art be supported by tax dollars--then, I think, you have a
political issue on which I guess the National Review's opinion would be
as valid as any other partisan publication's.
Martha
NanLeeCro
Dear Nan,
Thanks for the giggle. I was not, of course, referring to "Pop Art"
when I used the term "popular art."
Nan answers: I didn't think you knew the difference.
Martha writes: I believe that discussions of artistic merit are, of course,
fair game for anyone to partake in (my god, as if this thread wasn't proof of
that) regardless of artistic qualifications/training, BUT to cite as an
authority a political magazine in re: artistic merits seems to me to be a bit
perverted.
Martha, the topic you opened is Natl Funding for the Arts, not
aethestic sensitivity and artistic & creative merit. The topic is political,
and it is a political controversy. It is not about "artistic merits", but
Merit for Funding. When I want to read about ART, I read the Art magazines,
etc. When I seek information about a political issue, I do not bury my head in
the sand to avoid an oppositional viewpoint. I do not want to see the NEA
abolished.
The following article presents some interesting facts as well as a viewpoint.
If the "facts" are incorrect, they are easy refuted.
There are many and varying viewpoints on this issue. To ignore "partisan"
viewpoints is really narrow-mindedly blind-siding oneself. To hold the
attitude that there is no reasoning to opposing viewpoints is just plain
ignorant. I would HATE to see all national funding or state funding for the
Arts abolished. But, projects you strongly relate to and support have caused
the NEA to come under severe scrutiny and disfavor by the public and members of
Congress. What a terrible sacrifice! from Nan
If you want to discuss what I think is the larger, and
perhaps more legitimate, issue--i.e., should the NEA exist at all, and
should *any* art be supported by tax dollars--then, I think, you have a
political issue on which I guess the National Review's opinion would be
as valid as any other partisan publication's.
Martha
Do the Arts Need the NEA?
By Lee Kessler February 7, 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Endowment for the Arts is fighting for its life, as newly
empowered Republicans in Washington have targeted the NEA for extinction. Many
artists are angry about this possibility and believe that only ignorance or
malevolance can explain it. Are opponents of the NEA simply Philistines? Or are
there compelling reasons to oppose federal arts funding? Because the arts are
so essential to civilized society, each of us should carefully weigh the issues
involved before deciding whether or not federal arts funding is a good idea. In
particular, we need to consider two important questions: Can the arts survive
without public
funds, and ought government to fund the arts?
Can the arts survive without public funds?
The evidence strongly suggests that the arts would survive nicely
without government's help. This year's budget for the National Endowment for
the Arts (NEA) amounts to $167.4 million. Private giving to arts organizations,
by contrast, exceeds $9 billion per year, more than fifty times as much. Even
if we were to add the $213 million appropriated for the arts by state
governments in 1992, total public funding (less local government support) would
still amount to only slightly more than 4 percent of private arts giving.
So the arts are already surviving with hardly any public funds. Grants from
individuals, foundations, and corporations are
responsible for a substantial portion of arts organizations' budgets.
And in many cases, the arts earn their way by selling a product that
people value.
The Central Opera Service, for example, reports that 21.4 million people
attended opera performances by nearly 1,300 opera companies in 1989. According
to the American Symphony
orchestra League, in 1991 the nation's 1,666 symphony orchestras
performed for 22.3 million concertgoers. That same year
orchestras grossed $702.5 million, $412.1 million of which was earned through
the sale of tickets and merchandise.
In 1989 opera companies and symphony orchestras spent more than $1 billion. Yet
NEA grants to music-related activities (which
includes recipients besides opera companies and symphony
orchestras) in 1989 totaled only $15.3 million--less than 2 percent of
opera and symphony expenditures.
The arts, it appears, are not dependent on public funding. Losing what little
public funds arts organizations now receive would have
a generally minimal impact on their programs.
Ought government to fund the arts?
It's unfortunate that some conservatives have chosen to focus on a few
controversial artworks that received NEA funds, leaving us with the impression
that the primary objection is not public funding
per se, but rather the offensive nature of NEA-sponsored art.
Some NEA-sponsored artists have without question crossed the
boundaries of good taste. But good taste has never been an
essential component of great art. Would the NEA have refused a
grant to Sophocles? The story of Oedipus, who unknowingly kills
his father and sleeps with his mother, is hardly family entertainment.
The controversy is doubly unfortunate because it has obscured the magnificence
of much that the NEA has helped to bring about.
Although the NEA is by no means beyond reproach, most
government funds go to quality programs that receive rave
reviews.
People who are offended by certain publicly funded artworks are right to object
to footing the bill, but they don't take the matter far
enough. Government should not fund the arts for one simple
reason: We should not require those who choose not to patronize
the arts to subsidize those of us who do. Proponents of the NEA
argue that public funding is a bargain- basement investment in
culture; each of us spends less than seventy cents to keep
the NEA afloat. A bargain, perhaps . . . but only for those who
value the NEA's product. For everyone else it's just one more tax
increase. Or as the Chicago Tribune's editorial page rightly points
out: "Any amount of money would be objectionable--just as it
would be if Congress voted to give 'pennies per person' to your
neighbor's church."
Eliminating the NEA would not come without consequences. Some
arts organizations around the country may suffer short-term
setbacks as they try to make up for the missing federal funds. So
how would the arts respond to such a challenge? By soliciting
extra support from the people and organizations who value music,
theater, dance, literature, and the visual arts.
Requiring that people pay for what they use is a long-standing
democratic principle. Just as we shouldn't force opera-lovers to
subsidize professional football teams, neither should we expect
sports fans to subsidize the opera.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Kessler is an editor at The Heartland Institute, a nonprofit,
nonpartisan public policy research center. He is also a clarinetist with a
degree in music from the University of Pennsylvania.
________________________________________________>Martha Sprowles
<spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com>
>Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 09:28 EDT
NanLeeCro
Subject: Re: OT national funding for the arts
From: Martha Sprowles <spro...@REMOVETHISerols.com>
Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 08:13 EDT
Nan, would you do me the favor of listening to what I have to say?
1. It is important, imho, for the NEA to support unpopular art (which is not
to say that the work is not *judged,* btw; a panel composed of knowledgable
artists and critics decides whether the art is any good or not) because popular
art by its very nature doesn't *need* NEA support.
1. Martha, I listen to what you say and I disagree it is the obligation of the
NEA to support "unpopular", that is overwhelmingly unwanted and unappreciated
art. It is not the NEA's purpose to foster unwanted by art the public for
marketing.
Martha writes: People *buy* popular art, Nan; that's why it's called "popular."
Nan writes: Martha, people can buy just what the frighell appeals to them.
Neither you or I should represent OUR taste is the ultimate in aesthetic
appreciation.
Martha write: Artists who do not follow popular tastes have trouble selling
their work, or even getting it seen.
Nan writes: Martha, that is not entirely the true and broader picture.. The
"art world" as a sub-culture has its own politics and social order. The art
world is quite well-established in promotion and marketing. Believe me, I do
know this first hand.
Martha wrote: This was a problem faced by many artists whose work now is
revered--ever hear of "les Fauves?" Popular tastes in art are not always for
what is good, witness the immense sales enjoyed by the Keanes a few decades
ago.
