Government support of the arts drying up
Jenny Hamilton
Seen the news lately? Charlotte NC recently cut all of its funding for
local arts. Despite the fact that most of the money went to support
chirldrens activities. All because some of the facilities had questionable
exhibits or plays.
It seems only a matter of time before Congress cuts the NEA.
Then its up to the states to support the arts.
How long before this money is cut?
Yes we can look to business, but can we? The businesses that already
support the arts cannot give much more. And the cuts in the NEA in the
recent past hasn't encouraged much new participation in Business.
What is often overlooked by those so determined to bring political correct
environment to the art community is that the arts encourage creativity. and
creativity is how WE as a nation grow. Without the freedom to say and do
the artist fails himself. If we cannot face our fears we will regress as a
nation.
What do you think. .
--
LSA
Erik Johnson
On 26 Jun 1997 00:19:38 GMT, "Jenny Hamilton" <blac...@cetlink.net>
wrote:
Why do you really *need* government and state support? Why is it
that we cannot support art individually and in the community? If you
think there is something worth putting money into, do so. Sure
government grants are nice, but one should not rely on them. Funding
is getting cut in far more areas than simply the arts... and I think
the net result will be negative but it is a reality.
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html
Stanley Beck
Jenny Hamilton wrote:
>
> Seen the news lately? Charlotte NC recently cut all of its funding for
> local arts. Despite the fact that most of the money went to support
> chirldrens activities. All because some of the facilities had questionable
> exhibits or plays.
> It seems only a matter of time before Congress cuts the NEA.
> Then its up to the states to support the arts.
> How long before this money is cut?
> Yes we can look to business, but can we? The businesses that already
> support the arts cannot give much more. And the cuts in the NEA in the
> recent past hasn't encouraged much new participation in Business.
> What is often overlooked by those so determined to bring political correct
> environment to the art community is that the arts encourage creativity. and
> creativity is how WE as a nation grow. Without the freedom to say and do
> the artist fails himself. If we cannot face our fears we will regress as a
> nation.
> What do you think. .
> LSA
Hambugers sell well because people want them. If the arts are not doing
well, it's because people don't want it. Artists have to give people a
product they want or create a demand for the product that they produce
(the music recording and film industry among the most lucrative of
industries).
Government should patronize, not support the arts. Government should not
be in the business of supporting any product or industry beyond what is
required by national security, especially since they will, in some
cases, be using my money to support my competition or works that I find
offensive.
Sorry, but we must have to stand on our own two feet.
--
Regards,
Stanley Beck
New Orleans LA --> http://neworleans.miningco.com
Online Gallery --> http://members.aol.com/sbeckart/index.htm
Info --> mailto:sbec...@aol.com, mailto:sbec...@earthlink.net
Karen Jacobs
Stanley Beck wrote:
<<Government should patronize, not support the arts. Government should
not be in the business of supporting any product or industry beyond what
is required by national security, especially since they will, in some
cases, be using my money to support my competition or works that I find
offensive.>>
Well put, Stanley, but the government is also in the education business
and the study of art is at least as important as the study of
football.
.....Karen Jacobs.....
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
Stanley Beck
Sorry, Karen, you're right. I guess my statement should have been
"Government should patronize, not subsidize the arts". I don't have a
problem with educational funding. I do have a problem with government
underwriting art projects that otherwise could not find a financial
underwriter in the private sector.
Yes, it's more important than the study of football, which could support
itself, and should not be subsidized either.
When the private sector supports it, it has a real value; if it is
government supported, who knows what the real value is (not to mention
the possible waste)?
Sorry, folks, but art for art's sake is a hobby. If it is intended to
produce income, it is a business, and should be run like one.
wf...@enter.netxx
>Seen the news lately? Charlotte NC recently cut all of its funding for
>local arts.
well you know, the arts just ARENT as important as football...the
conservative movement in this country is on a tear to muzzle anything
that smacks of 'indecency'. just wonder how long we're gonna have to
endure this latest outbreak of puritanism...
delete the xx from my email address to reply
XS2XS
Could it be that the declining funding for the arts is a direct sign of
the decline of a nation?
It seems that we have lost or abandoned the art of living itself and
traded it, or mistook it for the art to function.
You can change the world most effectively by changing your shopping
habits!
Abandone the shopping malls and discount warehouses, suppose they gave a
sale and nobody came?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
net: <it's...@delARTe.com> Berkeley,CA,USA
http://users.ccnet.com/~herb/
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Jonathan Clift
In article <33B522...@earthlink.net>, Stanley Beck
<sbec...@earthlink.net> wrote, in reply to Karen Jacobs,
>Sorry, Karen, you're right. I guess my statement should have been
>"Government should patronize, not subsidize the arts". I don't have a
>problem with educational funding. I do have a problem with government
>underwriting art projects that otherwise could not find a financial
>underwriter in the private sector.
>
>Yes, it's more important than the study of football, which could support
>itself, and should not be subsidized either.
>
>When the private sector supports it, it has a real value; if it is
>government supported, who knows what the real value is (not to mention
>the possible waste)?
>
>Sorry, folks, but art for art's sake is a hobby. If it is intended to
>produce income, it is a business, and should be run like one.
>
>
This seems to be a very American thread, and I feel like I'm intruding
on a private conversation, but could I make a couple of observations.
I'm not totally against what you say; indeed it seems to me a complex
question and I'm not sure exactly what my position on it is, so treat
this as thinking out loud.
Firstly, why make a distinction for education? Wouldn't it be reasonable
to say parents should fund their own children's art education? Or, for
an adult, that they should work to provide the necessary funds?
(Personally I don't think this, I'm asking why it doesn't follow from
the rest of your argument).
Secondly, if you look to the private sector for culture don't you end up
with Mickey Mouse and, even worse, Ronald McDonald (and that IS how
American culture is known around the world, along with the output of
Hollywood).
Thirdly, the most interesting and lively and vibrant period of your own
country's art history was Abstract Expressionism in the fifties. Wasn't
one of the main primers for that the WPA and the jobs it created for
artists during the depression years in the thirties? I suppose this is
the seed corn argument, a small investment early-on reaps dividends
later (but with a time-scale business wouldn't even look at).
Finally, I agree about problems of determining worth, and the waste
inherent in any sort of bureaucracy. This is the stumbling block for me
(not the general principle of the matter). I'd be interested to know if
people in other parts of the world have managed to square this
particular circle.
--
Jonathan Clift
Karen Jacobs
XS2XS wrote:
>
> Could it be that the declining funding for the arts is a direct sign of
> the decline of a nation?
> It seems that we have lost or abandoned the art of living itself and
> traded it, or mistook it for the art to function.
>
> You can change the world most effectively by changing your shopping
> habits!
> Abandone the shopping malls and discount warehouses, suppose they gave a
> sale and nobody came?
Geeze! Does that mean the galleries, too? Wait a minute! That's my
livelihood! I'm not asking for your taxes to pay for my painting
privileges... and why should people be denied the right to buy what they
want! I don't get it...
...but, of course... that was a joke, right?
.....Karen Jacobs.....
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
Salmon G. Eddingtton
Why should I have to fund the Arts and more than funding Katsup research
or bubblebea sex habits get real, fund it your self and leave my money
alone
Karen Jacobs
Jonathan Clift wrote:
<<This seems to be a very American thread, and I feel like I'm intruding
on a private conversation, but could I make a couple of observations.
I'm not totally against what you say; indeed it seems to me a complex
question and I'm not sure exactly what my position on it is, so treat
this as thinking out loud.
Firstly, why make a distinction for education? Wouldn't it be reasonable
to say parents should fund their own children's art education?>>
Or their own science or math education? Many who can afford it, do seek
private schools. But that still leaves the vast majority of tax payers
children being short-changed a well rounded education, which should
include the arts as well as athletics.
<<Secondly, if you look to the private sector for culture don't you end
up with Mickey Mouse and, even worse, Ronald McDonald (and that IS how
American culture is known around the world, along with the output of
Hollywood).>>
Thanks for the upper! Geeze... all the more reason children should be
exposed to cultural options. Personally, I never entered a museum or
gallery until well into my marriage... stumbled into art quite by
accident. I was, however, exposed to music through the school band from
fifth grade through high school and trace my appreciation for all kinds
of music to that experience. When I discovered art I was bowled over...
and angry with the world that had never allowed me to experience it
before. Children need to be educated to a wide variety of choices...
how else can they possibly make the best lifetime decisions?
Those are my thoughts on the value of government supported art education
in the schools... it's a MUST! As for government supported ARTISTS... I
heartily agree with Stanley:
>Sorry, folks, but art for art's sake is a hobby. If it is intended to
>produce income, it is a business, and should be run like one.
Thanks for the input, Jonathan...
.....Karen Jacobs.....
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
Jonathan Clift
In article <33B90F...@bellsouth.net>, Karen Jacobs
<kjja...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>Jonathan Clift wrote:
>
>
><<This seems to be a very American thread, and I feel like I'm intruding
>on a private conversation, but could I make a couple of observations.
>I'm not totally against what you say; indeed it seems to me a complex
>question and I'm not sure exactly what my position on it is, so treat
>this as thinking out loud.
>
>Firstly, why make a distinction for education? Wouldn't it be reasonable
>to say parents should fund their own children's art education?>>
>
>Or their own science or math education? Many who can afford it, do seek
>private schools. But that still leaves the vast majority of tax payers
>children being short-changed a well rounded education, which should
>include the arts as well as athletics.
>
On education, I agree with you. What I was trying to point out was the
contradiction between this and what you and Stanley were saying about
art funding.
I don't have children. Inevitably, much of my tax is used to educate the
children of other people. If I look around my own town, all of the good
public art (what there is of it) has been publically funded. You and
Stanley are saying that it is fine for my tax to be used for something
from which I don't derive any (direct) benefit, and yet shouldn't be
used for something that does benefit me. Now, of course I accept that
there are good reasons for educating children, and I'm happy (or as
happy as it's possible to be about being taxed!) that that should
happen, but why do you both get so hot under the collar about art
funding. Why is there such a clear dividing line between the two?
>
><<Secondly, if you look to the private sector for culture don't you end
>up with Mickey Mouse and, even worse, Ronald McDonald (and that IS how
>American culture is known around the world, along with the output of
>Hollywood).>>
>
>Thanks for the upper! Geeze... all the more reason children should be
>exposed to cultural options. Personally, I never entered a museum or
>gallery until well into my marriage... stumbled into art quite by
>accident. I was, however, exposed to music through the school band from
>fifth grade through high school and trace my appreciation for all kinds
>of music to that experience. When I discovered art I was bowled over...
>and angry with the world that had never allowed me to experience it
>before. Children need to be educated to a wide variety of choices...
>how else can they possibly make the best lifetime decisions?
>
>Those are my thoughts on the value of government supported art education
>in the schools... it's a MUST! As for government supported ARTISTS... I
>heartily agree with Stanley:
>
>>Sorry, folks, but art for art's sake is a hobby. If it is intended to
>>produce income, it is a business, and should be run like one.
>
>Thanks for the input, Jonathan...
>
>
>
>.....Karen Jacobs.....
>http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
Sorry, I was exaggerating with the Mickey Mouse stuff. It's very
tempting to do this when you view newsgroups from outside of the US - a
(somewhat childish) reaction to the America-on-line feel of everything.
Art for business's sake isn't culture, even if it's a professional way
to do things.
BTW I liked your on-line gallery - particularly the abstracts, "Together
Apart" and "Square Steps". Also liked "Rhode Island Red Two Step", (the
humour I guess). Wasn't so keen on the earlier landscapes (maybe that's
just the way they come across in reproduction).
--
Jonathan Clift
Jonathan Hartley
Now, now. I don't think this is about puritanism per se. I am a
staunchly conservative artist who sees nothing wrong with a good nude,
but sees little need for the government to subsidize me. We Americans
have GOT to get rid of the "entitlement mentality." The money doesn't
grow on a tree. If the government is spending more money every year
than it makes, then we the people don't have the LUXURY of spending
money on the arts. That is the type of expenditure that only solvent
countries have as an option. People don't realize that if the
economic mess isn't fixed soon, the question of funding will be moot
and our grandkids will get to relive the Great Depression. We've
already CHEATED them out of their retirements.
I make 40K a year, and I want a Rolls Royce. But, I can't have one
because I can't afford the payments. But, I WANT one! Isn't it wrong
to deny me one? Why can't I just write a check for it and pay 'em
back later?
Russell Andavall
You know the corporate welfare that goes on in the name of conservatism
is the real problem here pal. The agri/businesses and inflated
government contracts with kickbacks signed by good old boy conseratives
are the real entitlement mentality. Most artists would just love a free
place to show their work. Most artists would not need an entitlement
display their work in a community based market place. In fact, there are
several programs in Berkeley, San Francisco, Austin Texas, New Orleans,
Washington DC, that make those cities money from license fees and sales
taxes. Unfortunately, we are usually opposed by good old boy
conseratives who like to think that they are protecting the merchants
and store owners from street artists and street musicians. A
conseravtive artist is like a Jewish Nazi. I hope you conseratives like
rap music and "Butthead and Beavis" cause that is all the culture your
going get when you dont fund music and art programs in the schools and
with tax dollars. Where do you think the funds come from for the Ballet
or the Opera? Where did you learn about art? Where did you learn to
draw? You can either spend money on jails and prisons or you can spend
the money on art and music programs for after school. How much does it
cost to send someone to prison? How much does it cost to teach that
person to make art and music? This country spends far too much on
prisons and not enough on the arts and music. Where do you think the
artists for these web pages are going to come from, if we dont spend
money on training artists. Gee, if the government spent less on funding
bomb research and more on the arts, maybe we would be able to close some
of those prisons......talk about entitlement. ONE HALF of your tax
dollars go to defense contractors and one half of one percent go to
funding the arts. I think we know who the entitlement is going
to......It aint the artists, its the military industrial complex.
By the way, I have never had a grant to the arts. I have had a student
loan to go to college that I paid back, but for twenty-four years, I
have made a living selling my ceramic art on the streets of Berkeley
California. Now if taking unimproved sidewalk space (cluttered with
alcoholics, drug addicts, prosititutes and pan handlers) and turniing it
into a tourist mecha is a government handout, then we need more
government handouts.
Artists need a free or low cost way to display their work that is
controlled by them. Cities should utilize sidewalk space and abandon
storefronts of the inner city to create exclusive artist markets. Space
should be set asside for street perforance as well for musicians, mimes,
comics, and theater. This is what the artists really need more than a
check.
RFA
Luis R. Cancel
I am replying to the statement found below mine:
Government support for the arts at the national level has now fallen well
below .33¢ per capita, an insignificant fraction of an individual tax
payer's bill. And yet, the arts sector of our economy, excluding
commercial films, music and books, contributes hundreds of millions of
dollars to the federal budget through income taxes by the people who work
in that sector.
Government IS NOT subsidizing the arts, the arts are subsidizing the government.
This doesn't even begin to take into account the positive contributions to
quality of life that can be found in a community that has museums,
theaters, and concert halls. The arts help to build the fabric of family
and community values -- values which most conservatives say they treasure
and want to strengthen.
If conservatives want society to uphold certain values, then they should
support a financial role by government in providing grants to the arts
sector. With the exception of a few bad apples, the National Endowment for
the Arts has created a climate of support for local arts development and
there is more access to local theater, fine arts and arts education than
there was 27 years ago before it was established as a federal agency. The
NEA is probably the LEAST wasteful federal agency in existence.
In article <33bb24ab...@news.idt.net>, hart...@mail.idt.net
(Jonathan Hartley) wrote:
>
> Now, now. I don't think this is about puritanism per se. I am a
> staunchly conservative artist who sees nothing wrong with a good nude,
> but sees little need for the government to subsidize me. We Americans
> have GOT to get rid of the "entitlement mentality." The money doesn't
> grow on a tree. If the government is spending more money every year
> than it makes, then we the people don't have the LUXURY of spending
> money on the arts. That is the type of expenditure that only solvent
> countries have as an option. People don't realize that if the
> economic mess isn't fixed soon, the question of funding will be moot
> and our grandkids will get to relive the Great Depression. We've
> already CHEATED them out of their retirements.
>
> I make 40K a year, and I want a Rolls Royce. But, I can't have one
> because I can't afford the payments. But, I WANT one! Isn't it wrong
> to deny me one? Why can't I just write a check for it and pay 'em
> back later?
--
Esperanto Internet Services, LLC
99 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Tel: +1-212-213-1414
Fax: +1-212-684-2528
Web: http://www.esperanto.com/
Pamela
Well put and well said - - Unfortunately, the forces of repression and
the use of propaganda thru the "media" will ensure a continued effort at
wiping out true individual expression in amerika in favour of corporate
groupthink - - - the so called "conservative" viewpoint on anything at
all is the inevitable result of long years of institutional programming
of the man-made doctrine called "Free Enterprise" which uses "Democratic
Ideals" as a foil to further the interest of the Power Elite- - - - the
pendulum will continue to swing to the right until . . . ? who knows ?
wsp
Luis R. Cancel wrote:
>
> Government support for the arts at the national level has now fallen well
> below .33¢ per capita, an insignificant fraction of an individual tax
> payer's bill.
Thank you. That's helpful for even the naysayers. I have enough money to
throw 33 cents out the window of a moving car: JUST for the thrill! One
postage stamp and all those people can get a little more art in their
lives.
> And yet, the arts sector of our economy, excluding
> commercial films, music and books, contributes hundreds of millions of
> dollars to the federal budget through income taxes by the people who work
> in that sector.
Amen.
> This doesn't even begin to take into account the positive contributions to
> quality of life that can be found in a community that has museums,
> theaters, and concert halls. The arts help to build the fabric of family
> and community values -- values which most conservatives say they treasure
> and want to strengthen.
They forget about the enormous enjoyment provided by these major
cultural programs and would rather join the witch hunt for supporting
the only people who REALLY benefit: a few self-interested congressman
and senators who, by playing on people's fear and ignorance, want to
get re-elected by creating a big moral rightous crusade out of any issue
that won't get them too much flack.
>
> If conservatives want society to uphold certain values, then they should
> support a financial role by government in providing grants to the arts
> sector. With the exception of a few bad apples,
There were a FEW "bad" apples, people who wanted to test the limits and
unfortunately blow it for everybody. Thanks Mapplethorp gang and Piss
Serano for giving the opportunity to a few congressenators who could
care less about the NEA and just are using the fabricated "moral" issue
they created to get more power and relected.
> the National Endowment for
> the Arts has created a climate of support for local arts development and
> there is more access to local theater, fine arts and arts education than
> there was 27 years ago before it was established as a federal agency. The
> NEA is probably the LEAST wasteful federal agency in existence.
I'll give 'em 64 cents a year!!!
It makes sense the NEA goes down the drain because maybe not enough of
the "right" people benefit from an agency which doesn't waste.