Martha, if I remember correctly, the Keanes produced waifs with big sad eyes.
So what? If that is what people wanted. How can you presume that the Keanes
artwork is "not good"?
Martha writes: The artists you have said you like clearly are popular because,
if for no other reason, their work is reproduced on things like collectors'
plates from the Franklin Mint.
Martha, I mention noted artists because most people know these names. To what
purpose could I example unknown artists to indicate my interest and knowledge
of Art? My art interest and tastes are so eclectic re: style, medium, period,
technique, and subject it is impossible for me to give a definitive preference.
The topic is not TASTE or academic art criticism - it is ENDOWMENT.
Martha wrote: And there's nothing wrong with that--I
hope everyone who likes that stuff is able to buy lots of it.
But there are other artists whose work may not appeal to the broad
audience Erté's does, artists whose work deserves to be seen at least, so that
the broader population can judge whether they want to buy it or not. NEA
support of such artists benefits all of us because it allows those of us who do
not live near avant-garde art galleries or good museums of modern art to see
and grow by exposure to things we've never
seen before.
Nan writes: What has put the NEA in jeopardy is way-out, way-off controversial
projects, performed underground and deceitfully, at the public's expense. The
expense is NOT just dollars, but the loss of benefit in worthy performance.
Martha wrote: We don't have to like them; we don't even have to go look at
them. But I believe it's important for there to be support for experimental
artists (in all media) whose work is judged worthy of support by people who are
trained to discern good art.
Nan writes: The NEA screwed-up, and has been receiving one hell of alot of
flak since at least 1992. The onus in on them.
Martha writes: You may not agree that the art is good, but the people whose job
it is to judge have the credentials and the abilities which qualify them to
make this judgement on your and my behalf. I for one would prefer to have a
panel of artists deciding what is fit for me to see than to have that judgement
made by, say, Exxon--which is what has happened in the arena of so-called
public broadcasting.
Nan writes: Exxon does not produce pornography in the name of "for arts'
sake".
Martha writes: 2. I really resent your continued personal slurs and false
assumptions about me and what I believe. You seemingly will not do me the
courtesy of--at the very least--ASKING me if I truly believe thus and so. And
it's very tiring to hear again and again that people who like art that you
don't are "pretentious." Please. Nan, you are allowed to like anything you
want, and I don't call you names. If what I say is not true--that is, that you
think art should be Pretty--tell me so.
Nan writes: Martha, I write in reaction to what you write. You know very damn
well that I have never said or indicated in any way that I thought art "should
be Pretty". You made up the very term and designation. You have been ultra
disengenuous and I am obligated to point it out. Re: issues, as I said, it is
my right and the general practice in the tc to argue opinions, viewpoints and
overturn utter rot.
Martha: But because I have been trained to appreciate art that you do not see
any merit in, you call me names? Please.
Martha
Nan writes: Martha, the art you appreciate and defended here caused a BONFIRE
reaction putting the NEA on a possible chopping block. You have every right to
your taste in art, but the issue is the public's rights for which you have
shown total disregard, if not desdain. from Nan
Halle 8
Martha wrote:
>I know that this is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree,
>but I am stunned by NanLeCro's stance that only art which is palatable
>to the masses should receive governmental support.
There are many people who agree with Nan -- maybe the majority. It is my
observation that government and private funding for the arts through grants and
endowments ultimately created an"entitlement mentality" and a certain elitism
among artists and arts organizations that soon distanced them from the needs
and desires of local communities. A lot of things brought all of that to a
screeching halt, including federal budget cuts and the changing expectations of
funders, throwing the arts into a near-tailspin. I think local community
support is essential for stability in the arts, ultimately, and that artists
and arts organizations need to be responsive to community needs and
expectations. But I think it is also essential that there be government support
for experimental art, folk arts, arts in education, arts in rural and other
underserved areas, art in public places, and arts that promote awareness and
appreciation of our cultural diversity, which is largely what the NEA funds.
>She ignores my contention that Popular art by its very nature will find
>buyers, and artists creating Popular art do not need support from the
>NEA. Popular art is popular because it is easy to look at and enjoy. It
>is Pretty.
"Popular art" does not, in and of itself, qualify for NEA funding, fortunately.
>Think about it. Everybody thinks flowers, babies, puppies, beautiful
>women are pretty, and many artists have capitalized on this. Some, like
>Anne Geddes, have gone further and made an already popularly-appealing
>subject (babies) even more appealing to the lazy viewer by making the
>babies Cute, sometimes even Coy. Pictures like hers--and knockoffs of
>her pictures--are sold everywhere in the US, and sell well.
This kind of art would not qualify for NEA funding.
>Mary Engelbreit is another very popular and appealing artist who makes
>lots of money by painting Safe subjects in a Safe manner. She is a
>multimillionaire--why should someone who is already accepted by the
>public receive support from the NEA?
She would not receive support from the NEA without developing some sort of
program around her art that satisfied NEA criteria (e.g., an experimental or
educational program, a benefit to underserved areas, etc.)
<snip>
>The way I understand NEA grants is that artists and groups can apply for
>support for a specific project--the application is made, of course,
>before the project is made--and is used to support the artist while he
>makes the artwork, or is used to buy materials with which to make the
>art. Support for groups is, as I understand it, a little
>different--that money might be used, for example, for an orchestra from
>Alaska to travel to New York for a music festival. I know a composer
>who received an NEA grant; it was $5000, and he used it to pay his rent
>so he could devote more time to his art, instead of having to work at
>two jobs. I know a novelist and a poet who also received these grants;
>the poet got $25,000, and I don't know how much the novelist got.
That's pretty much how it works.
>But the country was not, in any case, "buying" the artwork. The country
>through the NEA was making it possible for artists to create. I think
>that's a fine objective.
Some artwork is bought by the government (e.g., public artworks, such as
sculptures and murals).
>By Nan's lights, artists receiving public money should be making art
>that is accessible by the public at large.
Well, this is true, to some extent. Folk arts, for example, are accessible to
the public at large, but fewer young people are continuing the artistic
traditions of their cultures (community, tribal, religious, even family) --
government (NEA) funding supports apprenticeship programs that encourage young
people to develop the skills necessary to keep these artistic traditions alive.
A touring chamber orchestra could be playing something as accessible as Mozart
and yet, in schools with no music programs, sometimes the point is just to let
children get to know the instruments, to interact with musicians, and to hear a
live performance. So "accessibility" is not a useful point of debate, in and of
itself -- the context in which the artwork or program is delivered is what
makes it significant and possibly worthy of funding.
> This, it seems to me, would
>require them to limit their artistic imaginations to subjects and
>treatments which might not express at all what they are trying to
>express. It would be Phoney, in other words, and I would really object
>to my tax money's being used to fund Phoney Art.
>
>Martha
I agree with your sentiments, and I do believe that there is little funding
going towards useless or phoney art. There must be some "public good" served by
the art in order for it so receive funding, in keeping with the NEA's mission
and social objectives. I personally think there needs to be more local support
of the arts (why should the NEA be funding school programs?) and more funding
for experimental art. And I do think this will happen over the long haul.