Jonathan Hartley
On 3 Jul 1997 12:46:36 GMT, lu...@mindspring.com (Luis R. Cancel)
wrote:
>Government support for the arts at the national level has now fallen well
>below .33¢ per capita, an insignificant fraction of an individual tax
>payer's bill. And yet, the arts sector of our economy, excluding
>commercial films, music and books, contributes hundreds of millions of
>dollars to the federal budget through income taxes by the people who work
>in that sector.
33 cents is more than ample considering that the vast majority of
Americans never avail themselves of any government-funded art benefits
BY CHOICE. The average taxpayer is paying roughly 50 percent of his
income in taxes, a large chunk of which goes to pay interest on the
national debt. Were it not for that fact, your 33 cents could be a
lot higher. But see, the rude fact of life is that you can pay now or
pay later... but you have to pay. Your grandkids have no social
security, sir, and you are wishing the government would spend more on
art? How much art spending do you think there'll be for your
grandkids? WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO PUT THEM INTO BANKRUPTCY
TO FUND OUR LUXURIES TODAY.
Government spending on the arts is best confined to current levels or
eliminated altogether until such time as the deficit is contained.
Deficit spending to maintain the arts and non-essential programs is
not prudent. Hey, blame it on the bureaucrats who have
caused the mess for the past 35 years or so. Arts spending is a
luxury that bankrupt nations do not have.
>Government IS NOT subsidizing the arts, the arts are subsidizing the government.
True, but its more truthful to say that "taxpayers" are subsidizing
the govenment. But, we are talking about government subsidizing the
arts. And, some of us seem to be talking about the socialistic
redistribution of wealth through taxation without representation.
>This doesn't even begin to take into account the positive contributions to
>quality of life that can be found in a community that has museums,
>theaters, and concert halls. The arts help to build the fabric of family
>and community values -- values which most conservatives say they treasure
>and want to strengthen.
This is a specious justification. But, at any rate, none of this
needs to be subsidized by the government. Religion is great for
community values, but it doesn't need to be funded by the government
either. Believe you me, private citizens and corporations will be
more than willing to subsidize the arts, even more if the government
would stay out of it. Heck, people will VOLUNTEER to staff museums,
act in community theaters and such.
>If conservatives want society to uphold certain values, then they should
>support a financial role by government in providing grants to the arts
>sector.
Beyond national museums, national cultural preservation and select
artistic efforts, I see no reason that the government needs to get
more heavily involved in art. Let private donors and corporations
provide grants. They already do and they could do more than the
government could with less money wasted. Don't worry. Art isn't
going to go away. Art thrives in many countries that have no
government funding for it. Art thrives in the free market. Rich
people love art and they are the best patrons of it. Moreover,
anything the government is involved in means waste, bureaucracy and
apathy. We don't need the government handouts. Artists who have
something to say will survive. Those who don't, won't. That's the
capitalist way, and it's the logical "survival of the fittest"
characteristic of the free market. Hell, I'd like to see us go back
to the medieval system of patronage. Now THAT was livin' for the
artist! Let me repeat myself here:
Karen Jacobs
Jonathan...
Apologies for dropping my part of the
art/education/funding/discussion/debate... was off celebrating our
Fourth... I know you'll understand...
Jonathan Clift wrote: (the whole conversation is copied below, the
essence is...)
> Now, of course I accept that
> there are good reasons for educating children, and I'm happy (or as
> happy as it's possible to be about being taxed!) that that should
> happen, but why do you both get so hot under the collar about art
> funding. Why is there such a clear dividing line between the two?
There are TWO dividing lines... one very clear, the other unbelievably,
irreparably, totally blurred. The first has to do with educating all
children to appreciate art history and the exploration of art
technique... that's very different from paying them to make art
professionally.
The other dividing line comes when you try to define ART... what gets
included and what doesn't? Just because someone says it's art so give
him/her a $$$ grant... doesn't make it so!
And, I'm afraid you've confused me with someone who gets steamed over
this sort of thing... not so. I entered the conversation to stress the
need for more and better art education in schools... the other part is
much more political than I care to wade through. I don't make
placards... I make art.
> Art for business's sake isn't culture, even if it's a professional way
> to do things.
Actually, it's not much different than it's always been... whoever is
paying the studio rent is dictating the art. But if the market is made
up of art-educated people, we shouldn't have to worry about the
proliferation of crass commercialism parading as art.
> BTW I liked your on-line gallery - particularly the abstracts, "Together
> Apart" and "Square Steps". Also liked "Rhode Island Red Two Step", (the
> humour I guess). Wasn't so keen on the earlier landscapes (maybe that's
> just the way they come across in reproduction).
Thanks for the astute critique... you must have been paying attention :)
.....Karen Jacobs.....
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
=======================
>
wsp
Karen Jacobs wrote:
> There are TWO dividing lines... one very clear, the other unbelievably,
> irreparably, totally blurred. The first has to do with educating all
> children to appreciate art history and the exploration of art
> technique... that's very different from paying them to make art
> professionally.
>
Yeah, like teaching science in school and giving grants to scientists to
do significant but "impractical" research.
Of course, there shall be no grants for "professional" people who
"scientifically" reinvent the wheel in their basements.
> The other dividing line comes when you try to define ART... what gets
> included and what doesn't? Just because someone says it's art so give
> him/her a $$$ grant... doesn't make it so!
That's why you have the review panel process. Comprised of educators and
artists in each field of grants. That's how it gets decided. It's not
for the public to decide.
Same with scientific research grants, some are very chancy and don't
produce others are tremendously important. Decided by very knowledgeable
people. How do you think the laser was invented?
>
> And, I'm afraid you've confused me with someone who gets steamed over
> this sort of thing... not so. I entered the conversation to stress the
> need for more and better art education in schools... the other part is
> much more political than I care to wade through. I don't make
> placards... I make art.
I wonder. I've seen your site and it looks like art ought to look like
to me. Stuff made to sell; stuff that looks good over the
uppermiddleclass sofa; a sort of visual sloganeering isn't it? Nothing
chancy about it; looks like very politically conservative visual
statements.
>
> > Art for business's sake isn't culture, even if it's a professional way
> > to do things.
>
> Actually, it's not much different than it's always been... whoever is
> paying the studio rent is dictating the art.
So your clients dictate your art? I can see that you are confortable
with that. "Art by commercial dicatorship," what a fine substitute for
the NEA.
> whoever is
> paying the studio rent is dictating the art.
BTW, it's amazing that you say that! As if everybody were to do what you
do. I know a few people who try do decent, uncorrupted work and have
another job that pays the studio rent.
> But if the market is made
> up of art-educated people, we shouldn't have to worry about the
> proliferation of crass commercialism parading as art.
Why worry? it has always been that way: tons of "crass commercialism."
Problem is now there's going to be less of the good stuff (if only for
posterity) because the NEA review panels comprised of cognocenti (not
the average public "I know what I like" art buyer) won't be around to
encourage the raw, new, honest and experimental.
Without the NEA everybody will have to make a career out of making that
sofa art, or whatever you call the stuff that sells.
Karen Jacobs
wsp wrote:
>
> Karen Jacobs wrote:
>
> > There are TWO dividing lines... one very clear, the other unbelievably,
> > irreparably, totally blurred. The first has to do with educating all
> > children to appreciate art history and the exploration of art
> > technique... that's very different from paying them to make art
> > professionally.
> do significant but "impractical" research.
I fail to see the need to compare grants for art research and scientific
research...
> > Just because someone says it's art so give
> > him/her a $$$ grant... doesn't make it so!
> That's why you have the review panel process. Comprised of educators and
> artists in each field of grants. That's how it gets decided. It's not
> for the public to decide.
Oh! But I've met some of these "Panelists", at least on a state level...
I was dismayed and appalled!!! Who makes up the panel that picks the
panel? How is the bias edited out? The Good Ole Boys are alive and
well in this process!
> Same with scientific research grants, some are very chancy and don't
> produce others are tremendously important. Decided by very knowledgeable
> people. How do you think the laser was invented?
By a process dedicated to filling a need...
> > I don't make
> > placards... I make art.
> I wonder. I've seen your site and it looks like art ought to look like
> to me. Stuff made to sell; stuff that looks good over the
> uppermiddleclass sofa; a sort of visual sloganeering isn't it? Nothing
> chancy about it; looks like very politically conservative visual
> statements.
Another astute critique! Two in one week, how lucky can I get? First,
permit me to correct one thing I said... and I don't usually make this
mistake... I don't make art... I paint. History will decide if what I
paint is, in fact, art... I don't worry about it. In the meantime, I
attempt to create work that is not exactly like everyone else's. When
it becomes easy, I move on to another medium or another style... pretty
risky when the success of my "career" depends on a gallery market. I
don't pretend to be discovering new territory, there are much more
imaginative minds out there that can do the job much better than I.
And although I wish them great success... I still don't want to pay
their rent.
> So your clients dictate your art? I can see that you are confortable
> with that. "Art by commercial dicatorship," what a fine substitute for
> the NEA.
You've got me wading where I said I didn't want to go... I have no
desire to debate the merits of the NEA... I refer you to my original
statement concerning a population that has been properly educated in the
fundamentals and history of art... those "clients" would certainly
prefer an original concept over mass produced copies (paintings OR
repros) parading as art. Whether or not they would want to personally
own (or even view in a museum) an HIV blood stained hankerchef which had
been declared ART, I couldn't tell you.
Do let us know, WaSP, when you get your site up... I promise to be
gentle...
.....Karen Jacobs.....
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
Jonathan Clift
In article <33C062...@bellsouth.net>, Karen Jacobs
<kjja...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
>Apologies for dropping my part of the
>art/education/funding/discussion/debate... was off celebrating our
>Fourth... I know you'll understand...
>
Please don't feel duty-bound to respond. Like most here, I'm now used to
the ebb and flow; as one current falters another will usually pick up -
not the most direct way to travel, but can be interesting. It's
discussion and conversation, not a debating society (even though, like
many men, I try to turn it into the latter at the merest excuse).
I sort of understand about the 4th of July - we don't really have an
equivalent.
>Jonathan Clift wrote: (the whole conversation is copied below, the
>essence is...)
>
>> Now, of course I accept that
>> there are good reasons for educating children, and I'm happy (or as
>> happy as it's possible to be about being taxed!) that that should
>> happen, but why do you both get so hot under the collar about art
>> funding. Why is there such a clear dividing line between the two?
>
>There are TWO dividing lines... one very clear, the other unbelievably,
>irreparably, totally blurred. The first has to do with educating all
>children to appreciate art history and the exploration of art
>technique... that's very different from paying them to make art
>professionally.
>
>The other dividing line comes when you try to define ART... what gets
>included and what doesn't? Just because someone says it's art so give
>him/her a $$$ grant... doesn't make it so!
>
>And, I'm afraid you've confused me with someone who gets steamed over
>this sort of thing... not so. I entered the conversation to stress the
>need for more and better art education in schools... the other part is
>much more political than I care to wade through. I don't make
>placards... I make art.
>
The statement that Stanley made, and that you endorsed, _sounded_ like a
(political) slogan. It didn't sound at all blurred!
(The art of the placard - you could probably get a grant for that! Or, a
book advance!)
What I was trying to get to grips with was whether you thought that
there should be no public funding of the arts (as a point of principle),
or whether we are in the "what is art?", "why does that deserve the
money?" and "my six-year-old could do better" territory.
If it's a pragmatic question of how we define things, doesn't education
have the same problem? When the teacher says that the predominant
movement of the eighties was post modernism, and teaches her pupils to
appreciate that, aren't you then into a similar debate?
>
>> Art for business's sake isn't culture, even if it's a professional way
>> to do things.
>
>Actually, it's not much different than it's always been... whoever is
>paying the studio rent is dictating the art. But if the market is made
>up of art-educated people, we shouldn't have to worry about the
>proliferation of crass commercialism parading as art.
>
Erm...don't know whether to pick this up and run with it or not. Perhaps
I could just say art history would be much the poorer if it were this
simple. Culture is more than just what is bought and sold, however well-
educated the people doing it, and important though that activity is. My
faith is in the people (and mainly the artists, at that), not the
"market".
--
Jonathan Clift
Stanley Beck
Karen Jacobs wrote:
>
> wsp wrote:
> >
> > Karen Jacobs wrote:
>
> > > Just because someone says it's art so give
> > > him/her a $$$ grant... doesn't make it so!
> > That's why you have the review panel process. Comprised of educators and
> > artists in each field of grants. That's how it gets decided. It's not
> > for the public to decide.
>
I've tried to resist any additional comments, but it seems that the
argument for the NEA comes down to this: Society can't make good choices
in cultural matters (such as buying from certain artists), so if the
Government gives a check to all of the lazy, self glorified artists, the
problem will be solved.
I really don't agree with a lot of the other grants and subsidies
either, and I do get tired or this old rationalization for government
hand-outs.
--
Regards,
Stanley Beck
New Orleans LA --> http://neworleans.miningco.com
Online Gallery --> http://members.aol.com/sbeckart/index.htm
Info --> sbec...@aol.com
sbec...@earthlink.net
wsp
Karen Jacobs wrote:
>
>
> I fail to see the need to compare grants for art research and scientific
> research...
As far as the quest for knowledge is concerned, there are two
fundamental arenas: the arts and sciences.
You think the govt (i.e. the will of the people of this sovereign
nation) should give seed money as follows:
science education: yes
scientific research: yes
art education: yes
art research: no
> > That's why you have the review panel process. Comprised of educators and
> > artists in each field of grants. That's how it gets decided. It's not
> > for the public to decide.
>
> Oh! But I've met some of these "Panelists", at least on a state level...
> I was dismayed and appalled!!! Who makes up the panel that picks the
> panel? How is the bias edited out? The Good Ole Boys are alive and
> well in this process!
I have known some excellent people chosen to serve as panelists for the
NEA (some not so excellent). Most are affiliated with educational
institutions or have extensive exposure in the field as scholarly
researchers and journalists, museum curators and accomplished highly
educated artists. The key to becoming a panelist or getting a grant was
your proximity to and professional affiliation with colleges,
universities and major museums. Of course: it was *required* that your
artwork was exciting and promising in this context.
IMO, three issues from which you and many others here derive
considerable consternation are:
1. the prevailing distrust of the professional.
2. the presumption that what you experience locally happens everywhere.
3. the assumption that you can do artwork significant to the collective
even though you are isolated in backwaters.
> I
> don't pretend to be discovering new territory, there are much more
> imaginative minds out there that can do the job much better than I.
> And although I wish them great success... I still don't want to pay
> their rent.
Does this statement embody a kernal of resentment propelling your
convictions against the NEA? It is odd because your share of 32 cents in
tax to support the NEA would be money well spent since it invigorates
the field from which you derive your income.
>
> > So your clients dictate your art? I can see that you are confortable
> > with that. "Art by commercial dicatorship," what a fine substitute for
> > the NEA.
>
> You've got me wading where I said I didn't want to go... I have no
> desire to debate the merits of the NEA... I refer you to my original
> statement concerning a population that has been properly educated in the
> fundamentals and history of art...
...let's leave it here: when the NEA is extinct you are going to have
dumber clients.
> Whether or not they would want to personally
> own (or even view in a museum) an HIV blood stained hankerchef which had
> been declared ART, I couldn't tell you.
BTW, nice automatic belittling job, here. But it only incites the mass
mentality. Of course the mass mentality has been persuaded to stone the
NEA. Oftentimes art is difficult to deal with when it is most
important. In this case you cynically remove the HIV handkerchief from
it's appropriate given art context for the sake of your pejorative
polemics.
Karen Jacobs
Jonathan Clift wrote:
> It's
> discussion and conversation, not a debating society (even though, like
> many men, I try to turn it into the latter at the merest excuse).
And like many women, I try to have the last word...
> (The art of the placard - you could probably get a grant for that! Or, a
> book advance!)
I'm sure it's been done...
> If it's a pragmatic question of how we define things, doesn't education
> have the same problem?
My contribution to this discussion is to stress the need for knowledge
of the arts... including music, writing, theater, dance as well as
visual arts... If you grow up only knowing country music... opera is
going to sound pretty strange and different... and vice versa.
> When the teacher says that the predominant
> movement of the eighties was post modernism, and teaches her pupils to
> appreciate that, aren't you then into a similar debate?
Until teachers possess robotic traits, there are going to be variances
in the emphasis' made regarding one type of art over another.
(In the same vein, I feel that if children were better educated to
understand all the religions of the world, as adults we could better
cope with the differences we seem not to be able to get past.)
> Culture is more than just what is bought and sold, however well-
> educated the people doing it, and important though that activity is. My
> faith is in the people (and mainly the artists, at that), not the
> "market".
I couldn't agree with you more... my faith is in the people and the
artists (which create the "Market") not the appointed panels selected to
create "Culture."
.....Karen Jacobs.....
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
J./B. Moore
>
>well you know, the arts just ARENT as important as football...the
>conservative movement in this country is on a tear to muzzle anything
>that smacks of 'indecency'.
Tell me about it: I wrote my obligatory letter to my Congressman (Dan
Burton, who's got troubles of his own...) and got back a letter saying,
in effect, "yes, well, the NEA funds indecent things and it is my duty to
stamp it out. I know this is not what you believe but I'll vote the way
I want to, nanny nanny boo boo." This after the latest controversies
were EIGHT YEARS AGO!!! And during a Republican administration!!! He
gave me some b.s. about the private sector doing fine at supporting the
arts without the NEA having to, completely disregarding the fact that the
private sector wouldn't give squat unless they were required to match the
NEA 2:1 or 1:1. He also stated that the NEA doesn't need federal funding
because the private sector will fund it, completely disregarding the fact
that the NEA is completely government funded. What a nitwit.
Now I'm not saying the NEA is perfect, or that it hasn't made some
boneheaded moves, but I still want my taxes to go there as a matter of
principle.
I thought these people are to REPRESENT our views? I didn't elect the
man, but I can sure act as a burr under his saddle. Who's with me?
Julia Moore
Indianapolis, IN
(no, I'm not a nut, but I may lose my job if the NEA is abolished)
Stanley Beck
J./B. Moore wrote:
>
> >
> >...
>
> Julia Moore
> Indianapolis, IN
> (no, I'm not a nut, but I may lose my job if the NEA is abolished)
Well, I guess that is what the whole argument comes down to (money, not
culture).
William O. Barrett
wsp wrote:
> IMO, three issues from which you and many others here derive
> considerable consternation are:
> 1. the prevailing distrust of the professional.
> 2. the presumption that what you experience locally happens everywhere.
> 3. the assumption that you can do artwork significant to the collective
> even though you are isolated in backwaters.
Wsp, thanks. Nicely put!
Russell Andavall
Ok so here is the latest news story about funding slashing for the arts.
Remember this when you vote! These same guys just passed a 447 billion
dollar defense spending bill. They just funded 72 billion dollars to
support crimianl justice.