Halle
Halle 8
Martha:
>I know that this is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, but I
>am
>stunned by NanLeCro's stance that only art which is palatable to the masses
>should receive governmental support. She ignores my contention that Popular
>art by its very nature will find buyers, and artists creating Popular art do
>not need support from the NEA. Popular art is popular because it is easy to
>look at and enjoy. It is Pretty.
Well, the evaluation criteria for funding are generally as follows:
1. Is the proposed artwork or artistic program of notable "quality".
2. Does it possess an educational component?
3. Will ot be delivered to an underserved area?
4. Does it promote an awareness and appreciation of cultural diversity?
5. Does it promote and awareness and appreciation of our cultural and artistic
heritage?
6. Is the project likely to succeed financially?
7. Is the artist or arts organization overly dependent on government funding?
(This is a new consideration, given the objective to encourage local community
support)
8. Does the project have local community support? (This is evidenced by the
percentage of funding/income projected from various sources, as well as in-kind
services)
Well, you get the picture. Whether the art is "popular" or not is really not a
factor in the evaluation of grant proposals. A lot of "popular art" gets
funded, but only because it serves some beneficial social/education purpose.
Halle
Halle 8
>The National Endowment for the Arts is fighting for its life, as newly
>empowered Republicans in Washington have targeted the NEA for extinction.
>Many
>artists are angry about this possibility and believe that only ignorance or
>malevolance can explain it. Are opponents of the NEA simply Philistines? Or
>are
>there compelling reasons to oppose federal arts funding?
The NEA is too convenient as a political litmus test for it to ever go away, in
my opinion.
Local communities have, since the 60s, become increasingly disenfranchised by
the arts because of alienating elitism promoted by grants, endowments, and
other funding from outside the local community. Orchestras were happily
performing what conductors found challenging, ballets existed to satisfy the
artistic vision of choreographers, and so on. Audiences were left unengaged and
even baffled at times. Ticket sales became a smaller percentage of revenues and
it was a common practice to paper the house just to fill seats. That is the
downside (somewhat hyperbolically) of government (and private) funding that has
no requirement for matching funds, local support, community involvement, etc.
That is all changing now. Should the NEA exist? That's a big question.
Significant new and experimental art needs to be encouraged and often isn't
likely to receive significant audience support -- the NEA should encourage new
artistic vision and practice through grant funding -- "our tax dollars at
work". I think the NEA needs to quit funding educational programs, but only
when communities are willing to pick up the tab for music, theater, and visual
arts programs in their schools. In other words, I guess what I am saying is
that the question, should the NEA exist?, is not a fair question -- it is more
useful to ask whether certain NEA programs should exist. Some of them should be
discontinued and others strengthened, I believe, and that is where the debate
should really take place.
Halle
Sharonpo
> hal...@aol.com (Halle 8)
Crawled out from under her current rock and scrawled tons of *words not her
own* . Then she pretended to be pure.
GLC1173
NanLeeCro wrote:
>The possible abolishment of or decrease in PUBLIC funding for >the NEA is a
>POLITICAL ISSUE. Congress has the power, and the people >have the voice.
The poster-child cases of crazy art getting grants - and the
selfrighteousness of the self-proclaimed "arts community" - are destroying
broad public support for arts funding in this country.
It's obvious that only a small percentage of artworks - or of artists - get
federal grans, so "discrimination" is implicit in the grant process. That
takes any credibility out of the arts crowd's argument that it's not fair to
give or deny grants based on content.
A friend at synagogue does beautiful sculpture relating to his life as a
Holocaust survivor - but nobody gives him federal money.
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: OT national funding for the arts
>Date: Tue, May 26, 1998 00:40 EDT
>> hal...@aol.com (Halle 8)
>Crawled out from under her current rock and scrawled tons of >*words not her
own* . Then she pretended to be pure.
>
Dear Sharonpo,
Halle's contributions on this topic are rational and cogent.
This is what really counts. Whereas Martha always makes an issue a matter of
and for herself, Halle is objective and authorative.
That is what I like about your post re: Legal Drugs. I admire clear and
responsible thinking from all sides of an issue.
From Nan
Martha Sprowles
Halle 8 wrote:
>
> Martha:
> >I know that this is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, but I
> >am
> >stunned by NanLeCro's stance that only art which is palatable to the masses
> >should receive governmental support. She ignores my contention that Popular
> >art by its very nature will find buyers, and artists creating Popular art do
> >not need support from the NEA. Popular art is popular because it is easy to
> >look at and enjoy. It is Pretty.
>
>
> 1. Is the proposed artwork or artistic program of notable "quality".
>
> 2. Does it possess an educational component?
>
> 3. Will ot be delivered to an underserved area?
>
> 4. Does it promote an awareness and appreciation of cultural diversity?
>
> 5. Does it promote and awareness and appreciation of our cultural and artistic
> heritage?
>
> 6. Is the project likely to succeed financially?
>
> 7. Is the artist or arts organization overly dependent on government funding?
> (This is a new consideration, given the objective to encourage local community
> support)
>
> 8. Does the project have local community support? (This is evidenced by the
> percentage of funding/income projected from various sources, as well as in-kind
> services)
>
> Well, you get the picture. Whether the art is "popular" or not is really not a
> factor in the evaluation of grant proposals. A lot of "popular art" gets
> funded, but only because it serves some beneficial social/education purpose.
>
> Halle
Dear Halle,
Source, please?
Martha
NanLeeCro
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jaune Quick-To-See Smith
(American, b. 1940)
Monograph
Exhibition Catalogues
Articles
Videos
LRC Archives on Women Artists
Other Works in Public Collections
Artist Profile
List of Bibliographies
Indian, Indio, Indigenous, 1992
Oil, collage, and mixed media on canvas
60 x 100 in.
Museum Purchase:
The Members' Acquisition Fund
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monograph
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valentino, Erin Bridget. "Delivering Their Grandmothers:
Maria Martinez,
Kay Walkingstick and Jaune Quick-to-See Smith." Ph.D. diss., Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut, 1995.
[Photocopy. Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 1996]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibition Catalogues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grey Canyon Group: An Exhibition by Five Contemporary American Indian Artists.
exh. cat. (group) Gallery of the American Indian Community House, New York, New
York, 1985
Women of Sweetgrass, Cedar and Sage: Contemporary Art by Native American Women.
exh. cat. (group) Gallery of the American Indian Community House,
New York, New York, 1985[Curated by Harmony Hammond
and Jaune Quick-to-See Smith]
Jaune Quick-to-See Smith and George Longfish: Personal Symbols. Recent
Paintings and Works on Paper. exh. cat. Gallery of Art, Northern Iowa
University, Cedar Falls, Iowa, 1986
Jaune Quick-to-See Smith: CENTRIC #37. exh. cat. University Art Museum,
California State University, Long Beach, California, 1989
New Paintings by Jaune Quick-to-See Smith: A View of Western Lands. exh. cat.
Steinbaum Krauss Gallery, New York, 1990
Our Land/Ourselves: American Indian Contemporary Artists. exh. cat. (group)
University Art Gallery, State University of New York, Albany, New York, 1990
Jaune Quick-to-See Smith: The Quincentenary Non-Celebration. exh. cat.