Russell Andavall
House Republicans push bloc grants instead of NEA
By Vicki Allen
WASHINGTON (Reuter) - Facing an impasse over their efforts
to kill federal funding for the arts, House Republicans
Wednesday said they would try to replace the National Endowment
for the Arts with bloc grants to states and school districts.
Emerging from a late night caucus, Republicans said they
would push bloc grants as a compromise to move a $13 billion
funding bill for national parks, Native American programs and
various natural resources programs.
Democrats and a number of moderate Republicans threatened to
block the bill because conservatives refused to allow a floor
vote on a measure to reinstate funds for the NEA that were
slashed in the interior spending bill to $10 million for fiscal
1998 from this year's $99.5 million.
To try to avoid a show-down, Republicans said they would
offer an amendment Thursday that would replace the NEA with $80
million in bloc grants, 60 percent of which would go to school
district art programs and 37 percent to state arts councils. The
measure would allow 3 percent of the funds for administering the
grants, down from the 20 percent the NEA spends on
administration.
House Republicans, bruised after a recent battle with the
White House over a disaster relief bill, appeared poised for
another brawl as the administration earlier Wednesday reiterated
a threat to veto the bill unless it restored NEA funding.
Democrats complained Republicans were using arcane procedures
to kill the NEA without open debate or a floor vote.
The Rules Committee, after the Republican conference,
approved the compromise plan over Democrats' objections.
Rep. Sidney Yates, an Illinois Democrat, and other NEA
backers called on the Rules Committee to allow a floor vote on
Yates' amendment to raise money for NEA funding by selling oil
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which the nation maintains
as a buffer in case of international oil supply disruptions.
Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon, a New York
Republican, said he would not allow the vote because NEA has not
had congressional authorization for several years and it would
violate his committee's protocal to allow the vote without
approval of the House Education Committee, which oversees the
NEA.
^REUTER@
Jonathan Clift
In article <33C1E4...@olympus.net>, wsp <w...@olympus.net> wrote
Hello wsp, you're still around then.
I'm replying here to comments wsp made to a post by Karen Jacobs:
>Yeah, like teaching science in school and giving grants to scientists to
>do significant but "impractical" research.
>
>Of course, there shall be no grants for "professional" people who
>"scientifically" reinvent the wheel in their basements.
>
For someone who is into post-modernism you have a very linear, art-as-
progress outlook. Engineers may not reinvent the wheel, but they put a
lot of time and effort into redesigning the package that goes around the
basic mechanics.
>That's why you have the review panel process. Comprised of educators and
>artists in each field of grants. That's how it gets decided. It's not
>for the public to decide.
>
But it is reasonable for the public, through their representatives, to
decide on the resources that are going to be put into it. And, as for
the decisions, they should be public and open to comment.
>Same with scientific research grants, some are very chancy and don't
>produce others are tremendously important. Decided by very knowledgeable
>people. How do you think the laser was invented?
>
Probably by someone working for a large corporation. Science funding is
complicated. It's very biased towards defence work and drug-company
spending - which could be viewed as public money or private, depending
how you define things. Here in the UK there's tremendous pressure to
move to market-led science.
>I wonder. I've seen your site and it looks like art ought to look like
>to me. Stuff made to sell; stuff that looks good over the
>uppermiddleclass sofa; a sort of visual sloganeering isn't it? Nothing
>chancy about it; looks like very politically conservative visual
>statements.
>
I liked some of the "stuff" on Karen's site. Does that make me a
conservative with a uppermiddleclass sofa? If you saw my sofa you
wouldn't think so.
>So your clients dictate your art? I can see that you are confortable
>with that. "Art by commercial dicatorship," what a fine substitute for
>the NEA.
>
Is art by curatorial dictatorship any better? And that's what we're
tending to see, artistic turf-wars. Personally, I don't want to be
dictated to by either. From what I saw of Karen's site I'd say she's
leading her clients rather than following. Art doesn't have to be an
either/or choice, it's possible to encompass both traditional and modern
forms.
>Why worry? it has always been that way: tons of "crass commercialism."
>Problem is now there's going to be less of the good stuff (if only for
>posterity) because the NEA review panels comprised of cognocenti (not
>the average public "I know what I like" art buyer) won't be around to
>encourage the raw, new, honest and experimental.
>
I can't really comment because nobody has told us what the NEA is. I
take it it's a public funding body of some kind. How did art that is
"raw, new, honest and experimental" happen in the days before public
funding?
>Without the NEA everybody will have to make a career out of making that
>sofa art, or whatever you call the stuff that sells.
I'm sure that when Damian Hurst gets around to making art from sofas
it'll sell. Would you then condemn it for not being "good"?
--
Jonathan Clift
Jonathan Clift
In article <33C297...@bellsouth.net>, Karen Jacobs
<kjja...@bellsouth.net> wrote
in reply to wsp
>
>Another astute critique! Two in one week, how lucky can I get? First,
Since I was the only other person to comment on your site, I assume
you're refering to me.
I only said I liked your site - which was true, it was well put together
and appropriate for what you're trying to do with it - and then
mentioned the pictures that interested me - a purely subjective opinion.
It wasn't an astute critique, but then it wasn't meant to be. It was
really just saying that I appreciated the opportunity to see some of
your work.
I'm never very sure with sites whether people really want "astute
critiques", even where they ask for them. (I'm not sure it's even
sensible to ask, with reproductions and jpg compression). Does anyone
here actually comment on work in this way? And, what's the experience of
those of you on the receiving end?
--
Jonathan Clift
G*rd*n
w...@olympus.net:
| ...
| Does this statement embody a kernal of resentment propelling your
| convictions against the NEA? It is odd because your share of 32 cents in
| tax to support the NEA would be money well spent since it invigorates
| the field from which you derive your income.
I question whether government funding invigorates the arts,
except when it stirs controversy as with Mapplethorpe,
Finley, Serra, and the like -- something which it seems to
avoid successfully most of the time.
The problem with the government is that, having no soul (so
to speak) it can't _experience_ the arts, and as we all know
there is no "objective" standard for goodness in art. So it
must rely on some mechanism -- and in the case of liberal
bourgeois capitalist polities, this will be a thoroughly
bourgeois establishment: Academia. I can think of almost
nothing deadlier. I'm not speaking of the individual
academic here, who may have God knows what talents or
genius preserved by some subterfuge or other, but the system
as a whole.
True, it's only 32 cents, but 32 cents' worth of cyanide,
perhaps.
Besides, permitting the government to fund the arts makes it
appear respectable.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
probably not be able to reach me by email.
Russell Andavall
The NEA funds education, museums docents, shows like the National tour
of the Impressionists, as well as shows by Mapplethorp. In general, the
NEA does inspire the public interest in the arts and music. Corporate
and private sponsorship is plainly not enough. If you want a culturally
first rate country, then we have to pay for it. If in fact we want a
backward nation of ignorant culturally and morally inept slobs, we can
pay for that also. We can build prisons and forced labor camps and pay
for enough bombs to blow life off the planet 100 times instead of 20
times. The choices are ours and we will be judged by history and the
spiritual essence that invented our lives and our conscious being. ( in
conserative talk: GOD/Yaway/Budda/Mohammud and in Neilalist Agnostic
terms, yourself). Do you really want to say we should spend 33 cents
each on art and $3,000 each on bombs, 100 dollar bolts and $1,000 toilet
seats?
Russell Andavall
G*rd*n
anda...@pacbell.net:
| ... The choices are ours and we will be judged by history and the
| spiritual essence that invented our lives and our conscious being. ( in
| conserative talk: GOD/Yaway/Budda/Mohammud and in Neilalist Agnostic
| terms, yourself). Do you really want to say we should spend 33 cents
| each on art and $3,000 each on bombs, 100 dollar bolts and $1,000 toilet
| seats?
That's the status quo which you and so many others wish to
preserve. I resent the conflation of art and bureaucracy.
Having State art is like having a State religion -- we wind
up with Senator Helms as a noted art critic.
What's "Neilalist" -- nihilist?
wsp
> >Of course, there shall be no grants for "professional" people who
> >"scientifically" reinvent the wheel in their basements.
> >
>
> For someone who is into post-modernism you have a very linear, art-as-
> progress outlook. Engineers may not reinvent the wheel, but they put a
> lot of time and effort into redesigning the package that goes around the
> basic mechanics.
Hi!
I can tell the difference between 50% and %100 much easier than I can
discern between 95% and the whole enchilada. This is true for everybody
when it comes to something requiring a wholistic consideration. What I
do know is somebody doing the usual charcoal figure studies has no
business applying for a NEA grant; same for someone writing classical
music. When you get to the new and difficult stuff, that would require a
specialized group of people who have their antennae tuned to what is
happening in their respective fields, by their considerable exposure
they are sensitized to that something special in the 95% range.
>
> >That's why you have the review panel process. Comprised of educators and
> >artists in each field of grants. That's how it gets decided. It's not
> >for the public to decide.
> >
>
> But it is reasonable for the public, through their representatives, to
> decide on the resources that are going to be put into it. And, as for
> the decisions, they should be public and open to comment.
Panel decisions are open to the public. The actual process is a knock
down and drag out thing which can get pretty ugly and so should be given
the privacy it deserves. I have known some very dedicated people who
have gone into it openmindedly and with the intention to do the right
thing and routinely integrity prevails! There have been very few
"self-serving" people on such panels. Keep in mind it is a group of
people who know eachother will continue to associate with eachother and
have reputations to uphold. BTW, no panelist gets rich promoting a
certain kind of art or artist either.
>
> >Same with scientific research grants, some are very chancy and don't
> >produce others are tremendously important. Decided by very knowledgeable
> >people. How do you think the laser was invented?
> >
>
> Probably by someone working for a large corporation. Science funding is
> complicated. It's very biased towards defence work and drug-company
> spending - which could be viewed as public money or private, depending
> how you define things. Here in the UK there's tremendous pressure to
> move to market-led science.
The market is the driving force of Late Capitalism. From the direction
suggested by *market-driven culture* I'm very anxious about living in
what happens next.
>
> >I wonder. I've seen your site and it looks like art ought to look like
> >to me. Stuff made to sell; stuff that looks good over the
> >uppermiddleclass sofa; a sort of visual sloganeering isn't it? Nothing
> >chancy about it; looks like very politically conservative visual
> >statements.
> >
>
> I liked some of the "stuff" on Karen's site. Does that make me a
> conservative with a uppermiddleclass sofa? If you saw my sofa you
> wouldn't think so.
Sure, I "like" it too, well crafted and visually pleasing, intended to
be very reassuring, somewhat surprising in a controlled sort of way,
looks like art ought look like to most people; what's the matter with
that? In the context of the mission statement of NEA such work is
irrelevant.
>
> >So your clients dictate your art? I can see that you are confortable
> >with that. "Art by commercial dicatorship," what a fine substitute for
> >the NEA.
> >
>
> Is art by curatorial dictatorship any better? And that's what we're
> tending to see, artistic turf-wars. Personally, I don't want to be
> dictated to by either. From what I saw of Karen's site I'd say she's
> leading her clients rather than following. Art doesn't have to be an
> either/or choice, it's possible to encompass both traditional and modern
> forms.
I personally have bad moods where I don't give a shit about the NEA or
how two curators purposefully, vengefully screw things up for their own
ego aggrandizement. But when I get back to normal I do care and have to
be satisfied with what we do have. Sure there are better arrangements;
I'm not sure what they are. Here, all I see is complaints about things,
I see people's mild paranoia about things they do not understand nor
appreciate probably because they are so out of it. After all, being "An
Artist" in the "mainstream artworld" generally means extreme
individualism, subjectivity, denial, and subconsciously willful
ignorance.
>
> >Why worry? it has always been that way: tons of "crass commercialism."
> >Problem is now there's going to be less of the good stuff (if only for
> >posterity) because the NEA review panels comprised of cognocenti (not
> >the average public "I know what I like" art buyer) won't be around to
> >encourage the raw, new, honest and experimental.
> >
>
> I can't really comment because nobody has told us what the NEA is. I
> take it it's a public funding body of some kind. How did art that is
> "raw, new, honest and experimental" happen in the days before public
> funding?
I dunno, I guess by chance! I mean the NEA is useful since it makes
unusual stuff possible!! Back before it's inception artists were
supported by having a real job, by a small coiterie of dedicated
individual art lovers I guess, Of course I can't mention any of the
artists without getting cynically ridiculed here.
The NEA is a useful tool to get some other things going. It is not a
substitute for everything else. It is also small and *very cheap* to
run.
BTW, I wonder about the millions of $50,000 "grants" we give every year
to incarcerated non-artists. Nobody here is complaining about the, what,
$200 a year in tax we pay for that?
>
> >Without the NEA everybody will have to make a career out of making that
> >sofa art, or whatever you call the stuff that sells.
>
> I'm sure that when Damian Hurst gets around to making art from sofas
> it'll sell. Would you then condemn it for not being "good"?
>
No, art has all sorts of manifestations; there are instances where we
all want to be reassured, lulled to a relaxed, secure state. There are
downsides to this kind of sofa art you mention. I distrust one huge
component of this kind of art: I think it provides people with hidden
assumptions and bitesized comparatives for their staunch, necessarily
close-minded, simplistic assertions about what art is and is not. Then
these people are targets of exploitation by right-wing congressmen and
are incited to stone the NEA.
William O. Barrett
G*rd*n wrote:
> That's the status quo which you and so many others wish to
> preserve. I resent the conflation of art and bureaucracy.
> Having State art is like having a State religion -- we wind
> up with Senator Helms as a noted art critic.
I resent the constant and casual use of the term "state art." Only in
the most tortured sense can what the NEA does be called "state art."
The involvement of official bureaucrats in making art decision is two or
three times removed, and for me is distant enough. I find that
accusation (state art) used mainly by paranoid folks who distrust all
that the government does, and therefore need some handy way to puff up
their claims and the fears of others.
I would never advocate government employees making the basic grant
decisions - nor do I approve of the NEA having veto power over the
panels' decisions. Conversely, I think "direct decision-makinh" by the
entire US public is unworkable. That's why we use a representative
system. The NEA sets out certain broad categories and regulations,
selects panels, and let the panels make the decisions. I personally
prefer professionals on panels to the general public when it comes to
making informed decisions about art.
In the end, I would rather have the US government spend a few cents of
my tax money on encouraging art in general, however it does that (let's
remember that the NEA no longer funds individual artists, so it's not
putting its imprimatur on specific artists or art works), than spend
many of my dollars killing people (death row, the military, etc.).
Any sharp lawyers out there? With the House voting to kill the NEA,
clearly based on the issue of the CONTENT of the art, couldn't a case be
made that this is illegal censorship? After all, there has never been a
move to kill the Institute for Museum Services (IMS) or the NEH, both of
which fund art in various forms. So if only the NEA gets singled out
because of the content of what it has funded (however indirectly that
may have been) doesn't that make the members of teh House censors who
have violated the First Amendment? Seems like a good case could be
made............
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > That's the status quo which you and so many others wish to
| > preserve. I resent the conflation of art and bureaucracy.
| > Having State art is like having a State religion -- we wind
| > up with Senator Helms as a noted art critic.
| I resent the constant and casual use of the term "state art." Only in
| the most tortured sense can what the NEA does be called "state art."
| The involvement of official bureaucrats in making art decision is two or
| three times removed, and for me is distant enough. I find that
| accusation (state art) used mainly by paranoid folks who distrust all
| that the government does, and therefore need some handy way to puff up
| their claims and the fears of others.
|
| I would never advocate government employees making the basic grant
| decisions - nor do I approve of the NEA having veto power over the
| panels' decisions. Conversely, I think "direct decision-makinh" by the
| entire US public is unworkable. That's why we use a representative
| system. The NEA sets out certain broad categories and regulations,
| selects panels, and let the panels make the decisions. I personally
| prefer professionals on panels to the general public when it comes to
| making informed decisions about art.
| ...
Okay, we'll go through it. Who makes the decisions as to
how government money is spent on art? Wait a minute --
you've got it right up there -- the NEA selects panels.
What kind of people does it put on the panels? No doubt,
people with the same bourgeois-academic credentials it
believes in. How do they get these credentials? Do we
really have to run this out?
By the way, the continual mention of military spending is
totally irrelevant to this discussion, and unworthy of
any kind of discourse but low propaganda. Other
misrepresentations, such as the conflation of government art
funding with free speech, and the conflation of art and
bureaucracy which I already mentioned, are also unworthy.
Deal with the arguments at hand, not straw men.
Erik Johnson
I stopped following this thread shortly after its inception (I just
don't have the time or energy to keep up with long running threads).
But I thought those who have followed this thread might be interested
in the following...
On NPR yesterday there was a small piece on this subject. It sounds
like there are those in congress (including republicans) that are
willing to fund arts, just not the NEA. If you have real audio (as
everyone should), you can listen to the 3.5 minute segment at
http://www.realaudio.com/rafiles/npr/password/nb7y1001-14.ram.
Sounds like there will be more news shortly as the subject is
currently being debated in the House.
-Erik Johnson
er...@phidias.colorado.edu
http://phidias.colorado.edu/vgallery.html
wsp
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> Okay, we'll go through it. Who makes the decisions as to
> how government money is spent on art? Wait a minute --
> you've got it right up there -- the NEA selects panels.
> What kind of people does it put on the panels? No doubt,
> people with the same bourgeois-academic credentials it
> believes in. How do they get these credentials?
> Do we
> really have to run this out?
No because you are happy with the way you see things and think anyone
with any real sense sees things the way you do.
Yes, because that's the way things are set up and if you want to
participate, get involved in education and have some positive effect on
it based upon how you see things. Keep your integrity and try to work
with others thru a very messy difficult situation.
Maybe, but who gives a shit, it's all crap anyway.
Jonathan Clift
Thanks for the post Russell. It helped to explain why it is such an
issue with all you people.
--
Jonathan Clift
Jonathan Clift
In article <33C508...@best.com>, "William O. Barrett"
<bba...@best.com> wrote
No, it wasn't - it was badly put, but that's par for the course with
newsgroups and the pressure to respond quickly.
We derive consternation from the prevailing distrust of the
professional? I think we are right to be wary of professionals. Paper
credentials don't prove that someone is good at something, just that
they put the time in. Judge people by what they can actually do, rather
than what they say they can do. Some people manage whole careers hiding
behind the cult of the expert.
We all project our own world. Reading this newsgroup from Europe I
sometimes think it should be called rec.American.art. From a certain
viewpoint America IS the world; we have to live with that. That's what
the newsgroup is, and I accept it on those terms. Indeed, I can't
complain too much because I'm joining with you by virtue of the language
we're using, which itself is an example of what wsp is talking about
(guilty as charged!).
"Significant to the collective" what: ego, mind, hive, tribe, commune,
state, society, world??? Which one did wsp have in mind? Society is
fragmented, culture is eating itself and is now on the leftovers, yet
wsp is telling us that there is one true art, that there is progress, a
linear progression of history, good and bad, right and wrong. (Something
about cake and eating it springs to mind.)