Steinbaum Krauss Gallery, New York, 1992
The Submuloc Show/Columbus Wohl: A Visual Commentary on the Columbus
Quincentennial from the Perspective of America's First People. exh. cat.
(group) ATLATL, Phoenix, Arizona, 1992.
[Curated by Jaune Quick-to-See Smith]
We, The Human Beings: 27 Contemporary Native American Artists. exh. cat.
(group) College of Wooster Art Museum, Wooster, Ohio, 1992. [Curated by Jaune
Quick-to-See Smith]
Jaune Quick-to-See Smith. exh. cat. Steinbaum Krauss Gallery, New York, 1995
American Kaleidoscope: Themes and Perspectives in Recent Art. exh. cat. (group)
National Museum of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,
1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Galligan, Gregory. "Jaune Quick-to-See Smith: Crossing the Great
Divide." Arts Magazine (January 1986)
Galligan, Gregory. "Jaune Quick-to-See Smith: Racing with the Moon." Arts
Magazine (January 1987)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Videos
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jaune Quick-to-See Smith." Lincoln, Nebraska: Native American Public
Broadcasting Consortium, [1984]
"American Indian Artists II: Jaune Quick-to-See Smith." Lincoln,
Nebraska: Native American Public Broadcasting Consortium, [1982]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Library and Research Center Archives on Women Artists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An artist file is available at the Library and Research Center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Works in Public Collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis, 1983
Oil, collage, mixed media on canvas
Collection of High Museum of Art, Purchased through funds provided by AT&T New
Art/New Visions with funds from Alfred Austell Thornton in memory of Leila
Austell Thornton and Albert Edward Thornton Sr., and Sarah Miller Venable and
William Hoyt Venable, Atlanta, Georgia Ronan Robe #2, 1977
Dyed cotton duck, acrylic and beeswax Collection of Yellowstone Art Center,
gift of Miriam Schapiro, Billings, Montana
Trade (Gifts for Trading Land with White People), 1992
Oil, collage, mixed media on canvas with objects
Collection of The Chrysler Museum, Norfolk, Virginia
Two Trees, 1986 Oil on canvas
Collection of Yellowstone Art Center, Montana Cultural Trust Fund Purchase,
Billings, Montana
Untitled, from the portfolio: Indian Self-Rule, 1983
Color lithograph Collection of National Museum of
American Art, Washington, D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Bibliographies | Artist Profile | Permanent Collection Tour:
Late 20th Century
Halle 8
>glc...@aol.com wrote:
> The poster-child cases of crazy art getting grants - and the
>selfrighteousness of the self-proclaimed "arts community" - are destroying
>broad public support for arts funding in this country.
Yes, that's clearly been the case, but I do think it is changing, and quite
painfully at that. Numerous symphony orchestras have recently gone bankrupt
across the country, for example, because the big funding sources dried up and a
history of poor planning and financial management left them unable to pull out
of the fiscal tailspin that resulted. Those that survived are changing the way
they do business, paying more attention to what the public wants, and building
a stronger base of support locally. I think this is true throughout the arts.
> It's obvious that only a small percentage of artworks - or of artists -
>get
>federal grans, so "discrimination" is implicit in the grant process.
Yes, this is true. A lot also has to do with the quality of the proposal itself
-- many good projects don't get funded because the proposal preparation
instructions were not followed.
>That
>takes any credibility out of the arts crowd's argument that it's not fair to
>give or deny grants based on content.
Content alone is not the only factor judged. The quality of the proposal is
judged, as is whether the project meets any number of social or educational
objectives.
> A friend at synagogue does beautiful sculpture relating to his life as a
>Holocaust survivor - but nobody gives him federal money.
1. Has he applied for funding?
2. If so, did he structure his proposal in such a way as to emphasize some
educational benefit the public would receive?
Our tax dollars don't typically go to simply supporting artists so that they
can create art -- NEA funding should not be viewed as a form of welfare. NEA
funding goes towards procuring public goods and services -- and, to be sure,
there are as many difficulties in procuring art as there is in procuring the
results of scientific research. But the point is that the public must benefit
somehow by the proposed project and this must be demonstrated in the grant
proposal. There are other funding sources that are available for arts projects
that might not fit the NEA's criteria -- the Getty, McCune, and Ford
Foundations, for example, along with corporations and individual
philanthropists. Unfortunately, there is less funding all around for the arts,
and it is more important than ever that artists endeavor within their
communities to build a local base of support amongst the public and to become
ultimately less reliant on public and private funding.
Halle
GMSpider
A few more examples of Sharonpo's "clear and responsible thinking"
Visit the Girl Gang Web Pages at
http://members.aol.com/gmspider/index.html
GMSpider
In article <199805261158...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, nanl...@aol.com
(NanLeeCro) writes:
Sharonpo scrawls...
>>> hal...@aol.com (Halle 8)
>>Crawled out from under her current rock and scrawled tons of >*words not her
>own* . Then she pretended to be pure.
This type of thing is what you admire as Sharon's clear and responsible
thinking?
Grandmother Spider
GMSpider
Some examples of Sharonpo's "Clear and responsible thinking" as seen by NLC.
All of these are from the drug threads. There's plenty more.
Be sure to read the very last one. Now THAT one makes sense.
>I thought I caught a glimmer of a thought in this; then the words degenerated
Sharonpo
You are a troll and a refugee from asg; please take your flames and your
simplemindedness back there.
'kay?
Sharonpo
> lordsir@HOTM.
>I feel we are coping with alcohol related problems the best we can, and
that>we
>need to treat these other substances in a similar manner. Prohibition and
>punishment do not work.>><EDIT>
[Translation: I think I'll attempt to divert the discussion with empty and
unrelated correlations]
Sharonpo
> lordsir@HOTM.
>I feel we are coping with alcohol related problems the best we can, and
that>we
>need to treat these other substances in a similar manner. Prohibition and
>punishment do not work.>><EDIT>
[Translation: I think I'll attempt to divert the discussion with empty and
unrelated correlations]
Sharonpo
So, liddle lord sir ma'am, when exactly does your cease conversation kick in?
If you're gonna declare an "Official End of this needless conversation",
shouldn't you observe it?
Sharonpo
>lordsir@hotmail.
>Now if I went out and killed someone and robbed them while smoking ganja,
>then I>would be at fault for having acted so thoughtlessly towards others and
I
>should>be held responsible for the murder and robbery I committed.
[Translation: If I were doped up - legally - when I killed or robbed someone,
I'd get to plead insanity. heeheeheehee!]
Sharonpo
>Well dear, I thought you and I had finished our discussion.>>Regards,>>Lord
Sir
[Translation: I'm so cute!]
>I dunno. I wouldn't mind a few revealing JPG's, as if that's a news
>flash.
>
>
Rick (ducking), You are such a slut!
Sharonpo
Sharonpo saunters nonchalantly through the archives, a slight smirk of disdain
curls the left side of her voluptuous mouth.
The black lace teddy seems too small for her size 0 body, but she realizes that
as soon as her ego deflates to normal, the wisp of clothing will fit perfectly.
She's feeling a little guilty about engaging in combat with an unarmed twerp.
Luckily, the little shit had a curfew and was able to retreat before she had to
hurt him. Ripley, her role model, would have just stomped his ass and been done
with him
.Sharonpo
Oh, what the hell!!!
[Translation: Me and my friends got in trouble 'cause we don't like the rules.
I *hate* you. Stoopid rules.]
Sharonpo
Debating this topic in atc is not only stupid, it's a waste of righteousenergy.
Sharonpo
Sharonpo
>gmsp...@aol.com (GMSpider)
>Some examples of Sharonpo's "Clear and responsible thinking" as seen by NLC.
>All of these are from the drug threads. There's plenty more
MORE!! MORE!! C'mon BSS, get to the good stuff!
GMSpider
In article <199805262258...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, shar...@aol.com
(Sharonpo) writes:
Dear SharonPOOP
Oh I don't think so. I'm sure that everyone who is interested knows
how to look them up and get a good laugh at you.
Sharonpo
>gmsp...@aol.com (GMSpider)
>Oh I don't think so. I'm sure that everyone who is interested knows
>how to look them up and get a good laugh at you.
See, you have no follow-through. You're a hit-and-run kinda guy. I know you
acknowledge being lazy, but if yer gonna stick yer nose in something, ya should
at least have the balls to clean up after yerself.
GMSpider
In article <199805262343...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, shar...@aol.com
(Sharonpo) writes:
Don't have balls, got ovaries, got some nice boobs too.
You mistake my purpose, Miss SharonPOOP, I am merely trying to
show the group some "clear and responsible" thinking. So that we
may all act just like you. Getting a real education in proper posting.
I am through teaching for the evening, if anyone wants further instruction,
they will need to do some research on their own. Hope they will report
their discoveries back to me so that I can impress people with my
"clear and responsible thinking".
Grandmother Spider
NanLeeCro
>Subject: Re: OT national funding for the arts
>Date: Tue, May 26, 1998 16:21 EDT
From: shar...@aol.com (Sharonpo)
>Date: Tue, May 26, 1998 00:40 EDT
>> hal...@aol.com (Halle 8)
>Crawled out from under her current rock and scrawled tons of >*words not her
own* . Then she pretended to be pure.
>
Dear Sharonpo,
Halle's contributions on this topic are rational and cogent.
This is what really counts. Whereas Martha always makes an issue a matter of
and for herself, Halle is objective and authorative.
That is what I like about your post re: Legal Drugs. I admire clear and
responsible thinking from all sides of an issue.
From Nan
>
>This type of thing is what you admire as Sharon's clear and responsible
>thinking?
>
>Grandmother Spider
Hi Grandmother Spider,
I referred to an outstanding post of Sharon's in reply to my post in the More
on Drugs/Liberation topic. Most of the regulars here have their own style of
replying. I am very passionate about the dignity of art and artists - hence I
become super intense. You must have been on vacation during the Mary Mary
holocaust. I am sure you would be upset by that release of restraint. I agree
with you it is best to respond to the very content of a post. You seem to have
missed I was saying that to Sharon. What do you think about the NEA
controversy? Regards from Nan
Martha Sprowles
Huh?
GMSpider
In article <199805270359...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, nanl...@aol.com
(NanLeeCro) writes:
> What do you think about the NEA
>controversy? Regards from Nan
snipped
You really don't want to discuss this subject with me and I will
certainly stay out of it
However, just for the record, IMO the taxpayers of this country cannot
afford these types of things any longer. They speak of SS going
bankrupted, they have cut the SSI rolls and on and on. Yet, billions
of dollars are sent to countries that hate our guts. NEA is for the elite
and, at one time we could afford it.
As long as one child goes hungry,as long as one child has a doorkey
around his neck because the parent, usually the mother, has to work
and cannot afford a baby sitter, as long as we have homeless people
and, believe me, they are not all alcoholics and druggies, some just
do not have the skills to compete in todays industries, that's how long
I say we cannot afford all these luxuries.
For something else that is wrong in this country, pay the teachers
million dollar salaries and let the basketball, football, etc stars get a
second job to support themselvs.
I will shut up now before I really get started on what is wrong with
this country and why children kill.
NanLeeCro
>Message-id: <199805272245...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>(NanLeeCro) writes:
>
>> What do you think about the NEA
>>controversy? Regards from Nan
>
>snipped
>
>You really don't want to discuss this subject with me and I will
>certainly stay out of it
>
>However, just for the record, IMO the taxpayers of this country cannot afford
these types of things any longer. They speak of SS going bankrupted, they have
cut the SSI rolls and on and on. Yet, billions of dollars are sent to
countries that hate our guts. NEA is for the elite and, at one time we could
afford it.
>
As long as one child goes hungry,as long as one child has a doorkey around his
neck because the parent, usually the mother, has to work and cannot afford a
baby sitter, as long as we have homeless people and, believe me, they are not
all alcoholics and druggies, some just do not have the skills to compete in
For something else that is wrong in this country, pay the teachers
million dollar salaries and let the basketball, football, etc stars get a
second job to support themselvs.
I will shut up now before I really get started on what is wrong with this
country and why children kill.
Grandmother Spider
From Nan: Wow! Grandmother Spider - you said a mouthful - common sense and
wisdom. Don't shut up - I like it when someone talks from the heart with both
barrels aimed! Great! I am so sick of sophist crap, it is a pleasure to hear
your heartfelt sincerity. Right on! from Nan
Halle 8
>You really don't want to discuss this subject with me and I will
>certainly stay out of it
>
>However, just for the record, IMO the taxpayers of this country cannot
>afford these types of things any longer. They speak of SS going
>bankrupted, they have cut the SSI rolls and on and on. Yet, billions
>of dollars are sent to countries that hate our guts. NEA is for the elite
>and, at one time we could afford it.
>
>As long as one child goes hungry,as long as one child has a doorkey
>around his neck because the parent, usually the mother, has to work
>and cannot afford a baby sitter, as long as we have homeless people
>and, believe me, they are not all alcoholics and druggies, some just
>do not have the skills to compete in todays industries, that's how long
>
>For something else that is wrong in this country, pay the teachers
>million dollar salaries and let the basketball, football, etc stars get a
>second job to support themselvs.
>
>I will shut up now before I really get started on what is wrong with
>this country and why children kill.
>
>Grandmother Spider
Well....
Actually, there is a strong correlation between arts programs (music, drama,
visual arts) in schools and lower juvenile crime. Unfortunately, schools have
drastically cut their budgets in these areas and some schools have no arts
programs at all. Much of NEA's funding goes to support educational programs in
schools to help fill this gap.
Even people who do not enjoy or appreciate the arts can benefit from the arts
in their communities through lower crime, better overall quality of life, a
sense of community pride, and increased tax revenues that support the city in
other ways. In fact, the arts are a key factor in local economic development
planning for most communities. Most cities have a conducted an "economic impact
of the arts" -type study that actually measures the benefit of the arts to
businesses and the city tax coffers, and assesses ways to strengthen the arts
in support of their long-range economic objectives. Cities can't expect to
attract high-tech companies, for example, if they can't offer the quality of
life that prospective twenty- and thirtysomething employees will require to
relocate there. The arts play a large role in this.