There aren't any cultural backwaters anymore; everyone can have TV and
the Internet, wherever they are.
Sorry about the tone of this. I'm having a "vultures picking at the dead
carcass of art" day.
--
Jonathan Clift
Stanley Beck
Russell Andavall wrote:
>
> ...If you want a culturally
> first rate country, then we have to pay for it. If in fact we want a
> backward nation of ignorant culturally and morally inept slobs, we can
Grants from the NEA will not produce a first rate country, only a class
of "artists" with a guaranteed income, producing works that can find
neither financing or purchasors otherwise.
> each on art and $3,000 each on bombs, 100 dollar bolts and $1,000 toilet
> seats?
You like sound bites - did you ever try to find out why the bolts ended
up costing that? Space, military, airlines could use "off the shelf
hardware items that were not tested (someone has to be paid to do the
tests, remember) - then you get ValueJet.
If you think people shouldn't get paid for their work, maybe artists
shouldn't either.
> Russell Andavall
Stanley Beck
Jonathan Clift wrote:
>
> ... I think we are right to be wary of professionals. Paper
> credentials don't prove that someone is good at something, just that
> they put the time in. Judge people by what they can actually do, rather
> than what they say they can do. Some people manage whole careers hiding
> behind the cult of the expert.
I think you've got it, and am glad that someone else recognizes the
problem. Often I think that the "professionals" and "experts" are those
who learned everything they know from books written by those who learned
everything they know from books, written by...etc. That is what
credentials are.
wsp
Jonathan Clift wrote:
>
> In article <33C508...@best.com>, "William O. Barrett"
> <bba...@best.com> wrote
>
> >wsp wrote:
> >> IMO, three issues from which you and many others here derive
> >> considerable consternation are:
> >> 1. the prevailing distrust of the professional.
> >> 2. the presumption that what you experience locally happens everywhere.
> >> 3. the assumption that you can do artwork significant to the collective
> >> even though you are isolated in backwaters.
> >
> >
> >Wsp, thanks. Nicely put!
>
> No, it wasn't - it was badly put, but that's par for the course with
> newsgroups and the pressure to respond quickly.
I admit to conversational rigor in making statements here. But I thank
you for giving me the impetus to elaborate.
BTW, I am not accusing you, Jonathan Clift, of being a member of any
group I will disparage below. I want to be a good sport.
>
> We derive consternation from the prevailing distrust of the
> professional?
Yes, the mass mentality sees conspiracies where there are none. They
use rocks to smash the heads of those they see as too smart while they
sleep. Feeling isolated, powerless and alone, motivates the restless
masses to anti-professional, anti-intellectual anti-academic
accusations. (hehehehe)
> I think we are right to be wary of professionals. Paper
> credentials don't prove that someone is good at something, just that
> they put the time in. Judge people by what they can actually do, rather
> than what they say they can do. Some people manage whole careers hiding
> behind the cult of the expert.
Maybe most outsiders aren't in a position to judge due to the fact that
they don't have any experience nor any contact with what is happening
"professionally" in an area of specialized concern.
Tell me: how would an outsider identify such a slackard? And if they
were to do so what does that say about all the other insiders who allow
such a phoney professional to be among their ranks and choose to say
nothing? An outsider would have to call that a professional conspiracy:
that would be bullshit. It is bullshit because insiders regularly, if
covertly get rid of people who are lousy at what they do. So, assuming
no conspiracy, the outsider is capable only of a pathetic claim that,
say "All academics are phoneys," or "all intellectuals are full of shit
because if they can't explain something in simple terms its crap" and
other similarly *totally ludicrous* assertions.
Have faith that there're some highly accomplished people who are
qualified to make the right decisions based upon their personal
integrity, decisions which make sense according to group standards. Or
go your own way ignore it. Or try what I humbly suggest in my next
paragraph!
>
> We all project our own world. Reading this newsgroup from Europe I
> sometimes think it should be called rec.American.art. From a certain
> viewpoint America IS the world; we have to live with that. That's what
> the newsgroup is, and I accept it on those terms. Indeed, I can't
> complain too much because I'm joining with you by virtue of the language
> we're using, which itself is an example of what wsp is talking about
> (guilty as charged!).
Find a group who makes sense to you. Don't assume that because a bunch
of people are talking in ways you can't comprehend that that you are
right that the others are full of crap. There are numerous groups who
talk and make sense to eachother and not make sense to most other
groups, that says they aren't versed in the assumptions of the other
group.
Whaddya gonna do about that? Insted of trying to decipher what may
ultimately only make sense to members of a group to which you do not
wish to belong,I suggest you find your own group and get down to the
business of making sense of the bullshit situation we are in worldwide
and in every aspect and try to effect some positive change, In YOUR
group's way.
Eventually people might come together and "cross-fertilize." Whatever:
keep in mind if they don't make sense to you chances are you don't make
sense to them!!!!!!
>
> "Significant to the collective" what: ego, mind, hive, tribe, commune,
> state, society, world???
I guess the collective unconscious. I hope Jung is okay to mention. I
mean work that lasts across time, thru time, stuff that embodies a voice
which speaks to the future about a situation someone has experienced and
assimilated which is unique to today. Some such stuff like that. There's
a vitality to the human spirit and it seeks images, stories, accounts
from all times, all different periods in history and places in history
that excite it that spirit. That's what I mean in a nutshell about the
"collective." Just making conversation here.
> Which one did wsp have in mind? Society is
> fragmented, culture is eating itself and is now on the leftovers, yet
> wsp is telling us that there is one true art, that there is progress, a
> linear progression of history, good and bad, right and wrong. (Something
> about cake and eating it springs to mind.)
As far as the above is concerned, maybe I think you are tried to read my
mind and could have done a better job. The particulars of your reading
are anathema to me!
>
> There aren't any cultural backwaters anymore; everyone can have TV and
> the Internet, wherever they are.
I disagree. How do you get people to be very curious, very outgoing,
very openminded, focussed and nonjudgemental and exposed to many, many
different people in a specialized area of concern? That would be the
first step of escaping a "backwater." Since I have only met a few such
people I conclude that there must be a great number of backwaters!
>
> Sorry about the tone of this. I'm having a "vultures picking at the dead
> carcass of art" day.
No problem ;-) I'm just slugging away, trying to enjoy the little time I
have left.
>
I think Frank Zappa said, "Art isn't dead it just smells funny!"
jan c. schindler
For those of you who are interested the NEA has a site that can be found
at http://arts.endow.gov/
cheers,
jan
William O. Barrett
G*rd*n wrote:
> Deal with the arguments at hand, not straw men.
Seems like you have a ready supply of straw men yourself...........
William O. Barrett
Jonathan Clift wrote:
> >wsp wrote:
> >> IMO, three issues from which you and many others here derive
> >> considerable consternation are:
> >> 1. the prevailing distrust of the professional.
> We derive consternation from the prevailing distrust of the
> professional? I think we are right to be wary of professionals. Paper
> credentials don't prove that someone is good at something, just that
> they put the time in. Judge people by what they can actually do, rather
> than what they say they can do. Some people manage whole careers hiding
> behind the cult of the expert.
IMHO, "wsp" revealed your broad distrust.............. I don't think he
equating paper credentials with professionalism. I certainly don't. I
judge professionals by what they do, just as you suggest. What they do
and what they know is the only proof of professionalism.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > Deal with the arguments at hand, not straw men.
| Seems like you have a ready supply of straw men yourself...........
Yes? Do go on, don't be shy. What straw men?
William O. Barrett
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > Deal with the arguments at hand, not straw men.
>
> bba...@best.com:
> | Seems like you have a ready supply of straw men yourself...........
>
> Yes? Do go on, don't be shy. What straw men?
Well, I don't have your original post anymore, but from recollection I
gues sthe list starts with the government.
Jonathan Clift
In article <33C7EF...@olympus.net>, wsp <w...@olympus.net> wrote
>
>BTW, I am not accusing you, Jonathan Clift, of being a member of any
>group I will disparage below. I want to be a good sport.
>
Not accusing? Just suggesting, maybe?
>
>>
>> We derive consternation from the prevailing distrust of the
>> professional?
>
>
>Yes, the mass mentality sees conspiracies where there are none. They
>use rocks to smash the heads of those they see as too smart while they
>sleep. Feeling isolated, powerless and alone, motivates the restless
>masses to anti-professional, anti-intellectual anti-academic
>accusations. (hehehehe)
>
This sounds mildly paranoid to me. Is the Cultural Revolution in full
swing in America? Is anyone suggesting you should be sent away for a bit
of re-education? "Mass mentality", "they"; it's all lazy
generalisations, can you really categorise people so simplistically?
>
>
>> I think we are right to be wary of professionals. Paper
>> credentials don't prove that someone is good at something, just that
>> they put the time in. Judge people by what they can actually do, rather
>> than what they say they can do. Some people manage whole careers hiding
>> behind the cult of the expert.
>
>
>
>Maybe most outsiders aren't in a position to judge due to the fact that
>they don't have any experience nor any contact with what is happening
>"professionally" in an area of specialized concern.
>
Inside. Outside. And never the twain shall meet? I think, in a general
forum like this, it is incumbent on any "insiders", or people who think
they are, to post in such a way that they can be understood by most of
the people reading. It can be done, even in an area of specialised
concern. I think it's probably a good test for anyone of how well they
actually understand the material.