The NEA also funds arts programs in senior centers, schools, youth groups,
women's shelters, prisons, hospitals, and other places you might not expect. It
funds arts events in rural towns where there isn't much of anything else going
on -- it's the event of the year, and people come from all over to attend. The
NEA funds mural projects for inner-city kids who would otherwise be
spray-painting graffiti on public buildings. It funds acting programs in the
barrios so that hispanic kids can find their own voice and some sense of pride
in their heritage. It funds programs that *benefit* people and communities, in
other words. The arts are not just for the elite, although Jesse Helms would
like us to think so.
Halle
Tap4U2
In article <199805280748...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, hal...@aol.com
(Halle 8) writes:
< regretful snip of some good stuff>
>The NEA also funds arts programs in senior centers, schools, youth
>groups,women's shelters, prisons, hospitals, and other places you might not
>expect. It funds arts events in rural towns where there isn't much of
>anything else going on -- it's the event of the year, and people come from
>all over to attend. The NEA funds mural projects for inner-city kids who
>would otherwise be spray-painting graffiti on public buildings. It funds
>acting programs in the barrios so that hispanic kids can find their own voice
>and some sense of pride in their heritage. It funds programs that *benefit*
>people and communities, inother words. The arts are not just for the elite,
>although Jesse Helms would like us to think so.
Most often the grants ARE given to the state or local Arts Councils. My state
gets about $100,000 per year to distrubute throughout the state. It is usually
in the form of "seed" money. For example, if the ballet company wishes to
launch a small tour in rural schools, the Arts Foundation will give them
$5,000, and the ballet company must come up with the rest through donations.
I can see how some would think it elitist, or even wasteful, however these
small efforts provide so much pleasure to so many. Often a whole new world is
open to students who only have Friday night football for entertainment.
Not only that, but it's only about 50 cents a year in your taxes that goes to
the NEA.
I think most of us have that much in the bottom of our sofas. I'd much rather
my tax money go to the NEArts than to provide a tobacco subsidy, fund a
railroad museum, in Pa., or golf courses on military bases.
The NEArts screwed up with the Serrano grant, but I don't want to see the baby
go out with the bathwater.
Ruth
"I like football and ballet".
GMSpider
>The NEA also funds arts programs in senior centers, schools, youth groups,
>women's shelters, prisons, hospitals, and other places you might not expect.
>It
>funds arts events in rural towns where there isn't much of anything else
>going
>on -- it's the event of the year, and people come from all over to attend.
>The
>NEA funds mural projects for inner-city kids who would otherwise be
>spray-painting graffiti on public buildings. It funds acting programs in the
>barrios so that hispanic kids can find their own voice and some sense of
>pride
>in their heritage. It funds programs that *benefit* people and communities,
>in
>other words. The arts are not just for the elite, although Jesse Helms would
>like us to think so.
>
>Halle
snipped
Very nice for those who have time for that sort of stuff. Does it feed hungry
children, does it provide free job training for those without skills, does it
provide a place for latchkey children to go, does it get the thousands of
mentally ill people off the streets, you know, the ones who have been
turned out of mental hospitals for lack of funds.
Art programs in prison? Ask Danny Rolling if they have a nice art program
for him in Florida State Prison. Acting lessons for hispanics? They need a
part time job, does this help them get one? Graffitti? Is there a shortage
of that since the "art programs" were funded.
Sorry, you don't convince me that this country needs the NEA for a better
quality of life. The government is pushing people off of welfare, saying to
get a job and support yourself. The arts can support themselves.
All you "artsy" people can support it yourselves, and go view the latest.
Some of us are too busy working in the soup kitchens, the prisons and
the streets.
GMSpider
In article <199805281117...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, tap...@aol.com
(Tap4U2) writes:
>Not only that, but it's only about 50 cents a year in your taxes that goes to
>the NEA.
>I think most of us have that much in the bottom of our sofas. I'd much
>rather
>my tax money go to the NEArts than to provide a tobacco subsidy, fund a
>railroad museum, in Pa., or golf courses on military bases.
>
>The NEArts screwed up with the Serrano grant, but I don't want to see the
>baby
>go out with the bathwater.
>
>Ruth
>"I like football and ballet".
Why would anyone consider it an either/or situaltion. At the present time
and until this country, which is being carried on the backs ot the middle
class, is out of debt and has money to spare, none of the things you
mentioned should be supported by the government.
cli...@worldnet.att.net
On 26 May 1998 23:07:50 GMT, gmsp...@aol.com (GMSpider) wrote:
>In article <199805262258...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, shar...@aol.com
>(Sharonpo) writes:
>
>>>gmsp...@aol.com (GMSpider)
>>
>>>Some examples of Sharonpo's "Clear and responsible thinking" as seen by
>>NLC.
>>>All of these are from the drug threads. There's plenty more
>>
>>
>>MORE!! MORE!! C'mon BSS, get to the good stuff!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Dear SharonPOOP
>
>Oh I don't think so. I'm sure that everyone who is interested knows
>how to look them up and get a good laugh at you.
>Visit the Girl Gang Web Pages at
>http://members.aol.com/gmspider/index.html
Oh, I think you meant to say "laugh with you". Then again, GGers
really don't like to laugh at themselves, do they?
"Sharon" my .02 worth. Clinkin
Tap4U2
The United States is the wealthiest nation on earth. It's a matter of
priorities.
Yes, let's do the soup kitchens and other things mentioned in an earlier post.
Of course there will be those that think that's a bad thing too.
My point was that it's such a small amount in the scheme of things. I think
there is more behind it than just the money. I sense a certain
anti-intellectualism and homophobia in some folks on this subject - example:
Jesse Helms, Steve Largent, et.al.
And, of course, I have a vested interest in promoting the arts, as that's how I
make my living, feed my family, and pay my taxes. ( Keeps me off welfare so I'm
not supported by others tax money.)
Ruth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
In article <199805281159...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, gmsp...@aol.com
NanLeeCro
Dear GMS,
I agree with you on so many points you have made - getting the REAL priorities
up front. It is not the spirit of the NEA that is under attack. The NEA
committed poor judgement and is under fire for it. Extreme reaction against
the NEA is not totally fair. But, the "art world" has a life of its own
without governmental funding. More than most in the tcng, I empathized with
the social problems relating to child neglect and abuse, the tribulations of
single parenting. I love your remark about "graffitti"! Strangely enough,
some of it is quite artistic. You have interjected some real gritty substance
into the "airy arty" topic. from Nan
>Very nice for those who have time for that sort of stuff. Does it feed hungry
>children, does it provide free job training for those without skills, does it
>provide a place for latchkey children to go, does it get the thousands of
>mentally ill people off the streets, you know, the ones who have been >turned
out of mental hospitals for lack of funds.
>
>Art programs in prison? Ask Danny Rolling if they have a nice art program for
him in Florida State Prison. Acting lessons for hispanics? They need a part
time job, does this help them get one? Graffitti? Is there a shortage of that
since the "art programs" were funded.