>
>Tell me: how would an outsider identify such a slackard? And if they
>were to do so what does that say about all the other insiders who allow
>such a phoney professional to be among their ranks and choose to say
>nothing? An outsider would have to call that a professional conspiracy:
>that would be bullshit. It is bullshit because insiders regularly, if
>covertly get rid of people who are lousy at what they do. So, assuming
>no conspiracy, the outsider is capable only of a pathetic claim that,
>say "All academics are phoneys," or "all intellectuals are full of shit
>because if they can't explain something in simple terms its crap" and
>other similarly *totally ludicrous* assertions.
>
How do I tell when my car (automobile) hasn't been mended properly? I
don't need to understand the physics of combustion, nor how to use a
torque wrench. Are art academics the only group to which we can't apply
tests like this? I'm sure what you say about loosing people who aren't
up to scratch happens. Sometimes. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy for
it not to happen. Dull mediocrity, all round, is enough. (Does this
prove that I'm part of an international conspiracy against
intellectuals?)
>
>Have faith that there're some highly accomplished people who are
>qualified to make the right decisions based upon their personal
>integrity, decisions which make sense according to group standards. Or
>go your own way ignore it. Or try what I humbly suggest in my next
>paragraph!
>
I'm sure that there are such people.
>>
>> "Significant to the collective" what: ego, mind, hive, tribe, commune,
>> state, society, world???
>
>
>I guess the collective unconscious. I hope Jung is okay to mention. I
>mean work that lasts across time, thru time, stuff that embodies a voice
>which speaks to the future about a situation someone has experienced and
>assimilated which is unique to today. Some such stuff like that. There's
>a vitality to the human spirit and it seeks images, stories, accounts
>from all times, all different periods in history and places in history
>that excite it that spirit. That's what I mean in a nutshell about the
>"collective." Just making conversation here.
>
You're better when you're just making conversation. I think most of us
could relate to this. Isn't what you describe just "art" or "culture"?
Why is it collectively unconscious?
>
>
>> Which one did wsp have in mind? Society is
>> fragmented, culture is eating itself and is now on the leftovers, yet
>> wsp is telling us that there is one true art, that there is progress, a
>> linear progression of history, good and bad, right and wrong. (Something
>> about cake and eating it springs to mind.)
>
>
>
>As far as the above is concerned, maybe I think you are tried to read my
>mind and could have done a better job. The particulars of your reading
>are anathema to me!
>
That's what we all try and do, through the medium of this newsgroup -
read minds. I was trying to sum-up what seemed like the general tenor of
your recent posts, particularly those condemning those of us living in
backwaters and supposedly out of the main cultural current. It seemed a
contrast to what you were saying when I first came to the group and you
were telling us post modernism was the thing. Perhaps I just don't
understand post modernism very well.
>
>>
>> There aren't any cultural backwaters anymore; everyone can have TV and
>> the Internet, wherever they are.
>
>
>
>I disagree. How do you get people to be very curious, very outgoing,
>very openminded, focussed and nonjudgemental and exposed to many, many
>different people in a specialized area of concern? That would be the
>first step of escaping a "backwater." Since I have only met a few such
>people I conclude that there must be a great number of backwaters!
>
>
I'm sorry, I didn't make clear this was an (ironic) joke. I should have
put one of those smiley things after it, or something. I'll try and
signal better in future.
>I think Frank Zappa said, "Art isn't dead it just smells funny!"
Was he an "insider" or an "outsider" when it comes to art?
--
Jonathan Clift
wsp
Jonathan Clift wrote:
> This sounds mildly paranoid to me. Is the Cultural Revolution in full
> swing in America? Is anyone suggesting you should be sent away for a bit
> of re-education? "Mass mentality", "they"; it's all lazy
> generalisations, can you really categorise people so simplistically?
I was making a joke. You can't categorize the indivudual but you can
categorize groups. As usual, you can't predict the motion of an
individual water molecule but you can predict exactly when water will
boil.
> >Maybe most outsiders aren't in a position to judge due to the fact that
> >they don't have any experience nor any contact with what is happening
> >"professionally" in an area of specialized concern.
> >
>
> Inside. Outside. And never the twain shall meet? I think, in a general
> forum like this, it is incumbent on any "insiders", or people who think
> they are, to post in such a way that they can be understood by most of
> the people reading.
I don't think so; better to know to whom you are speaking. That's
impossible here.
>It can be done, even in an area of specialised
> concern. I think it's probably a good test for anyone of how well they
> actually understand the material.
No need for tests. Some people are better at popularizing.
>
> >
> >Tell me: how would an outsider identify such a slackard? And if they
> >were to do so what does that say about all the other insiders who allow
> >such a phoney professional to be among their ranks and choose to say
> >nothing? An outsider would have to call that a professional conspiracy:
> >that would be bullshit. It is bullshit because insiders regularly, if
> >covertly get rid of people who are lousy at what they do. So, assuming
> >no conspiracy, the outsider is capable only of a pathetic claim that,
> >say "All academics are phoneys," or "all intellectuals are full of shit
> >because if they can't explain something in simple terms its crap" and
> >other similarly *totally ludicrous* assertions.
> >
>
> How do I tell when my car (automobile) hasn't been mended properly? I
> don't need to understand the physics of combustion, nor how to use a
> torque wrench.
*Someone* better know these engineering specialties or you won't even
have any sputtering to discern!
Just curious, to extend your metaphor. When does a work of art sputter
for you, how can you tell with certainty there's a problem? What do you
do about it? Who are the people that will fix it? For comparison: What
other artworks have been malfunctioning in the past and how have they
been repaired?
> Are art academics the only group to which we can't apply
> tests like this?
There are "tests," but they're administered by members of the same
group..
>It doesn't have to be a conspiracy for
> it not to happen.
No, people on the outside, those who do not understand the workings of a
professional group will probably fantasize anything to account for what
they perceive as inadequate.
> Dull mediocrity, all round, is enough. (Does this
> prove that I'm part of an international conspiracy against
> intellectuals?)
I'm leaving you, J.C., out of this. I'm not gonna make any claims in
that regard, really! It is sensible.
As far as "dull mediocrity," is concerned, it is a fact of life
everything goes grey when you see it at a distance. When you see an
individual on a daily basis and close-up, almost every one I've worked
with has had some strong points, some crucial things they have added to
the field or the departmental workings that have been very important to
getting the job done.
> >>
> >> "Significant to the collective" what: ego, mind, hive, tribe, commune,
> >> state, society, world???
> >
> >
> >I guess the collective unconscious. I hope Jung is okay to mention. I
> >mean work that lasts across time, thru time, stuff that embodies a voice
> >which speaks to the future about a situation someone has experienced and
> >assimilated which is unique to today. Some such stuff like that. There's
> >a vitality to the human spirit and it seeks images, stories, accounts
> >from all times, all different periods in history and places in history
> >that excite it that spirit. That's what I mean in a nutshell about the
> >"collective." Just making conversation here.
> >
>
> You're better when you're just making conversation. I think most of us
> could relate to this. Isn't what you describe just "art" or "culture"?
> Why is it collectively unconscious?
>
Because when you read Jung you see that the concept is very powerful,
elegant, broad and detailed while it has enormous implications for art
and culture.
>
> That's what we all try and do, through the medium of this newsgroup -
> read minds. I was trying to sum-up what seemed like the general tenor of
> your recent posts, particularly those condemning those of us living in
> backwaters and supposedly out of the main cultural current.
I'm not condemning anyone. I am being critical of what people *say*
here.
> It seemed a
> contrast to what you were saying when I first came to the group and you
> were telling us post modernism was the thing. Perhaps I just don't
> understand post modernism very well.
>
Postmodernism remains a very difficult challenge to what has happened.
You (not you specifically JC) have two choices: try to delve into it and
try to make sense out of it (huge job but rewarding) or you can take the
blind lazy way out and ignore it or go to the extreme and call it
bullshit. Most people (inside or outside) are comfortable with what
they know and do not possess the resources nor the skills to look
further.
tom
Very good! Yes the question is about money not culture. The art
that is produced funded by the NEA is about neither. It was
supposed to be federal help to areas that needed help to
keep arts alive, but most of the funding has gone, and continues
to go to just 6 cities like NY NY, LA, Chicago, Philly. This money
was used and abused, for non cultural non art stuff like video's.
Congress has asked and requested for years for NEA to clean up it's
awarding system but it only seemed to get worse. Some small arts
groups,
in little town USA could not get funding because some leftist
Anti-value's political group was sucking up the funding. Now if the
leftist
porn people want some art fine, they can reach into the old pocket and
donate
a $ or $$ or $10. Do your own art. Creat your own art. If you loss your
job because of the demise of the NEA, look at this way:
If your a leftist ask some rich Hollywood $,$$$$,$$$ to fund your slop.
If your a little town, little arts person, with say a small little
theater , small art gallery then curse the NEA for killing
the golden goose.
PS were did anyone ever get the idea that the purpose of the
federal government was to fund the arts anyway?
National defense, YES it's in the US Constitution.
Criminal justice, maybe not, that really is a power
reserved to the states ( powers not given to the federal government
are reserved to the state governments). Now screw Publeft
Broadcasting System (PBS).
Russell Andavall wrote:
>
> Stanley Beck wrote:
> >
> > J./B. Moore wrote:
> > > Julia Moore
> > > Indianapolis, IN
> > > (no, I'm not a nut, but I may lose my job if the NEA is abolished)
> >
> > Well, I guess that is what the whole argument comes down to (money, not
> > culture).
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Stanley Beck
> >
> > New Orleans LA --> http://neworleans.miningco.com
> > Online Gallery --> http://members.aol.com/sbeckart/index.htm
> >
> > Info --> sbec...@aol.com
> > sbec...@earthlink.net
>