>
>Sorry, you don't convince me that this country needs the NEA for a better
quality of life. The government is pushing people off of welfare, saying to get
a job and support yourself. The arts can support themselves.
>
>All you "artsy" people can support it yourselves, and go view the latest.
Some of us are too busy working in the soup kitchens, the prisons and the
streets.
>
>Grandmother Spider
NanLeeCro
From: tap...@aol.com (Tap4U2)
Date: Thu, May 28, 1998 08:28 EDT
Tap wrote:
My point was that it's such a small amount in the scheme of things. I think
there is more behind it than just the money. I sense a
certain anti-intellectualism and homophobia in some folks on this
subject - example: Jesse Helms, Steve Largent, et.al.
Ruth, the onus of homophobic reaction is on the NEA for their lack of
discretion and judgement re: M'Thorpe and Serrano, as well as other
objectionable projects. . It is not anti-intellectual to reject works that
have crossed over the porno/obscenity line. NEA should dedicate itself to a
better cultural arts heritage than what was represented by M'Thorpe and
Serrano. NEA has no one to blame but itself. Regardless of what you and I
think of that old goat Jesse Helms, he is a senior senator with a voice. The
NEA is not an autocratic entity. It's survival depends on the good will of the
people and congress. It is a LARGE cost to the people if objectionable works
are promoted over ones that better serve the cultural interests of all the
people. from Nan
Maggie8097
>Not only that, but it's only about 50 cents a year in your taxes that goes to
>the NEA.
>I think most of us have that much in the bottom of our sofas. I'd much
>rather
>my tax money go to the NEArts than to provide a tobacco subsidy, fund a
>railroad museum, in Pa., or golf courses on military bases.
>
>The NEArts screwed up with the Serrano grant, but I don't want to see the
>baby
>go out with the bathwater.
>
>Ruth
>"I like football and ballet".
Grandmother S wrote:
Why would anyone consider it an either/or situaltion. At the present time
and until this country, which is being carried on the backs ot the middle
class, is out of debt and has money to spare, none of the things you
mentioned should be supported by the government.
***Grandmother--where have you been? We are out of debt! We *do* have money
to spare! This fiscal year (ending Sept. 30) the U.S. is running a $39 billion
SURPLUS. The OMB expects the surplus to be almost $500 billion over the next
five years.
Maggie
"Can you imagine a world without men? No crime and lots of happy fat
women."--Nicole Hollander
form...@hotmail.com
Halle 8 wrote:
> >The NEA also funds arts programs in senior centers, schools, youth groups,
> >women's shelters, prisons, hospitals, and other places you might not expect.
> >It
> >funds arts events in rural towns where there isn't much of anything else
> >going
> >on -- it's the event of the year, and people come from all over to attend.
> >The
> >NEA funds mural projects for inner-city kids who would otherwise be
> >spray-painting graffiti on public buildings. It funds acting programs in the
> >barrios so that hispanic kids can find their own voice and some sense of
> >pride
> >in their heritage. It funds programs that *benefit* people and communities,
> >in
> >other words. The arts are not just for the elite, although Jesse Helms would
> >like us to think so.
GMS replied:
> Very nice for those who have time for that sort of stuff. Does it feed hungry
> children, does it provide free job training for those without skills, does it
> provide a place for latchkey children to go, does it get the thousands of
> mentally ill people off the streets, you know, the ones who have been
> turned out of mental hospitals for lack of funds.
>
> Art programs in prison? Ask Danny Rolling if they have a nice art program
> for him in Florida State Prison. Acting lessons for hispanics? They need a
> part time job, does this help them get one? Graffitti? Is there a shortage
> of that since the "art programs" were funded.
>
> Sorry, you don't convince me that this country needs the NEA for a better
> quality of life. The government is pushing people off of welfare, saying to
> get a job and support yourself. The arts can support themselves.
>
> All you "artsy" people can support it yourselves, and go view the latest.
> Some of us are too busy working in the soup kitchens, the prisons and
> the streets.
Agreed, GMS: those things should be the government's first priority, and it
must be upsetting to live in a country with its priorities so screwed up. One
thing though: do you think, eg, acting lessons in prison *might* help
convicts get a job? I believe that some kind of training like that can be
very helpful to prisoners. Similarly, Halle's points about pride is a good
one I think: people who take pride in their culture are less likely to mess
it up.
Formica.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
form...@hotmail.com
very helpful to prisoners. Similarly, Halle's point about pride is a good
GMSpider
In article <199805281449...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097) writes:
>***Grandmother--where have you been? We are out of debt! We *do* have money
>to spare! This fiscal year (ending Sept. 30) the U.S. is running a $39
>billion
>SURPLUS. The OMB expects the surplus to be almost $500 billion over the next
>five years.
>
>
>Maggie
>
The US is far from out of debt. The national debt stands at the highest
leven in history. "Budget" funds available is not including payments on
the national debt. Wish I could forget VISA the same way.
"U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 05/29/98 at 07:12:19 AM PDT is:
The estimated population of the United States is 269,773,720
so each citizen's share of this debt is $20,413.78.
Despite the current budget surplus, the debt has increased an average of
$431 million per day since May 15, 1997!
Washington seems to be more interested in spending the budget surplus on
entitlement programs than in using the money to play off this huge debt.
Concerned? Then tell them!"
Grandmother Spider
form...@hotmail.com
I wrote:
>Agreed, GMS: those things should be the government's first priority, and it
>must be upsetting to live in a country with its priorities so screwed up. One
>thing though: do you think, eg, acting lessons in prison *might* help
>convicts get a job? I believe that some kind of training like that can be
>very helpful to prisoners. Similarly, Halle's points about pride is a good
>one I think: people who take pride in their culture are less likely to mess
>it up.
>
>
>Formica.
GMS wrote: I don't disagree with either of these two points. Now show me a
prison that gives acting lessons, painting classes, etc. I assure you the
correctional officers are all for anything that keeps prisoners busy and
occupied, that is less time to think of ways to hassle them. It just isn't
done. Where are lessons in cultural pride offered? Sure haven't seen any and
I live in a "hotbed" area for immigrants, legal and illegal. === In his book
_Crackpot_, John Waters writes a very interesting account of his time
teaching film in a Maryland prison. You might be interested in it. I guess
these programs come and go, according to the priorities of different
institutions, areas and governing bodies. Maybe someone out there with some
expertise could contribute? I can't comment on the US system as a whole.
Your question about "lessons in cultural pride" is also a good one. I guess
I think that the arts are one way that people connect to a sense of their
culture as living and interactive: something they do, not just what they are.
Not all cultural activities appeal to everyone: some are downright
unappealing or even alienating. I guess, live and let live is my motto
there.
I don't think that one more baby will be fed, or one more convict will be
rehabilitated, if arts programs are cut: if I did I would agree with you to
cut the lot of them. As you say, though, it's comparing apples and oranges.
In the meantime, I actually think Americans should be really proud of having
such a well discussed, well premised and interactive system of arts support;
in a way, the controversies are a sign that it is doing its job. Dissent and
debate about cultural issues contribute to the health of a democratic and
living culture, just like a ng I guess. It's always good if people care.
Thanks, Formica.
Maggie8097
>***Grandmother--where have you been? We are out of debt! We *do* have money
>to spare! This fiscal year (ending Sept. 30) the U.S. is running a $39
>billion
>SURPLUS. The OMB expects the surplus to be almost $500 billion over the next
>five years.
>
>
>Maggie
>
GS said:
The US is far from out of debt. The national debt stands at the highest
leven in history. "Budget" funds available is not including payments on
the national debt. Wish I could forget VISA the same way.
"U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 05/29/98 at 07:12:19 AM PDT is:
The estimated population of the United States is 269,773,720
so each citizen's share of this debt is $20,413.78.
Despite the current budget surplus, the debt has increased an average of
$431 million per day since May 15, 1997!
Washington seems to be more interested in spending the budget surplus on
entitlement programs than in using the money to play off this huge debt.
Concerned? Then tell them!"
***So if you're holding a bunch of T-bonds yielding, oh, 10%, you want the
government to pay them off? I don't think so. The government is obligated to
pay off debt when it comes due, and that's what they're doing. The fact that
the U.S. has borrowed from its citizens (and from citizens of other countries)
doesn't mean we don't have a surplus in the current budget. Because of
operating needs of the government, we will NEVER pay off this debt entirely,
and most U.S. citizens wouldn't want us to--where else can they get totally
risk free returns on deposits of over $100,000?
GMSpider
>Agreed, GMS: those things should be the government's first priority, and it
>must be upsetting to live in a country with its priorities so screwed up. One
>thing though: do you think, eg, acting lessons in prison *might* help
>convicts get a job? I believe that some kind of training like that can be
>very helpful to prisoners. Similarly, Halle's points about pride is a good
>one I think: people who take pride in their culture are less likely to mess
>it up.
>
>
>Formica.
I don't disagree with either of these two points. Now show me a prison that
gives acting lessons, painting classes, etc. I assure you the correctional
officers are all for anything that keeps prisoners busy and occupied, that
is less time to think of ways to hassle them. It just isn't done. Where
are lessons in cultural pride offered? Sure haven't seen any and I live in
a "hotbed" area for immigrants, legal and illegal.
Grandmother Spider
Martha Sprowles
form...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>
> >Agreed, GMS: those things should be the government's first priority, and it
> >must be upsetting to live in a country with its priorities so screwed up. One
> >thing though: do you think, eg, acting lessons in prison *might* help
> >convicts get a job? I believe that some kind of training like that can be
> >very helpful to prisoners. Similarly, Halle's points about pride is a good
> >one I think: people who take pride in their culture are less likely to mess
> >it up.
> >
> >
> >Formica.
>
> prison that gives acting lessons, painting classes, etc. I assure you the
> correctional officers are all for anything that keeps prisoners busy and
> occupied, that is less time to think of ways to hassle them. It just isn't
> done. Where are lessons in cultural pride offered? Sure haven't seen any and
> _Crackpot_, John Waters writes a very interesting account of his time
> teaching film in a Maryland prison. You might be interested in it. I guess
> these programs come and go, according to the priorities of different
> institutions, areas and governing bodies. Maybe someone out there with some
> expertise could contribute? I can't comment on the US system as a whole.
>
> Your question about "lessons in cultural pride" is also a good one. I guess
> I think that the arts are one way that people connect to a sense of their
> culture as living and interactive: something they do, not just what they are.
> Not all cultural activities appeal to everyone: some are downright
> unappealing or even alienating. I guess, live and let live is my motto
> there.
>
> I don't think that one more baby will be fed, or one more convict will be
> rehabilitated, if arts programs are cut: if I did I would agree with you to
> cut the lot of them. As you say, though, it's comparing apples and oranges.
> In the meantime, I actually think Americans should be really proud of having
> such a well discussed, well premised and interactive system of arts support;
> in a way, the controversies are a sign that it is doing its job. Dissent and
> debate about cultural issues contribute to the health of a democratic and
> living culture, just like a ng I guess. It's always good if people care.
>
> Thanks, Formica.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
That's the problem, isn't it? There's no reason to believe that cutting
funds from project A will make those funds available for project B.
It's my belief that funds cut from project A generally disappear into
the ether.
Of course people should be fed, clothed, housed and kept healthy before
we turn our attention to fripperies such as the arts. But this country
has resisted, since the success of many of LBJ's Great Society programs,
establishing a minimum level of subsistence in those vital areas.
Without some standard of what constitutes acceptable basics which are to
be eked out by government support, how could we ever be free to turn our
attention to funding the arts?
And I do think it's important for there to be a commitment of public
money for art. In the past, wealthy individuals patronized artists--at
least visual artists and composers--allowing them to create works which
we all now enjoy, or can enjoy if our heads aren't too far up our butts.
These works of the past, though, were generally created for an elite
market, in the best of times a market composed of rich, sophisticated
and knowledgable art lovers; in the worst of times composed of rich
social climbers with no education in the arts but with a desire to have
some pretty pictures to hang in the salon.
These works, good and bad, made their way eventually into places where
the public at large can go look at them, even travelling to New York
City to look at the pictures at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, or at
the pictures in Henry Frick's old house. They are more or less in the
public domain (I don't mean this in the legal sense) now, but they were
made possible by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts of days gone by,
and they were made for a specific audience.
Today, if we want artwork to be accessible to all of us, all of us are
going to have to pay for it. With few exceptions, most of us cannot
afford to buy art in any significant way, and when we do, we are not
generally willing to open our living rooms so people we don't know can
troop through looking at what we bought. As a population, though, we
can buy art and put it in public places--we can share it.
Martha
PRNancy
Martha wrote:
(snip of great discussion about art, its value, etc...)
>Today, if we want artwork to be accessible to all of us, all of us are
>going to have to pay for it. With few exceptions, most of us cannot
>afford to buy art in any significant way, and when we do, we are not
>generally willing to open our living rooms so people we don't know can
>troop through looking at what we bought. As a population, though, we
>can buy art and put it in public places--we can share it.
>
>
I think this is an idea whose time has finally come, especially dovetailing
with the rebirth of many downtowns. Los Angeles has a wonderful walking tour
of public art, and USC (I think that's the school) now offers a master's
degree entitled "Art In Public Places." Malls are increasingly featuring
vividly-colored statues and murals.
Of course, the mediums are severely restricted due to outdoor conditions so
many end up as fountains and metal sculptures. Such respites, coupled with the
planning of green mini-parks, can restore one's soul in the middle of gridlock
and skyscrapers.
Alas, SOMEBODY is not going to think any of the above is "art." But so what?
N
Martha Sprowles
I don't know exactly *how* this relates, but I'm sure it does.
My father, a professional writer, grew up in a railroad town. His
father left home (and school) at age 12 to be a lumberjack; his mother
completed third grade. My father's horizons were limited by anyone's
definition. In high school, one of his teachers gave him a pile of old
New Yorker magazines, which he *devoured.* He had never been exposed to
such writing! His parents were book-lovers, despite their limited
educations, but their tastes (for they, too, had not been exposed) ran
to Zane Grey and guides to letter-writing. This pile of magazines
changed his life, and set him on the path to a paying job, which
permitted him to house, clothe and feed his family.
Martha